 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Victor
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | Anaheim, California USA |
| Posts: | 47 |
| First Name: | Victor | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal, Mormon, Calvary Chapel, Non-Denominational, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 09:55 pm |
|
To NorthStar or any other EO.
Years back I bumped into an EO that (going off memory here) said something like:
“Christ needed to assume our humanity just as the human race had in order to cleanse it. This creates an inherent need for Mary to have had the same corruption in her as all the rest of us.”
Now I realize EO’s don’t have any of the Marian dogmas we do but is this your understanding as well?
Last edited on Thu Aug 14th, 2008 09:56 pm by Victor
____________________
"Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. . . . " G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 750 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 03:07 am |
|
Victor that has to do with some Eastern understanding of the 'Immaculate Conception' in that if Mary was immacuately conceived then, it deprived her of her humanity which is what she had to give to Christ. How close people adhere to that teaching depends on how 'orthodox' they are, if that makes sence.
In the East, Blessed Mother's birthday has always called the 'Feast of St Anne.' When the Pope declared that doctrine from the East's viewpoint - it was something that had always exsisted. Here is a good homily on the subject, hope it helps.
Homily for the Feast of the Conception of St Anne
(December 8, 2007)
Today's feast has been celebrated for many centuries. It was known in the East as the feast of the Conception of St Anne long before it was known in the West as the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. We see from our liturgical typikon that the readings are actually the common readings for a feast of St Anne and not the common readings for a feast of Our Lady. It is also the general tradition in the East that this feast is celebrated on the 9th instead of the 8th of December. We have always celebrated it here on the 8th, though. As Eastern Catholics we are generally in traditional communion with the Orthodox Churches and also in canonical communion with Rome—and hopefully in spiritual communion with both, and with all those who sincerely believe in the Gospel of Christ. Perhaps the thing that tips the scales to the 8th is the fact that our country has been formally placed under the patronage of the Mother of God as the Immaculate Conception by the US Bishops in 1846, and the 8th was the day set aside for this celebration. So we also want to be in communion with American Catholics in the celebration of the Patroness of our nation. In our own monastery, it also conveniently forms the third day of the "triduum" begun by the feast of St Nicholas (patron of our temple) and the anniversary of this temple's consecration and dedication. All of that, however, is irrelevant to the mystery of the present feast.
Advent is a time for hidden mysteries, things obscurely indicated in prophecies, a time of anticipation for something not yet fully revealed. So this is an appropriate feast for this time of year. The mystery of Christ is in fact quite hidden in this mystery of Mary. On the great feasts of the Lord, even though his divinity is often somewhat hidden in his humanity, at least his face can be seen and his voice heard and his works recognized. In today's feast, and unlike the general Advent awareness, Christ is not merely hidden in the womb of his Mother—his Mother is still hidden in the womb of her mother! This is truly a feast of humble yet holy beginnings.
We hear in the Gospel of this feast (Lk 8:16-21): "Nothing is hidden that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light." The secret mystery that was hidden in the womb of St Anne has since been made manifest and come to light: it is the mystery of the all-holy Mother of God, chosen to be the only one who would give flesh to the eternal Son of God, who would thus be our Savior, offering his humanity in sacrifice so that our sins might be forgiven and we be judged worthy of Paradise.
The early fathers of the Church spoke of Mary as the "New Eve" who perfectly obeyed the will of God, unlike the first Eve. Mary was, in a sense, a new Paradise—pristine, holy, untouched by evil—from which the New Adam could emerge, the Son of God who would raise up those afflicted with the mortal corruption of the fallen first Adam.
For her unique task, the Godbearer had to be uniquely holy. For how could anything marred by sin or any sort of imperfection bring the all-holy Lord into this world? Wordsworth famously called Mary "Our tainted nature's solitary boast." When the Archangel came to announce the Incarnation to her, he said that nothing is impossible for God. So it was possible for God to make of Mary a "new creation" in anticipation of, and for the sake of, the salvation to be wrought by her Son.
In a common liturgical text to the Mother of God, we call her "the ever-blessed and completely sinless one." Some say she was sanctified at the time of the Annunciation, when the Holy Spirit came upon her and the Power of the Most High effected the conception of the incarnate Son. But when the angel greeted her, he said that she was already full of grace (Gk. Kekharitomeni—for more on this, click here, and don't ask me why the font is so tiny!). The tense expresses something done in the past that stands true in the present, as when the Scriptures quote a text, saying: "It is written…" That means it was written in the past and stands written today. So the angel was saying to Mary: "You who have been filled with grace and remain so even now."
