Marian Teachings in East and West

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

I don't see how anything declared by Vatican I can in any valid sense be considered unilateral. It was a council. A gathering of bishops. Something conciliar.

Originally Posted by Schism hater

1. At least in the case of Vatican I, it is unclear how free from undue influence by Pius IX the bishops were.
2. More importantly, there was no input from the separated East. I don't know if that is what the OP meant by "unilateral", but I would consider it so. It certainly, in my view, disqualifies it from being "ecumenical".

Yes, Vatican I was a council ... of the Roman Catholic Church.

As to input from the "separated East", the Orthodox were invited but declined to attend. Yet, they would not have had a vote.

So it was conciliar, but not ecumenical. In this way, some consider it unilateral.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Stephentlig

I feel one of the Eastern problems ( in a bid to ''convert'' the Orthodox ) is to hold to the Orthodox post-schismatic theology.

Yes and no. The original promoters of the Union of Brest were (shall we say) not real big on full disclosure to the common folk. You know, "The Pope has become Orthodox" and all that.

Nowadays, however, Catholics are much better about informing potential converts of what they will be required to believe if they become Catholic.

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Yes and no. The original promoters of the Union of Brest were (shall we say) not real big on full disclosure to the common folk. You know, "The Pope has become Orthodox" and all that.

That's an interesting take. From where have you gathered that the laity were fundamentally deceived? It is far more likely that it really didn't matter to them, as long as they were able to worship in the same way as before and keep their traditions. Little did they know that once they got on the boat for America ...

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Stephentlig

I have the biggest authority with me to prove that she was immaculately conceived and that we cannot reject her immaculate conception and that is Our Lady of Lourdes HERSELF. She came and said ''I am the immaculate conception''. what more proof do you need?

You do know that the Church herself teaches that Lourdes is a Private Revelation and Private Revelations are not de fide among all the faithful and cannot ever be the source of dogma or doctrine, right?

Originally Posted by Stephentlig

As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain." Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

This does not just affirm she is all Holy. This qoute is an affirmation of her Immaculate conception - ''as he formed her without my stain of her own''

We do not deny that Mary is pure and immaculate from conception to dormition. But still, we do not have Original Sin in our theology, therefore the Immaculate Concepcion does not fit our theology.

Originally Posted by Stephentlig

You guys are not Eastern Catholics. You are Eastern Orthodox and living with heresy that Our Lady was not Immaculately concieved.

First, you are not a bishop to declare who is a heretic or not.

Second, Eastern Catholics believe so and the Catholic Church does not declare our beliefs heretical. In fact, many Popes have urged us to keep our theology as-is.

Originally Posted by Stephentlig

That Eastern Catholic parish of the Immaculate conception in Philedelphia has some sense I see.

They are an unfortunate byproduct of people like you.

[Ghosty]

We do not deny that Mary is pure and immaculate from conception to dormition. But still, we do not have Original Sin in our theology, therefore the Immaculate Concepcion does not fit our theology.

I think this is poor wording that only fosters extreme misunderstanding against Byzantine theology. It is simply not true that we don't have "Original Sin" in our theology, we simply approach it differently from some Latin approaches.

To say that we don't have "Original Sin" comes across as Pelagian, and hides the fact that our tradition does speak openly and often of Ancestral Sin (Ancestral simply being a synonym for Original, after all).

Peace and God bless!

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Peter J
Forgive me for going down a tangential road, but is it more surprising (shocking?) to you b/c it's a UGCC cathedral, or would your reaction be the same if it were a Ruthenian Catholic cathedral?

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

I do not find it surprising at all, and all that still matters to this discussion as regards this particular point is that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is embraced in the Catholic East. Ruthenian vs. Ukrainian is irrelevant. In fact, considering the "sister" dogma of the Assumption, I can think of two very prominent Ruthenian parishes off the top of my head consecrated in the name of the Assumption vs. the Dormition. Again, the point is that these dogmas were embraced in the Catholic East.

