Original sin propounded by ecumenical councils?

[M. Markewich]

On another forum I go to, a Catholic catechumen cited an Orthodox Catechism to show that our Councils teach a view of original sin that suggests we are guilty of Adam's sin even as babies. Baptism cleans us from his sin. How is this passage from that catechism consistent with the Orthodox view of original sin? And if a Council endorses this view, why don't we seem to teach it?


The common faith of the ancient Christian Church in the existence of original sin may be seen in the Church's ancient custom of baptizing infants. The Local Council of Carthage in 252, composed of 66 bishops under the presidency of St. Cyprian, decreed the following against heretics: "Not to forbid (the baptism) of an infant who, scarcely born, has sinned in nothing apart from that which proceeds from the flesh of Adam. He has received the contagion of the ancient death through his very birth, and he comes, therefore, the more easily to the reception of the remission of sins in that it is not his own but the sins of another that are remitted." (The same thing is stated in Canon 110 of the "African Code," approved by 217 bishops at Carthage in 419 and ratified by the Council in Trullo (692) and the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787). Canon 110 ends: "On account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration" (The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Eerdmans ed., p. 497).)

[Kosta]

This shows precisely that we do NOT believe in guilt of original sin.

In the Orthodox Church we inherit the "fruit" of ancestral sin which is death. Roman catholicism following augustinian theology believe that death is a punishment from God for Adam's trangression thus one must be cleansed of it to enter heaven. Rome believed that infants who died unbaptised went to a place called "limbo" with no chance of paradise because they were guilty of our ancestors sin as well.

That which is by generation is the fruit of ancestral sin- death. And our baptism is our death and burial in Christ (Rom 6.3-4)

Orthodoxy teaches that Christ came to abolish death, Death is the enemy of God. As the Ressurection hymn of Pascha teaces us. In a way Orthodoxy believes that "we sin because we die" while rome believes "we die because we sin"

Thats why the roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception is rejected as heresy by us. We celebrate the liturgy of the Dormition of the Theotokos, her death. If she was spared from all stain of original sin as rome teaches then the Theotokos would not of had a natural end but would have been immortal.

This is why the Church teaches that Jesus [U]voluntarily[U] went to the cross and died. The scripture teaches that Jesus alone was without sin and immortal(see John 10.17-18, 12.34 )

[M. Markewich]

Hello, Kosta. I understand the Orthodox view of original sin but this statement in the quote I had in the OP seems to contradict it. Note that this quote was a canon from the 7th Ecumenical Council, so this source says:
"On account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration"

How can you be baptized for the remission of sins if you have no personal sins?

[Kieran P.]

Hi Kosta, :)

This is the Catholic view on Immaculate Conception, taken from our encyclopedia:


"The Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ."

The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

I'm not so sure, on closer inspection, it could be called a 'heresy'.

This is the article on Original Sin:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm


rome believes "we die because we sin"

That's because "The wages of sin is death". Romans 6:23


In a way Orthodoxy believes that "we sin because we die"

I was thinking about this in the canteen over a lovely cup of fennel tea! Surely sin preceded death? No? If so, how could we sin because we die?

I'm sure that this is probably one of those great issues where both our churches would find agreement if they put aside their need to feel superior. Perhaps we're like the line in Bob Dylan's song: "We always did feel the same, we just saw it from a different point of view."

God bless

[Kosta]

Hello, Kosta. I understand the Orthodox view of original sin but this statement in the quote I had in the OP seems to contradict it. Note that this quote was a canon from the 7th Ecumenical Council, so this source says:
"On account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration"

How can you be baptized for the remission of sins if you have no personal sins?

Jesus was baptised into a baptism of repentance and remission of sins by John the Baptist yet had no sin. (Mark 1.4).
The above example aside, The canon teaches: "who could have committed as yet no sin themselves".(personal sin)

The result of generation for everyone is death. There is no such thing as generation of guilt of anothers sin. Death is that which we have inherited from our ancestors, Adam and Eve.

This is clear in Romans 6. Paul teaches that baptism in Jesus is being united in the likeness of his death (6.2-7).

Verse7: For he who has died (been baptised) has been freed from sin.