If she had been previously filled with grace, when did that occur? Where can a line be drawn? Should a line be drawn? At conception, an hour later, six months later, three years later, seven years later? The Mother of God is known in the East as the Panaghia, the "all-holy woman." If it is in fact true that she is "all-holy," could there ever have been a moment when she wasn't holy?
St John writes of a "beginning" that eternally precedes all other beginnings (though there really is no adequate word for God's eternal being): "In the beginning was the Word…" And the author of Genesis writes of the creation of the universe at the beginning of time: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…" So I (with fear and trembling) propose another "in the beginning" for Our Lady: "In the beginning of the existence of the Theotokos, the Lord God had made her holy…" It's pointless to call her the Panaghia if we are to maintain that she was sanctified at some point in her life subsequent to her conception, necessarily implying that before that point she was not sanctified.
I think that the polemics surrounding the 19th-century papal definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception have somewhat deflected everyone's attention from a simple and heartfelt devotion to the unique holiness of the Mother of God, and have forced people to "take sides" on the issue. For if the Pope is right, the others must be wrong, and if the others are right, the Pope must be wrong, so come, good Christians, let us go to war! I do not think this is pleasing to Christ or to his Mother. I do not believe that every point on which theologians of East and West disagree is sufficient to throw the whole economy of salvation into a tailspin, though one can get that impression by reading some of them.
As I've said before, I don't think I'd make either a good apologist or a good ecumenist. I'm too conciliatory for the former and too uncompromising for the latter. I'd rather remain at the contemplative heart of divine mysteries than at the academic periphery. I'd rather pray than argue, but I've nothing against sharing thoughts or insights on what God has revealed to us. Sometimes it can actually be downright helpful!
Today's Gospel also says: "To him who has, more will be given." This, with the necessary caveats, can be applied to the concept of "development of doctrine"—a concept that can certainly be abused, but one that still has been used fruitfully throughout the history of the Church. The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils developed and formulated the doctrines of, for example, the Trinity and the Incarnation, which are indicated but not clearly spelled out or explained in the Scriptures. It is the Holy Spirit, working through the Church that "leads [us] into all the truth," a truth so vast that it cannot be instantly grasped by our human minds, and sometimes takes centuries of prayer and reflection and study to come to an adequate expression of it.
This applies to the mysteries of Our Lady as well, some of which are only hinted at or implied in the Scriptures. But I submit that to the one who has humbly welcomed the Scriptures and their gradually fuller interpretation and application in the Tradition of the Church, more will be given: more insight, further elucidation, deeper understanding, new perspectives on the unchanging truth revealed by God—while remaining true to the initial revelation. (An acorn does not look like an oak tree at first, but eventually it becomes one through an organic growth process.) So a feast of St Anne can become a feast of the Mother of God as the profound character of the mystery is more clearly recognized, as theology develops and prayer deepens. And inspired inferences concerning the holiness of Mary can develop into solid doctrine.
An Eastern Christian ought to be able to use the word "immaculate" for the Godbearer without raising eyebrows, suspicions, or hackles. For she is the Panaghia, the holy one consecrated and set apart by God as part of the mystery He planned from all eternity, to be revealed in human history—the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son, whose holy nativity we soon will celebrate in wonder and awe.
So let us now, as we pray so often in our services, "call to mind our all-holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious Lady, the Mother of God and Ever-virgin Mary, with all the saints, and let us commend ourselves, and one another, and our whole life to Christ our God."
There is a really good homily on this page also about the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple http://www.byzantines.net/monastery/hom07-nov21-dec08.htm
Last edited on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 03:10 am by Pani Rose
|
|
|
Robert
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Germany |
| Posts: | 147 |
| First Name: | Robert | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | The whole spectrum from black to white, now 100% Catholic! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 08:38 am |
|
I think St. Jerome did a great job of explaining the perpetual verginity of the Blessed Mother in his tract "Against Helvidius".
Heres a link to the text: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
____________________
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)
|
|
|
Victor
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | Anaheim, California USA |
| Posts: | 47 |
| First Name: | Victor | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal, Mormon, Calvary Chapel, Non-Denominational, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 04:35 pm |
|
Pani Rose wrote: Victor that has to do with some Eastern understanding of the 'Immaculate Conception' in that if Mary was immacuately conceived then, it deprived her of her humanity which is what she had to give to Christ. How close people adhere to that teaching depends on how 'orthodox' they are, if that makes sence.
In the East, Blessed Mother's birthday has always called the 'Feast of St Anne.' When the Pope declared that doctrine from the East's viewpoint - it was something that had always exsisted. Here is a good homily on the subject, hope it helps.