There many Orthodox Churches in the US of various jurisdictions dedicated to the "Assumption". Just sayin'

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Yes and no. The original promoters of the Union of Brest were (shall we say) not real big on full disclosure to the common folk. You know, "The Pope has become Orthodox" and all that.
Nowadays, however, Catholics are much better about informing potential converts of what they will be required to believe if they become Catholic.

What on earth would have been suggested to the people at Brest about " what they will be required to believe if they become Catholic". Those adopting the union were re-affirming communion with Rome, and retaining their faith and practices. The immediate aftermath of the union was highly and visibly contentious. What was going on could hardly be regarded s a secret.

You know, "The Pope has become Orthodox" and all that.

Actually, I don't know, and am highly skeptical about such ostensible knowledge.

[Vico]

There were liturgical issues in the Union of Brest, but some were dogmatic:

1.—Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

5.—We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.

33. ...
they should ask the Most Holy Father the Pope, and also the King's Grace, our merciful lord, to confirm and guarantee beforehand all the articles which we have here given in writing, so that assured as to the faith, the Mysteries, and our ceremonies, we might come to this holy accord with the Roman Church without any violation of our conscience and the flock of Christ committed unto us and likewise that others who are still hesitating, seeing that we retain everything inviolate, might more quickly come after us to this holy union.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

For those of you who interpret the stain of original sin to mean a privation of sanctifying grace, what do you make of those who basically wind up espousing that the Virgin Mary was born immortal, because she was 'without sin'? (See, for example, the two threads on the subject of the Theotokos' death in the Apologetics forum). Are they mistaken? Are there any interpretive resources which can inform us as to whether being free of the stain of original sin entails being free of Concupiscience or being immortal, or if it does not imply either at all?

Many love to hate the Catholic Encyclopedia, but the while idea is spelled out there.

Nature of original sin

This is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is "the death of the soul", it is the privation of sanctifying grace.

The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, "Istoria del Concilio di Trento", vii-ix)...

We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin". This principle is developed by St. Anselm: "the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect" (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam's fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

Those who confuse a preservation from the stain of original sin as implying immortality miss the point. The suggestion that this deprivation of grace is an essential component of fallen human nature - implicit, albeit probably inadvertently, in the argument of schism-hater (#228) , also misses the point. Surely the idea that Christ would have had to suffer a privation of grace and experience sin to redeem man is not what the Father's meant. Elijahmaria (#229) correctly pointed out the error. Not that the father's were mistaken: the mistake is the implicit identification of the the stain of original sin with the fallen nature.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Ghosty

I think this is poor wording that only fosters extreme misunderstanding against Byzantine theology. It is simply not true that we don't have "Original Sin" in our theology, we simply approach it differently from some Latin approaches.

To say that we don't have "Original Sin" comes across as Pelagian, and hides the fact that our tradition does speak openly and often of Ancestral Sin (Ancestral simply being a synonym for Original, after all).

Peace and God bless!

Which is different from Original Sin. C'mon, what's easier to say, "Original Sin" or the 2 paragraphs explaining what Original Sin is as understood and taught by the West and how it different to the Eastern understanding of the Fall?

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

There many Orthodox Churches in the US of various jurisdictions dedicated to the "Assumption". Just sayin'

Know of any called "Immaculate Conception"? Just askin' ...

[ByzCathCantor]

Here's a piece written from the Ukrainian Orthodox perspective on this subject, which summarizes the East-West distinction and related issues quite succinctly:

The Immaculate Conception: The Holiness of the Mother of God in East and West

[malphono]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

Yes, Vatican I was a council ... of the Roman Catholic Church.

As to input from the "separated East", the Orthodox were invited but declined to attend. Yet, they would not have had a vote.

So it was conciliar, but not ecumenical. In this way, some consider it unilateral.

Yes ... you got it in one. My point exactly

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Yes and no. The original promoters of the Union of Brest were (shall we say) not real big on full disclosure to the common folk. You know, "The Pope has become Orthodox" and all that.

Nowadays, however, Catholics are much better about informing potential converts of what they will be required to believe if they become Catholic.

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

That's an interesting take. From where have you gathered that the laity were fundamentally deceived?