St John Chrysostom comments on the above verse, " He says this of every person, for one who is dead henceforth is discharged from sinning, lying as one dead. Thus also the one who comes up from baptism, for such a one has died there once for all, must remain continually dead to sin."


Romans5.12- "Therefore just as thru one man sin entered the world, and death thru sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned."

The above passage in Orthodoxy is interpreted as: Adam sinned first then died, for us the chronology is opposite, we inherit death from Adam at our conception and sin follows later. Thus the result of generation is death.

St Cyril of Alexandria wrote, "Since Adam produced children in his fallen state, we , his descendants are corruptible as coming from a corrupt source. The curse of mortality was transmitted to his seed after him, for we are born of mortal substance...... Corruption and death are the universal and general consequences of Adam'a transgression"... (selected letters vi)

This is why we can say the Theotokos was sinless and immaculate but not free from the inherited fruits of ancestral sin: which is death.

There is no mention of guilt from Adam's transgression in that canon.

[Herman Blaydoe]

We certainly suffer the consequences of Adam's action, just like a baby suffers if a mother abuses alcohol or drugs during her pregnancy. The baby is born into the consequences of its mothers actions, but is not GUILTY of them. We don't put the baby in jail because of what its mother did, but the baby suffers from the mother's actions.

Therefore treatment (baptism and communion) is certainly appropriate. The big difference is that instead of being a crime deserving punishment, Orthodoxy sees sin as a sickness requiring healing. The sick are not guilty of their sickness, but still need to be treated.

[Sean M.]

This shows precisely that we do NOT believe in guilt of original sin.

In the Orthodox Church we inherit the "fruit" of ancestral sin which is death. Roman catholicism following augustinian theology believe that death is a punishment from God for Adam's trangression thus one must be cleansed of it to enter heaven. Rome believed that infants who died unbaptised went to a place called "limbo" with no chance of paradise because they were guilty of our ancestors sin as well.

That which is by generation is the fruit of ancestral sin- death. And our baptism is our death and burial in Christ (Rom 6.3-4)

Orthodoxy teaches that Christ came to abolish death, Death is the enemy of God. As the Ressurection hymn of Pascha teaces us. In a way Orthodoxy believes that "we sin because we die" while rome believes "we die because we sin"

Thats why the roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception is rejected as heresy by us. We celebrate the liturgy of the Dormition of the Theotokos, her death. If she was spared from all stain of original sin as rome teaches then the Theotokos would not of had a natural end but would have been immortal.

This is why the Church teaches that Jesus [U]voluntarily[U] went to the cross and died. The scripture teaches that Jesus alone was without sin and immortal(see John 10.17-18, 12.34 )

Mary may very well have been alive when she was assummed into heaven, just as Elijah and Enoch were before her.

Altough the Catholic Church has never formally defined whether she was alive or not when she was assummed, it is widely regarded that she was.

Therefore she would not have had a, "Natural end."

[Father David Moser]

Mary may very well have been alive when she was assummed into heaven, just as Elijah and Enoch were before her.

Not according to Orthodox teaching. The Mother of God did indeed die - there is no question of that - and she was then taken bodily into heaven by our Lord - again there is no question of that.

Fr David Moser

[Kris]

Mary may very well have been alive when she was assummed into heaven, just as Elijah and Enoch were before her.

Altough the Catholic Church has never formally defined whether she was alive or not when she was assummed, it is widely regarded that she was.

Therefore she would not have had a, "Natural end."

As Fr. David stated, Orthodox teaching explicitly teaches that She did indeed die an ordinary death - hence we call the Feast on the 15th of August the Dormition, not Assumption, of the Theotokos.

I always assumed Catholics believed the Theotokos died since the Church of the Dormition in Jerusalem is a Catholic one, and the statue inside seems to depict Her in a state of repose.

[Sean M.]

As Fr. David stated, Orthodox teaching explicitly teaches that She did indeed die an ordinary death - hence we call the Feast on the 15th of August the Dormition, not Assumption, of the Theotokos.

I always assumed Catholics believed the Theotokos died since the Church of the Dormition in Jerusalem is a Catholic one, and the statue inside seems to depict Her in a state of repose.

The Catholic doctrine regarding the assumption of Mary does not define whether she was dead or not when she was assumed into heaven.