Pani Rose, thank you...
However, I may have not been clear that I was talking about Eastern Orthodox and not Eastern Catholics. As far as I am aware, EO's don't have any Marian dogmas. They do believe in some of them but Immaculate Conception isn't one of them.
____________________
"Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. . . . " G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
Victor
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | Anaheim, California USA |
| Posts: | 47 |
| First Name: | Victor | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal, Mormon, Calvary Chapel, Non-Denominational, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 04:38 pm |
|
Robert wrote: I think St. Jerome did a great job of explaining the perpetual verginity of the Blessed Mother in his tract "Against Helvidius".
Heres a link to the text: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
Thanks Robert...
Although I wasn't looking at the perpetual virginity but at original sin and the Immaculate Conception.
____________________
"Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. . . . " G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
Robert
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Germany |
| Posts: | 147 |
| First Name: | Robert | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | The whole spectrum from black to white, now 100% Catholic! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 04:42 pm |
|
Hi Victor,
I understad, but I really think both go very much together.
____________________
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)
|
|
|
Victor
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | Anaheim, California USA |
| Posts: | 47 |
| First Name: | Victor | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal, Mormon, Calvary Chapel, Non-Denominational, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 05:24 pm |
|
Robert wrote: Hi Victor,
I understad, but I really think both go very much together.
Most of our catholic faith can be connected in some way. It just makes it easier to isolate things for my little brain...
____________________
"Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. . . . " G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 09:13 pm |
|
Victor wrote: However, I may have not been clear that I was talking about Eastern Orthodox and not Eastern Catholics. As far as I am aware, EO's don't have any Marian dogmas. They do believe in some of them but Immaculate Conception isn't one of them.
The belief in Mary as Mother of God ("Theotokos") and Queen of Heaven, the Assumption (Dormition), the perpetual virginity and perpetual sinlessness are definitely dogmatic beliefs of the eastern Churches, although you're right in saying that the east does not have "dogma" per se (meaning that they do not use the term).
As for the Immaculate Conception, my understanding (with all the usual caveats) is that the real difference is not over the conception of Mary but over the concept of original sin.
In the west, we are taught that original sin is a "stain" that must be removed by baptism. In the east, the teaching is that original holiness was lost with the sin of Adam and Eve, leaving us with a tendency to sin called original sinfulness. In the east, it is believed in essence that we are all "immaculate" at our conception, and so no special treatment of Mary was necessary or desirable. The rest of us fall into sin as soon as we're old enough to know right from wrong, while Mary remained sinless through her entire life through a singular gift of grace from God, but she was subject to the same temptations and trials as the rest of us. Correct me if I'm wrong, Rose or Chuck or any of our other Eastern Christian members, but I believe I have this right.
The explanation of original sin in the Catechism is much closer to the eastern concept than it is to what I was taught in Catholic schools in the 50's and 60's.
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 105 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 04:48 pm |
|
Victor wrote: To NorthStar or any other EO.
Years back I bumped into an EO that (going off memory here) said something like:
“Christ needed to assume our humanity just as the human race had in order to cleanse it. This creates an inherent need for Mary to have had the same corruption in her as all the rest of us.”
Now I realize EO’s don’t have any of the Marian dogmas we do but is this your understanding as well?
Well I didn't read the other replies so forgive me if I repeat anything!
The basic theology among Orthodox is pretty much what that person told you, but let me clarify a bit, if I can. (because that from a western POV sounds really weird)
It really comes down to a different understanding of original sin more than anything else.
Christ indeed assumed our humanity EXACTLY as we are, except without sin. But what we mean by that is PERSONAL sin. He never committed a sin, He lived a sinless life, etc... Obviously that's the same as the RCC. However the difference is that we don't see "original sin" the same way the West does. For us, we only inherit the concequences of the original sin of Adam and Eve. But we don't see it as us being born "guilty" in any way, because we have no personal sin to be guilty of until we are actually old enough to, well sin. Adam and Eve committed the original sin, we inherit the consequences of their actions. Mortality, sickness, pain, death....