Well, I didn't say deceived although I am aware that's how it is sometimes described.

Originally Posted by dvdjs

Actually, I don't know, and am highly skeptical about such ostensible knowledge.

That's understandable. Indeed I myself have never seen an official source on this. I've only informally heard that "The Pope has become Orthodox" was a common explanation, among the common people, as to why they had started commemorating the Pope. (Although I've also heard that, at that time, the Eastern Catholics only commemorated the Pope at the cathedral, not at the parish level. If so, then many might not have even been aware of it.)

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Which is different from Original Sin. C'mon, what's easier to say, "Original Sin" or the 2 paragraphs explaining what Original Sin is as understood and taught by the West and how it different to the Eastern understanding of the Fall?

The problem is not the fall its the consequence of the fall. Which indicates AFTER the fall. And this "severe" break in Apostolic theology is exactly where?

Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the idea that the guilt of original sin is passed down through generations. It bases its teaching in part on a passage in Exodus saying a son is not guilty of the sins of his father. The Church teaches that in addition to their conscience and tendency to do good, men and women are born with a tendency to sin due to the fallen condition of the world.

[Ah but this is incorrect, regardless of if in fact you are "guilty" you did inherit this fallen state from Adam and Eve. Or as you Church states in the exact next sentence........Men and Women are born with a tendancy to sin due to the fallen condition of the World. And what does that mean further defined?] a son is not guilty of the sins of his fathers has nothing to do with this equation. For the fact is you did inherit the fallen state of Adam and Eve and the inclination to Sin. Semantics is what it is.

It follows Maximus the Confessor and others in characterising the change in human nature as the introduction of a "deliberative will" (θέλημα γνωμικόν) in opposition to the "natural will" (θέλημα φυσικόν) created by God which tends toward the good. Thus according to St Paul in his epistle to the Romans, non-Christians can still act according to their conscience.

[All good has nothing to do with where we are at]

[Now listen closely to this part here comes the contradiction to the last two paragraphs]

Nonetheless, as a "CONSEQUENCE" of Adam's sin, seen merely as the prototype (since human nature has been degraded) of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins, humans became mortal.

[How does this relate to.......a son is not guilty of the sins of his fathers] It doesn't. For if we were not responsible there be no consequence, the consequence is a... AS-A-RESULT of the fall in the Garden. There is NO way around this. Listen, listen heres the exact words........[each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin] No-one ever said you are repeating Adams sin, you are commiting your own. Consequense/Guilt are contingent in meaning in this defined understanding. .

[And in this paragraph are the "semantics" which simply do not differ from the West.] Guilt in the West is the same understanding as Consequence. The above paragraph contradicts the the Bibical verse stated above in that "each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins" Wiki-Pedia

The play on words in that you did inherit this fallen state, Guilt is irrelevant is the pure sense of the word sense you did not know Adam. So you have been judged for Adam and Eves trangressions the wording is pure "semantics" This is about equal to an innocent man being incarcerated thus an injustice. While he is not guilty of the crime he "was" found guilty, the As-A Result is still very real..... and in full effect.


Adam's sin isn't comprehended only as disobedience to God's commandment, but as a change in man's hierarchy of values from theocentricism to anthropocentrism, driven by the object of his lust, outside of God, in this case the tree which was seen to be "good for food", and something "to be desired" (see also theosis, seeking union with God)

Correct, anyway moving on.

The difference East/West is that heresy entered but again, and the Church had to speak as usual. So yes there is a little more to the story than two paragraphs. Its not about what easier its about what is in fact right.

By the end of the 6th century, Pelagianism disappeared as an organized heresy, but the questions of free will, predestination, and grace raised by Pelagianism have been the subject of theological controversy ever since. Pelagianism was condemned by East and West at the Council of Ephesus (431).

Pelagianism holds that the fall did not permanently taint human nature, and that humans are therefore capable of choosing good even without divine aid. Which is of course "impossible" since Grace preceeds all virture, and there all men have an inclination to sin.........ALL! The difference is in degree not kind.