It is said that her otherwise empty tomb was filled with roses and lilies. It is the ancient tradition of the Church that she "died" of love and was then taken up into Heaven by the power of God. In any case, there was no sickness beforehand, as she was not heir to the consequences of original sin, such as sickness, disease and natural mortality. Some Catholics believe she was assumed into Heaven while still alive; this may be safely believed as the Church has never made any solemn definitions on the matter.

Source: http://www.fisheaters.com/mary.html

[Kosta]

The Roman Catholic Church has no option but affirming the Theotokos natural death. The question is how will they tip toe around the roman dogma of IC.

If Rome makes some statement that the Virgin Mary did not die, then they will open a can of worms with the uniates. The uniates use the same service for the Dormition of the Theotokos.as the Orthodox.

In this service's hymns we read:

"The choir of disciples is most wonderously brought together from the ends of the world to attend the burial of thy pure and divine body".


'In thy giving birth conception was without seed, in thy falling asleep death was without corruption. A second wonder followed swiftly by the first, O Theotokos: how did she who knew not a man give suck while remaining pure? And how was the Mother of God embalmed and carried to burial as dead? Therefore with the angel we cry aloud to thee, Hail thou who art full of grace."

" O pure Virgin, sprung from mortal loins thine end was conformable to nature..."

[Sean M.]

The Roman Catholic Church has no option but affirming the Theotokos natural death. The question is how will they tip toe around the roman dogma of IC.

My understanding of the IC ties in with the infallibility of the Church which Mary prefigured, she has also been described as the new Eve who was created sinless until her fall in the garden.

[Herman Blaydoe]

My understanding of the IC ties in with the infallibility of the Church which Mary prefigured, she has also been described as the new Eve who was created sinless until her fall in the garden.

And that would be our problem with the doctrine of IC.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus says, "That which was not assumed is not healed". If the Theotokos was exempt from any aspect of fallen nature, then that aspect of our fallen nature would not have been healed through the Incarnation, according to the Cappadocian understanding.

[Sean M.]

And that would be our problem with the doctrine of IC.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus says, "That which was not assumed is not healed". If the Theotokos was exempt from any aspect of fallen nature, then that aspect of our fallen nature would not have been healed through the Incarnation, according to the Cappadocian understanding.

We inherit original sin because we are physical decendents from Adam and Eve.

If God in his providence decided that Mary was to be free from the stain of original sin, he has the power to do this.

As Jesus stated, those he regards as his brothers and sisters are those who do the will of his Father in heaven.

Matthew12:48 But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" And pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

[John Charmley]

Dear Sean,

I see where you are coming from when you write:

If God in his providence decided that Mary was to be free from the stain of original sin, he has the power to do this.
and of course, that has to be correct. But what are our grounds for holding that this is what He did? The IC only became doctrine late on for your Church, I think, so for much of the history of Christianity, it was not believed at all times and in all places by all Christians.

I suspect that the differences between us about the definition of Original Sin are responsible for the disagreement on this one; but perhaps the Orthodox do not properly understand what the Catholic Church means on this?

In Christ,

John

[Sean M.]

and of course, that has to be correct. But what are our grounds for holding that this is what He did? The IC only became doctrine late on for your Church, I think, so for much of the history of Christianity, it was not believed at all times and in all places by all Christians.

I suspect that the differences between us about the definition of Original Sin are responsible for the disagreement on this one; but perhaps the Orthodox do not properly understand what the Catholic Church means on this?

In Christ,

John

Dear John

The Church often defines doctrines after they have become disputed.

The doctrine of the IC is easier to except if you accept the doctrine of infallibility. I can't discuss that on this forum.

My short answer would be that Mary and the Church are without sin because they are intrinsically linked to Christ, who by his very nature cannot sin.

[John Charmley]

Dear Sean,

Thank you for that, and I can see what you mean; but it does indeed, lie beyond the TOU.

But to go back to an earlier part of the discussion here, I thought I'd check up on what the Catholic Church says in its catechism about OS, and found this:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, 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". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

This does not read as though it is that far away from what Orthodoxy holds - but I am sure that others can tell us if it is very different.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.