For most Orthodox, they see the Western view of original sin in the following way and how it can lead to problems; the idea that Mary didn't have original sin, means she was an immortal being. (remember original sin is something Adam and Eve did, and we simply inherit the CONSEQUENCES of it.) And so if Christ is born of an immortal being, then Christ is immortal, and so just how was he like us in every way then? How could he suffer in all things like we do? Including death? Since without original sin (ie: mortality, sickness, pain, death) Christ isn't truly one of us, and so the Logos is not cosubstantial with us, and thus not our Savior. Of course immortal beings cannot die on a cross, so how could this have happened? So obviously the western view of Original Sin cannot be correct, because it is full of logical problems....unless you hold to a hyper-juridicial view of the Cross like Calvin did. (I think it was Calvin)
Now, for me, the more I'm learning about the Western concept of original sin, the more I'm understanding this is not what the Catholic Church teaches, but I of course still don't fully understand it, but I am learning. Obviously I realize you don't think Mary was immortal, or Jesus was immortal..(and most EO knows that too, but they fear the idea could be deduced from the Western view of original sin, they feel it's not a "safe" way to see original sin) But I'm seeing more and more that such a concept can't even be deduced from RC theology, but it is a misconception that many Orthodox have about the West. Again, it's because of the difference in view points on what original sin actually is, and once that is ingrained in your mindset it's hard to see through someone elses lens. Just as it is probably hard for a Catholic to see original sin through an Eastern lens.
So to summarize: for us, original sin is mortality, the ability to suffer, and die and get sick, all that makes us human beings. If Mary didn't have original sin, then neither did Jesus, and if this is true, then he wasn't a human being. So to say Mary didn't have original sin, sets her apart from us, and is heresy.
Again, that's how we view it from an Eastern lens. While we comprehend original sin as a guilty stain we're born with, we cannot seperate THAT from our view and so it becomes almost heresy in the minds of some EO. It's really a lack of understanding, which I am guilty of myself. (but like I said, I'm learning)
Does that help clear it up, or have I just confused you even further?
Oh and I wouldn't say we don't have ANY of the Marian dogmas...(well not dogmas but certainly doctrines). Most Orthodox do believe in the Immaculate Conception, even though we don't call it that.  We believe she was kept free from committing any personal sin, through God's grace because at the moment of the Incarnation she became the Holy Tabernacle of the Lord God the Logos, essentially she was cleansed by the fire of the Divinity, like the burning bush, she was unconsumed, etc... It's really basically the same belief just different words. We just don't see it as a dogma that must be believed, only that it can be believed. We also accept the Assumption as well, but again not as dogma, only doctrine. So there really isn't much difference, we just haven't defined them as requirements to be members of the body of Christ, that's all.
Last edited on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 04:52 pm by NorthStar
|
|
|
Victor
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | Anaheim, California USA |
| Posts: | 47 |
| First Name: | Victor | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal, Mormon, Calvary Chapel, Non-Denominational, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21st, 2008 07:52 am |
|
Northstar wrote:Well I didn't read the other replies so forgive me if I repeat anything!
The basic theology among Orthodox is pretty much what that person told you, but let me clarify a bit, if I can. (because that from a western POV sounds really weird)
It really comes down to a different understanding of original sin more than anything else.
Christ indeed assumed our humanity EXACTLY as we are, except without sin. But what we mean by that is PERSONAL sin. He never committed a sin, He lived a sinless life, etc... Obviously that's the same as the RCC. However the difference is that we don't see "original sin" the same way the West does. For us, we only inherit the concequences of the original sin of Adam and Eve. But we don't see it as us being born "guilty" in any way, because we have no personal sin to be guilty of until we are actually old enough to, well sin. Adam and Eve committed the original sin, we inherit the consequences of their actions. Mortality, sickness, pain, death....
I don’t think the west sees it as “guilt”; at least that’s never been the way I’ve understood it. It is however how many EO’s think RC’s see it from my experience. I’ve always leaned toward seeing it as a “condition” that we are all born into.
The catechism puts it this way:
404 …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.
405 Although it is proper to each individual, 295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".
So, there is no inherited fault or guilt; only an inherited condition that comes with: Mortality, sickness, pain, death, etc.……and of course our fallen state which inclines us to sin.
Let’s move on to the juicy stuff…
Northstar wrote:For most Orthodox, they see the Western view of original sin in the following way and how it can lead to problems; the idea that Mary didn't have original sin, means she was an immortal being. (remember original sin is something Adam and Eve did, and we simply inherit the CONSEQUENCES of it.) And so if Christ is born of an immortal being, then Christ is immortal, and so just how was he like us in every way then? How could he suffer in all things like we do? Including death? Since without original sin (ie: mortality, sickness, pain, death) Christ isn't truly one of us, and so the Logos is not cosubstantial with us, and thus not our Savior. Of course immortal beings cannot die on a cross, so how could this have happened? So obviously the western view of Original Sin cannot be correct, because it is full of logical problems....unless you hold to a hyper-juridicial view of the Cross like Calvin did. (I think it was Calvin)
Christ and the Theotokos died and suffered like the rest of us are going to; yet the problem of the consequences persists and is fixed at the same time. I’m not clear on why the East insists on Christ being “one of us” to the point of also having gone through a corrupt being in Mary; it doesn’t compute for me. Especially in light of what the Council of Chalcedon says with regard to what is attributed to Him:
468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ's human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."