I'm not sure about this first part though. If original sin didn't affect the personal mode of willing then it must have affected what we are by nature. In which case original sin could not be overcome no matter what Christ offered since we would be sinful by nature.

I think this precisely was the point St Maximus the Confessor made- the Adamic or ancestral sin affects our personal mode of willing but does not alter our fundamental human nature- ie what we are. This is precisely how salvation is thus attainable for us since through grace we can strive for our salvation.

It could be however that the above quote is based on a more modern understanding of sin and its roots in which in some sense many will now say, "you're not personally at fault."

If this is the understanding behind this though, then this is not really a Patristic view of sin which always ultimately bases the sin and the fall on our personal responsibility. This understanding of sin comes especially from within the ascetic/monastic tradition.

As my spiritual father used to say with a bit of smile, "remember, it's all your fault."

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mina Soliman]

Father Bless,

What you wrote is quite interesting. Many Orthodox would fight against any idea of "Original Guilt," the idea that we were born "guilty." It would seem that you are agreeing with it, but I'd like for you to elaborate more on this issue.

Thank you.

Mina

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Father Bless,

What you wrote is quite interesting. Many Orthodox would fight against any idea of "Original Guilt," the idea that we were born "guilty." It would seem that you are agreeing with it, but I'd like for you to elaborate more on this issue.

Thank you.

Mina

Dear Mina,

I wasn't addressing the issue of original guilt.

But here guilt can be seen in two ways- the sin which we suffer from due to our responsibility for this sin. Or else the sin which we suffer from regardless of our responsibility for this sin.

I would say if the idea of guilt is to be found among the Fathers then it would be meant in the former sense.

The reason I even bring this up is that I seem to recall a distinct tradition among the early western Fathers about this. But I could be wrong. I'll do some fast checking and see if I come up with anything.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Father Raphael wrote:


But here guilt can be seen in two ways- the sin which we suffer from due to our responsibility for this sin. Or else the sin which we suffer from regardless of our responsibility for this sin.

I would say if the idea of guilt is to be found among the Fathers then it would be meant in the former sense.

This is an interesting distinction. Perhaps some additional 'food for thought': the preoccupation with distinctions between 'effects' and 'guilt', etc., when talking about primal sin and its influence on future generations, often fails to take into account the rather overwhelming (it seems to me) patristic evidence for the notion of personalised 'guilt' (a fluid term) for all sin, entered into through the ascetic. So while some are keen to argue that the Orthodox view on the influence of Adam and Eve's sin was 'of inherited effects, but not of inherited guilt' (a useful distinction when approached in the manner Fr Raphael and others have outlined above), we must also keep in mind the words of various patristic sources.

'I have sinned more than they, O Lord. Yea, my sins are as countless as the sands of the sea...'

'I have crucified thee, O my Saviour...'

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Matthew S wrote:


So while some are keen to argue that the Orthodox view on the influence of Adam and Eve's sin was 'of inherited effects, but not of inherited guilt' (a useful distinction when approached in the manner Fr Raphael and others have outlined above), we must also keep in mind the words of various patristic sources.

'I have sinned more than they, O Lord. Yea, my sins are as countless as the sands of the sea...'

'I have crucified thee, O my Saviour...'

Yes, this is exactly what I am trying to get at. I do not have the time right now to check into quotes from the Fathers ( I keep thinking of St Augustine though). But surely the idea of guilt can refer to our personal responsibility for sin in both a specific individual sense and also in a general cosmic sense.

I have made a few discrete posts about this in the past few years but in general I am uneasy with what I think is too much of a reaction against the idea of any original guilt at all. To me this seems to go against a clear Patristic and monastic witness that sin must always be connected to personal responsibility for this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

On the questions discussed above: original sin, guilt, free will, etc

From St Augustine's City of God, Bk. 19, Chap. 15:



Whereupon the first just men were established as shepherds over cattle rather than as kings of men, so that God might teach what the relative position of creatures requires and what the guilt of sinners demands. For it is with justice, we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin. So we do not read of a slave anywhere in the Scriptures until the just man Noah branded his son's sin with this word (Gn. 9:25). So he merited this name by fault, not by nature.

The origin of the Latin word for 'slave' is believed to be derived from the fact that those who by the law of war might have been killed became, when preserved by their conquerors, slaves, so named by their preservation [servare]; but even this would not have happened except for the guilt of sin. For even when we wage a just war, the enemy must be sinning; and every victory, even when won by wicked men, humbles the conquered through a divine judgment, correcting or punishing their sins. Witness that man of God, Daniel, who in captivity confesses to God his own sins as the cause of captivity (Dn. 9). Therefore, the prime cause of slavery is sin, so that man was subjected to man in a state of bondage; this was done only by a judgment of God in whom there is no unrighteousness and who knows how to distribute suitable punishments according to the merits of the sinners.


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Sean M.]

This does not read as though it is that far away from what Orthodoxy holds - but I am sure that others can tell us if it is very different.

In Christ,

John

Dear John

I don't think the differences in how original sin effects each individual after the fall of Adam and Eve are that profound between orthodoxy and catholicism.

[Mina Soliman]

When a Roman Catholic person describes the idea of "guilt" in an unbaptized person, it's the idea of "condemnability" and not being responsible for what Adam did. To me, that really much reflects Orthodox idea in that if you are not united with God, you are heading towards a bad, perhaps unsure path. Call it "guilt," call it "lack of Divine partaking," it seems to me just semantics. I may be wrong, but I haven't found anything specific about "Latin Original Sin" that elicits condemnation imho. On the other hand, some Protestant churches have espoused "Infinite Sin", and I believe Aquinas did as well. That's a phrase that sadly I'll never understand and seems to me unacceptable. But I haven't seen official Roman Catholic dogma endorsing this idea.

Now, contemplating on the issue of feeling guilty for another's sins is quite a tradition. It seems puzzling at first, but it seemed only to me a metaphor of what we do daily in our imperfect lives struggling against sin. What it teaches me is a spirit of humility more than anything else.

God bless.

[Symeon P.]

I think the problem here is the notion that there is a "Catholic," or for that matter, "Protestant" view of Original Sin that is in essence distinct from the Orthodox view. Ephrem Hugh Bensusan tackled this issue in his blog a while ago in a quite convincing fashion.

http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/03/original-sin-in-eastern-orthodox.html
http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/fr-george-mastrantonis-on-ancestral-sin.html
http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html
http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2007/01/original-sin-west-haters-strike-back.html

Upon my initial reading, my acquired anti-Western bias kicked in and I rejected this conclusion. But after further reflection, it's become pretty obvious. Original Sin certainly doesn't appear to be one of the controversial points in the historical disputes with the Latins and the latter Protestant confessions. Indeed, Patriarch Jeremias, in his reply to the Lutherans, which has the status of a Symbolical Book in Orthodoxy, states, "Your second article contains the assertion that every man is guilty of original sin. We also affirm that this is, indeed, the truth. The psalmist says in the 50th Psalm: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.” And the Lord says in the Gospels concerning the purging away of original sin: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.”"

The "Orthodox" position as it is now popularly presented isn't wrong or heretical (although I have seen a few instances of what appears to be Pelagianism), but it is rather unbalanced, and, as Ephrem shows, it slanders the west.

[Alexius]

I think the problem here is the notion that there is a "Catholic," or for that matter, "Protestant" view of Original Sin that is in essence distinct from the Orthodox view. Ephrem Hugh Bensusan tackled this issue in his blog a while ago in a quite convincing fashion.

http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/03/original-sin-in-eastern-orthodox.html
http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/fr-george-mastrantonis-on-ancestral-sin.html
http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html
http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2007/01/original-sin-west-haters-strike-back.html

Upon my initial reading, my acquired anti-Western bias kicked in and I rejected this conclusion. But after further reflection, it's become pretty obvious. Original Sin certainly doesn't appear to be one of the controversial points in the historical disputes with the Latins and the latter Protestant confessions. Indeed, Patriarch Jeremias, in his reply to the Lutherans, which has the status of a Symbolical Book in Orthodoxy, states, "Your second article contains the assertion that every man is guilty of original sin. We also affirm that this is, indeed, the truth. The psalmist says in the 50th Psalm: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.” And the Lord says in the Gospels concerning the purging away of original sin: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.”"

The "Orthodox" position as it is now popularly presented isn't wrong or heretical (although I have seen a few instances of what appears to be Pelagianism), but it is rather unbalanced, and, as Ephrem shows, it slanders the west.