As far as I know, this is a Council accepted by you guys. The way I see it, Christ didn’t have to come into contact with matter for him to conquer our corrupt nature and its consequences. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the East has the tendency of going in the opposite direction of Nestorian and claiming Christ had to come in contact with corrupt matter in order to conquer it. It makes no sense to me that the Theotokos had to have a sinful nature if the transmission of sin to Christ was not biological......but a supernatural choice made by Christ. You follow me?
Northstar wrote:Now, for me, the more I'm learning about the Western concept of original sin, the more I'm understanding this is not what the Catholic Church teaches, but I of course still don't fully understand it, but I am learning. Obviously I realize you don't think Mary was immortal, or Jesus was immortal..(and most EO knows that too, but they fear the idea could be deduced from the Western view of original sin, they feel it's not a "safe" way to see original sin) But I'm seeing more and more that such a concept can't even be deduced from RC theology, but it is a misconception that many Orthodox have about the West. Again, it's because of the difference in view points on what original sin actually is, and once that is ingrained in your mindset it's hard to see through someone elses lens. Just as it is probably hard for a Catholic to see original sin through an Eastern lens.
It is difficult……it probably comes from our tendency to define things more so then the East. The East is quite content with leaving things undefined and mystical-like. Which is fine and one could make a good argument of what it does to people’s spirituality when you aren’t as legalistic. There is room for both and we certainly have both with our Eastern and Western Rites.
Northstar wrote:So to summarize: for us, original sin is mortality, the ability to suffer, and die and get sick, all that makes us human beings. If Mary didn't have original sin, then neither did Jesus, and if this is true, then he wasn't a human being. So to say Mary didn't have original sin, sets her apart from us, and is heresy.
I got that much, but I’m just not seeing why it’s heresy and perhaps you are able to provide something that will show as much.
Northstar wrote:Again, that's how we view it from an Eastern lens. While we comprehend original sin as a guilty stain we're born with, we cannot seperate THAT from our view and so it becomes almost heresy in the minds of some EO. It's really a lack of understanding, which I am guilty of myself. (but like I said, I'm learning)
Does that help clear it up, or have I just confused you even further?
Well, it helped confirm that my initial understanding was in the right direction. Hopefully I can get some clarity on why it’s a heresy in light of the points I raised.
Northstar wrote:Oh and I wouldn't say we don't have ANY of the Marian dogmas...(well not dogmas but certainly doctrines). Most Orthodox do believe in the Immaculate Conception, even though we don't call it that. We believe she was kept free from committing any personal sin, through God's grace because at the moment of the Incarnation she became the Holy Tabernacle of the Lord God the Logos, essentially she was cleansed by the fire of the Divinity, like the burning bush, she was unconsumed, etc... It's really basically the same belief just different words. We just don't see it as a dogma that must be believed, only that it can be believed. We also accept the Assumption as well, but again not as dogma, only doctrine. So there really isn't much difference, we just haven't defined them as requirements to be members of the body of Christ, that's all.
Yeah, I know. But like I (and you) said, Orthodox just believe in things without necessarily taking it to the level of “dogma” in the same way we do. I’m unsure whether they are doctrines or simply pious beliefs, but you can certainly see the seeds of what we believe in Eastern Orthodoxy. Although, my guess is that it may be more of a pious belief that are consistent with but not absolutely required by the Orthodox faith. More like what you guys call a theologoumenon. That certainly wouldn't be at the level of a doctrine or dogma for us. Correct me if I misunderstood here.
I await your response.
~Victor
____________________
"Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. . . . " G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 105 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21st, 2008 05:12 pm |
|
Victor wrote:
I don’t think the west sees it as “guilt”; at least that’s never been the way I’ve understood it. It is however how many EO’s think RC’s see it from my experience. I’ve always leaned toward seeing it as a “condition” that we are all born into.
Hmm! Well, that's how I saw original sin when I was a Protestant as well, and always assumed we got that from the Catholics. Perhaps Protestantism took it and developed it even further.
The catechism puts it this way:
404 …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.
405 Although it is proper to each individual, 295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".
Interesting! I don't see how that is any different than the Orthodox view.
Christ and the Theotokos died and suffered like the rest of us are going to; yet the problem of the consequences persists and is fixed at the same time. I’m not clear on why the East insists on Christ being “one of us” to the point of also having gone through a corrupt being in Mary; it doesn’t compute for me. Especially in light of what the Council of Chalcedon says with regard to what is attributed to Him:
Well considering the catechism says, original sin will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, It's extremely important is it not?