I agree. I find many Orthodox teach almost neo-Pelagianism on this topic. I seem to struggle to get answers I understand. The best I can get is that the consequences are mortality and corruption. On a sidenote, I follow what I see to be Orthodox theology. I use Philaret's Catechism which was approved by the Church. I don't understand why Orthodox don't standardize on it. Is it because Roman Catholics now generally agree with the statements it contains? Discussions end up being philosophical with language more akin to a psychiatrist. I understand that this is the Orthodox way, but can you just diagnose me already?;)

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

[Kosta]

Clarity on Ancestral Sin in Orthodoxy wasnt needed till the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
In the RC teaching, the Virgin Mary was preserved of all stain of original sin at her conception but still died. In Orthodoxy this is a complete contradition, and needed to be answered. The differences on Ancestral Sin are very subtle and not easily recognizeable. There only recognized when certain teachings are brought forth, that puts into question exactly what the nature of fallen man is. The IC is one of them, as was the ancent latin belief that unbaptized infants went to a place called limbo, which was a foreign concept in the east.

[Alexius]

Clarity on Ancestral Sin in Orthodoxy wasnt needed till the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
In the RC teaching, the Virgin Mary was preserved of all stain of original sin at her conception but still died. In Orthodoxy this is a complete contradition, and needed to be answered. The differences on Ancestral Sin are very subtle and not easily recognizeable. There only recognized when certain teachings are brought forth, that puts into question exactly what the nature of fallen man is. The IC is one of them, as was the ancent latin belief that unbaptized infants went to a place called limbo, which was a foreign concept in the east.

My understanding of the Immaculate Conception is that the Theotokos was filled with the same sanctifying grace from conception that Adam and Eve had...She still had to cooperate with God, but she was able to remain sinless by her own will. The lack of sactifying grace in the soul is the "stain," although I dislike that term because it implies a sort of guilt and there is none. I know the Roman Catholics have a different view of the Immaculate Concetion, but it isn't really compatible with the Eastern expression of faith...

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

[Alexius]

Clarity on Ancestral Sin in Orthodoxy wasnt needed till the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
In the RC teaching, the Virgin Mary was preserved of all stain of original sin at her conception but still died. In Orthodoxy this is a complete contradition, and needed to be answered. The differences on Ancestral Sin are very subtle and not easily recognizeable. There only recognized when certain teachings are brought forth, that puts into question exactly what the nature of fallen man is. The IC is one of them, as was the ancent latin belief that unbaptized infants went to a place called limbo, which was a foreign concept in the east.

I would also add that it is the spiritual death of the soul that she is reserved from, not physical death and not the other corruptions of Adam and Eve's sin...

[Kosta]

I would also add that it is the spiritual death of the soul that she is reserved from, not physical death and not the other corruptions of Adam and Eve's sin...

Alexius, then you agree that either the IC is problematic and/or the latin view of ancestral sin?

[Symeon P.]

In regards to the papal dogma of Immaculate Conception, this does not really stem from some "need" in a supposedly different Latin doctrine of Original Sin, as is shown by the opposition this idea provoked in the post-Schism Latin west from numerous important figures, including some they uphold as saints. Rather, it comes from a desire to elevate the Theotokos above what is fitting and proper. Bensusan points out that this rejection of the Immaculate Conception as being due to a wrong conception of Original Sin does not appear to be a part of the traditional Orthodox apologetic. The traditional grounds for rejection are well represented by St. John Maximovitch's "The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God," the relevant section of which can be read here (http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/library/st_john_maximovich/on_veneration_of_the_theotokos.htm#immaculate_conc eption).

[Kosta]

Im not sure what you mean by saying that Orthodoxy's refusal of the IC hasnt to do with the concept of original sin, instead is a reaction to Her being over-glorified. The link that you gave deals with the brief history of its origins in the west down thru the centuries. And latin theologians who were for and against it, up until it was dogmatized in 1854. St John Maximovitch then demonstrates that Christ alone is without sin. He quotes numerous church Fathers and gives the Orthodox belief on what constitutes her sinlessness.

The IC goes hand in hand with the RC dogma of her Assumption. Obviously St John does not deal with this aspectof roman dogma, because he wrote his treatise in 1928 , and the Assumption was yet to be pronounced dogma, but he cryptically hints of it. In the time of the writing of this treatise, St John still assumes the latins had the same tradition as the Orthodox about her death and third day translation.

The innovation of the IC which "traditionally" is not a main argument of Orthodoxy but should be, is the concept of the "merits of Christ". The entire concept of merits of the saints is a direct development from the western idea of original sin. The idea that Christ and his Saints produce more grace then they will ever need , thus they can bequeath it to the less fortunate including those souls being punished in purgatory is ridiculous (the punishing fire of the purgatorial souls is another thing derived from the west false belief about original sin).
Mary was not preserved because of the abundance of the Merits of Christ, because there is nothing for her to be preserved from! There is no such thing as "inherited" guilt of Ancestral sin, it does not exist.

In the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895, the doctrine of the IC is condemned claiming Christ alone is concieved immaculately without sin. scroll down to #13:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

In 1546 in the Council of Trent the Latin church declared, "If any man does not confess that the first man Adam.., through his trangression suffered the wrath and indignation of God and because of this, death, let him be anathema (first canon 5th session).

After the pronouncement of the IC many began to speculate that the Theotokos never physically died. In 1955 the pope passed the Assumption dogma which done away with the tradition of the church as found in the Liturgy of the Dormition of the Theotokos and simply said at the end of her earthly life she was translated. Some Latin laity to this day speculate perhaps she only fell into a coma and was translated while still alive. Others try to justify it by claiming death is not an aspect of fallen man, citing the crucuficion. Yet whether, Orthodox, Oriental or RC, all agree Christ went to the cross VOLUNTARILY and as scripture says He has the power to lay his Life down and the power to take it back again. Big difference.

[Symeon P.]

Im not sure what you mean by saying that Orthodoxy's refusal of the IC hasnt to do with the concept of original sin, instead is a reaction to Her being over-glorified. The link that you gave deals with the brief history of its origins in the west thru the centuries who were for and against it up until it was dogmatized in 1854. St John then demonstrates that Christ alone is without sin. He quotes numerous church Fathers and gives the Orthodox belief on what constitutes her sinlessness. The IC goes hand in hand with the RC dogma of her Assumption. Obviously St John does not deal withthisaspect of her death because he wrote his treatise in 1928 , and the Assumption was yet to be pronounced dogma, but he cryptically hints of it. In the time of the writing of this treatise, St John still believed the latins had the same tradition as the Orthodox about her death and third day translation.

In the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895, the doctrine of the IC is condemned claiming Christ alone is concieved immaculately without sin. scroll down to #13:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

In 1546 in the Council of Trent the Latin church declared, "If any man does not confess that the first man Adam.., through his trangression suffered the wrath and indignation of God, and becauseof this, death, let him be anathema (first canon 5th session).

After the pronouncement of the IC many began to speculate that the Theotokos never physically died. In 1955 the pope passed the Assumption dogma which done away with the tradition of the church as found in the Liturgy of the Dormition of the Theotokos and simply said at the end of her earthly life she was translated. Some Latin laity to this day speculate perhaps she only fell into a coma and was translated while still alive.

Yes, of course I and all Orthodox agree. Christ alone is conceived immaculately without sin and many post-Schism Latins said the same, who at the same time said that she was without personal sins. As the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895 says, this novel innovation was "strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians." After St. John details the history, notice his reasons giving for rejecting Immaculate Conception. A false conception of Original/Ancestral Sin is not one of them. The Immaculate Conception is not a requirement for her personal sinlessness as regards the Latin conception of Original Sin.

As for the Assumption Dogma, as many RCs have been quick to point out, whether she was taken up into heaven at the end of her earthly life or after her death is left vague and appears to still be a matter of opinion. The only dogma required for belief is that she was translated to heaven full-stop. Here is This Rock on the Assumption: "The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, 'after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.'" http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Symeon,


The "Orthodox" position as it is now popularly presented isn't wrong or heretical (although I have seen a few instances of what appears to be Pelagianism), but it is rather unbalanced, and, as Ephrem shows, it slanders the west.