I'm starting to see that our views of original sin are not that much different after reading the quote from the Catechism.
We agree she wasn't inclined to sin, but she was a human being and so subject to suffering and death. (which is what the Catechism states) Not because we're so concerned whether she died or not, God can do whatever He wants, but because if she couldn't physically die, then neither could Christ. And if He couldn't die, He wasn't like us in EVERY WAY as St. Paul wrote.
468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ's human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."
Well, I think this is going to take us off topic but...
let me state, that even though I'm EO, I think Chalcedon got it wrong, which is why we needed the 5th Council (yes we do accept it, and BTW so do you, so the next few paragraphs will be simply splitting hairs) to explain the 4th. IMO, the Copts, Syrians and other non Chalcedonian Churches were correct, Chalcedon was a little too Nestorian or at least Leo's Tome could be intepreted as Nestorian. I don't think St. Leo was a Nestorian at all, but I'm not sure he fully grasped the fine details of what was really going on in the East. Writing stuff like, Jesus is hungry with His human nature, Jesus walks on water with His divine nature was "iffy" at best.... "natures" don't DO anything, people do. Jesus was not two people, He was one person.
Even Nestorius after reading Pope Leo's Tome basically said, "see I was right all along"! (which does seem to suggest Rome had some sort of authority beyond "first among equals" for him to believe he had been vindicated by Rome) So I don't think Chalcedon can stand alone, which is why the 5th Council was needed to explain the 4th.
The way I see it, Christ didn’t have to come into contact with matter for him to conquer our corrupt nature and its consequences.
Well, if we take it at that logic, Christ didn't have to become Incarnate at ALL to save us. He could have done it any way He chose. Jews don't believe God had to incarnate to save humanity, only Christians think that. For us, the Incarnation is an act of love, a restoration of all things. He could have "saved" us any way He wanted to. However the Incarnation is not just about the cross, and paying for our sins. It is about Theosis as well. (I forget the western term, sorry)
God became man, that we might become God. This is the part of the plan that needs the Incarnation to be complete. It's not because God couldn't do this or that, it is because without Him touching our humanity, we couldn't reach Him...we would be forever seperated from God, even if He pardoned our sins at Calvary, we would still not be able to be in union with God. That too is the point of the Incarnation. Not just Calvinistic "paying for our sins" stuff. All the fathers agree with this, both East and West, pre and post schism. (St. John of the Cross for example) And the Catholic Church agrees with our view and vice versa. Divinization I think is the western term. Union with God, whatever you will call it...without the Incarnation these things would be impossible FOR US...God comes to us in an ultimate act of love.
If the sole purpose of the Incarnation was to forgive sins, then Nestorian Theology "could" be fine to believe....however, because there is more to it than just that, Nestorian theology is heresy. Mary is the MOTHER OF GOD, and if nestorius is right, then she cannot be the Mother of God, only the Mother of Jesus, or Christ.
Anyways, I think we've taken the thing WAY off topic here....especially considering there is absolute 100% agreement on all these issues between East and West. I'm not even sure how we got here. And I apologize as I'm sure I'm mostly responsible for taking it off topic.
It makes no sense to me that the Theotokos had to have a sinful nature if the transmission of sin to Christ was not biological......but a supernatural choice made by Christ. You follow me?
Not really..LOL! Maybe I'm just dense...
Are you saying Mary did NOT have original sin, but Christ did?
I'll let you clarify before respnding.....
I got that much, but I’m just not seeing why it’s heresy and perhaps you are able to provide something that will show as much.
You don't see why it's a heresy to say Jesus Christ wasn't truly a human being and co-substantial with us as according to His humanity? 
Yeah, I know. But like I (and you) said, Orthodox just believe in things without necessarily taking it to the level of “dogma” in the same way we do. I’m unsure whether they are doctrines or simply pious beliefs, but you can certainly see the seeds of what we believe in Eastern Orthodoxy. Although, my guess is that it may be more of a pious belief that are consistent with but not absolutely required by the Orthodox faith. More like what you guys call a theologoumenon. That certainly wouldn't be at the level of a doctrine or dogma for us. Correct me if I misunderstood here.
Yes, you have that exactly right. It's perfectly fine to believe in the Western Marian Dogmas, they just aren't Dogmas for us. You don't have to believe in the IC or the Assumption to actually be a Christian in communion with the Orthodox Church. 99% of everyone does believe them, because it has always been believed, everywhere and at all times. It's just not a requirement. In the West to be a Catholic in good standing you MUST believe them. Which is the difference. For us these Marian beliefs are part of living the faith, sort of like a Mystery in the mystery cults...you learn and believe them after you accept the "must haves", that being the Creed, the Councils, etc...
Last edited on Thu Aug 21st, 2008 05:14 pm by NorthStar
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 105 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21st, 2008 07:50 pm |
|
Victor,
after re-reading my last response I see we are getting way off topic, which tends to happen when anyone talks theology, since one part of the faith pretty much leads into another. So let me just try to reply as briefly as I can to your very first question, and the quote your Orthodox friend told you...because I hate getting off into these tangents and branches on the internet because it often times ends up leading to even more misunderstanding.
Anyways,
“Christ needed to assume our humanity just as the human race had in order to cleanse it. This creates an inherent need for Mary to have had the same corruption in her as all the rest of us.”
Let's take the first part first...that is, “Christ needed to assume our humanity just as the human race had in order to cleanse it.
While that is worded someone superficially, and a bit simplistically, this is indeed what all 3 branches of the the Apostolic Church believe, EO, OO and Catholicism. So I'm not sure why that is an issue for you. You are a Catholic, and this is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. It's what all the Councils the 7 great coucils, all the post schsim councils, the Creed, the prayers, the Liturgy, everything encompassing the Christian faith East and West totally agree upon. We might use different language or terms, western more practical, greeks, more high minded nonsesnicial philosphy type terms, but we totally agree. Jesus was co-substantial with us according to the flesh.
So my understanding is that you don't understand the second part which says:
This creates an inherent need for Mary to have had the same corruption in her as all the rest of us.
Yes! For her to give physical birth to a man who is just like the rest of us, she too needs to be just like the rest of us according to the flesh. Because the flesh is inherited from the flesh.
Jesus received His flesh from the Virgin, yes? (I assume you agree with this? If not then that is where you and I are differing)
But if her flesh is different than our flesh, then His flesh is different than our flesh and so He is not one of us. And the whole enterprise of Christianity is thrown out the window, because He shares in our sufferings, He became like us, even unto death on a cross. He can only SHARE with us, if He is one of us. Again, as far as I know, this is absolute dogma in Catholicism so I don't understand why this is an issue for you personally.
For us, to say Mary was not of the same flesh, ie: the same genetic make up, the same DNA as us, is what is heretical to the Orthodox perspective. Not because of her, but because it is essential that Christ is one of us, which is again is a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church and all the Councils.
I think the issue here is that too many people in both of our Churches have misunderstood the Catholic teaching on original sin for so many centuries that we're talking past each other.
To me, you seem to be saying that if Mary was NOT Imacculately conceived she was "corrupt"....but I'm not sure what you mean by corrupt, as typical Orthodox understanding of that word would mean, "bad, sinner, filthy, dirty, not pure, not holy, etc" We do NOT believe that about Mary at all. Our Liturgy about a dozen times refers to Mary as "the All Imacculate Lady the Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary"....she's hardly seen as "corrupt".
To us original sin is a genetic defect found somewhere in our DNA (if it could ever be found)....to take away the defect would make the DNA different than ours, and would essentially create a new species of human, ie: not homo sapiens sapiens, but something else. Because the defect is what makes us experience all the passions, the pain and the hardship of being human. Look I'm not saying the EO is completely logical, I'm just giving you what it is.
To break it down even to more basic terms:
original sin = homo sapiens sapiens
no original sin = super human, immortal, not homo sapiens sapiens
I know of no other way to word it any clearer, as I fear I'll just start repeating myself over and over again and frankly I hate that...lol!
I hope someone else can come in and help explain original sin from the Catholic POV because I'm really confused...
As a side note, the more I learn about the Catholic view of original sin, the more I misunderstand the Orthodox view and see it as not making as much sense as I thought it did. But you asked for the EO view and this is the best way I can explain it. I'm not a theologian, I'm not even greek so I don't have any genetic predisposition to high minded theology...I'm actually quite practical and that's why I'm here to learn and enhance my own tradtion with that of the West. Only God knows where that will take me, but that's His business....not mine.
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 105 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21st, 2008 07:57 pm |
|
Just to add a quick PS:
If you want to see how we really view Mary, read the Akathist Hymn, and the small and great Paraklesis services. The Akathist Hymn in particular far surpasses even the Medieval West in proclaiming what would become Marian Dogmas in the West...it is in fact a stumbling block for many converts because it really does "push the limits" for some people. (perhaps even some Catholics) Just wanted to clear up that Orthodoxy does NOT see Mary as corrupt, or a sinner, or anything that might be misunderstood as me trying to downplay the Theotokos or her IC or Assumption.
Last edited on Thu Aug 21st, 2008 07:57 pm by NorthStar
|
|
|
Victor
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | Anaheim, California USA |
| Posts: | 47 |
| First Name: | Victor | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal, Mormon, Calvary Chapel, Non-Denominational, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 12:24 am |
|
I was going to respond point by point but I wanted to clarify something that may just help you connect the dots. While, Christ assumed our humanity (and all that comes with it) willingly, He didn’t have to divinize our flesh in order to accomplish what He came for (salvation). At least not in the incarnation. He could have (and we believe He did) fixed the software (human nature......that which is us) and the hardware would follow. The Eucharist is a good example of how He wanted to divinize not just our software but also our hardware. I’m not sure if that is only going to confuse things more or clarify but I hope it clarifies.
Northstar wrote:Yes! For her to give physical birth to a man who is just like the rest of us, she too needs to be just like the rest of us according to the flesh. Because the flesh is inherited from the flesh.
I don’t understand how an EO can believe in the IC and believe what you just said above. Is the transmission of sin biological or supernatural? It seems you believe it is a biological consequence of original sin..... so, Mary needed to have a corrupt nature to pass along that sin to Christ...... and at the moment of the incarnation, the divinity of Christ would then defeat sin (as we both affirm that Christ's body did not see corruption/sin)..... but yet Christ died.
Why? Death is a consequence of sin, yet Christ was sinless.... and died anyhow. Like I said above, why does God have to do everything in order? As long as Holy Mother was saved before the fact and Christ did cleanse us in everyway, why must it happen at the moment of the Incarnation?
Northstar wrote:For us, to say Mary was not of the same flesh, ie: the same genetic make up, the same DNA as us, is what is heretical to the Orthodox perspective. Not because of her, but because it is essential that Christ is one of us, which is again is a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church and all the Councils.
Wousers! Tell me this isn’t true?...... when I first read this, I almost lost my lunch..... .... really.....
Same DNA and genetic makeup? This is like the opposite extreme of Nestorianism. You don’t see that? I really do hope I’m misunderstanding but it does seem you think fixing original sin, means fixing all the consequences that came with it at the Incarnation.
I’ll stop there in hopes of getting more clarification.
____________________
"Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. . . . " G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
Victor
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | Anaheim, California USA |
| Posts: | 47 |
| First Name: | Victor | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal, Mormon, Calvary Chapel, Non-Denominational, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 01:01 am |
|
Chuck, thanks for your time and I'd hate for you to repeat yourself so if you see that I am understanding you correctly go ahead and let me know and only address those points that catch your attention. I just really do want to move forward like I’m sure you do. Just be patient and I’m sure we’ll get there.
Last edited on Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 01:01 am by Victor
____________________
"Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. . . . " G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 04:08 am |
|
The basic differences between east and west are in terminology, not in doctrine.
We have to remember that Eastern Orthodox beliefs are shared by Eastern Catholics almost to the letter, and in fact many Eastern Catholic schools use Orthodox materials to teach the faith. The only real difference is that in the west we have a governing authority that makes dogmatic pronouncements. The Orthodox do not, so there is no "dogma" as such because there is no one to proclaim it.
In the west, thanks to St. Thomas Aquinas, we tend to think of original sin as a "stain" on our own souls that must be removed by baptism. Even after baptism, the consequences of that stain remain. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception tells us that Mary was conceived without that "stain", and of course Jesus was also free from the "stain". BTW, we also believe that while John the Baptist was conceived in a state of original sin, he was purified at the sound of Mary's voice and so was born without the "stain" of original sin.
In the east, original sin is defined as a loss of original holiness. To them, what we consider the consequences of original sin are the entire doctrine. They do not recognize a "stain" of sin, but instead it is pain and suffering and poverty and evil and mortality that are the result of original sin. The Catechism's explanation of original sin fits much more closely with the eastern perspective than with what I was taught in parochial school.
So using this eastern definition of original sinfulness, both Jesus and Mary were inflicted with the consequences of the original sin. They got sick and stubbed their toes and got headaches and were people just like us "in all things but sin". The consequences of sinfullness are experienced by all of us, but the guilt we bear is for our personal sins only, and that is what Jesus and Mary never experienced.
So when the Eastern Churches hear us say that Mary was conceived without original sin, what they hear is that Mary never got sick and never felt pain, and that's not what our doctrine means at all. We are starting with different definitions of original sin, but we truly are saying the same thing ... it just doesn't sound like it!
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| | |