I did not find the blogs by Ephrem Hugh Bensusan to be convincing at all. There is a distinct difference between the Protestant/Papal understanding and the Orthodox Churches view of Original Sin. Within the Protestant ways, understandings of Original Sin vary.

Within the papal community as you know everybody is supposed to agree with the Pope on matters of faith and morals or something like that. The IC Dogma really is a fruit from the papal places misunderstandings of Original Sin, that is obvious here. There are several things that are disturbing to me about the way Ephrem Hugh Bensusan goes about coming up with his understandings, I noticed that you seemed to be advancing those ways as well. It is not the Orthodox that have changed or misperceived changes it is the heterodox that have gone astray. Thanks be to God that you and Hugh have found the true faith, which is the pearl of a great price. You have mentioned:


"After St. John details the history, notice his reasons giving for rejecting Immaculate Conception. A false conception of Original/Ancestral Sin is not one of them."

You are simply understanding things from what you are reading and discounting reality in the process to support or defend your understandings and the conclusions of Hugh. Keeping the fuller context in mind is very important as I'm sure you know. Indeed not looking at things in full context is precisely what the West is very often comfortable doing especially these days. It creates many problems, we are to "gird our loins."

I can assure you that Saint John of Shanghia would certainly understand that a false conception of Original/ Ancestral Sin as well as many other errors cause the Orthodox Church to reject many of Rome's understandings. We have heard from those in the West in the past when we disagree with them that we are slandering them, particularly when in comes to the Bishop of Rome's place because "he sits in the chair of Peter", etc.

Saint John of Shanghai and indeed the entire brotherhood of Saint Job of Pochaev would easily discern the root problem of the novel Immaculate conception dogma, it would be rather obvious. I know this because I'm familiar with that brotherhood, His Grace Bishop Peter was Saint Johns cell attendant and Archbishop Alypy is part of that brotherhood as well. The fact that the IC dogma reduces the Theotokas in Orthodox life and the misunderstanding in the west of Original/ Ancestral Sin is rather clear I'm sure. Saint John of Shanghai is able tell the differences between an authentic Icon and a non-authentic Icon, in short the causes and effects of Western influences. I suspect if I spoke with a monk at Jordanville or someone in San Francisco and asked them to look around and see if Saint John wrote anything specifically about his understandings Original/ Ancestral Sin compared to the Latin community, I strongly suspect it would be considered a rather odd inquiry.

As Orthodox Christians we do come up with our own understandings. Obedience to our Bishops, (many are fasting and very prayerful monks) who understand ascetical theology and other things is very important.

I had a rather long discussion with Saint John of Shanghai's cell attendant, His Grace Bishop Peter a few years ago and he understood the root issues and consequences. The IC dogma reduces the place of the Theotokas in Orthodox life, the migrating Christological ramifications are significant. Certainly in the Orthodox Liturgical traditions that have not been dismantled as they have been in the West, our hearts and minds can't accept the fruits of the misunderstandings of the West regarding Original Sin. The IC Dogma renders the Theotokas to be ontologically different than the rest of humanity. So in short, things like an Akathist to the Theotokas which is prayed in so many pious Orthodox Christian hearts particularly woman, would be much different if they accepted the IC dogma and the papal views of Original Sin that are distinctly different from Orthodox ascetical and liturgical theology. So what happens is while they alter the Orthodox understanding of the Theotokas by means of having a different understanding of Original Sin, they are lead astray or away from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. In other words real theology is right theology in action. Love of God, one another and even thine enemies never adjusts the revelation of Christ, the way and the truth. Nor can it outright dismiss or be comfortable changing the traditions found within the Orthodox Church. It is precisely by accepting thoughts that should be rejected and rejecting thoughts that should be accepted that leads to individual delusions or heresies on a collective scale. Errors lead to more errors, the cures for such things are found within the Orthodox Church, outside of Her loving embrace are distortions at best. Lately people are trying to introduce understandings that can't be accepted. Anyway let us look at the fruit of the IC dogma.



Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception

Pope Pius IX solemnly warned: "Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart" (Ineffabilis Deus).


The above statement that Pope Pius IX proclaimed is a lie, uttered by the same one who advocated the concept of another different human being as he promoted papal infallibility. Here I'm not condemned by my own judgment for rejecting the IC Dogma and the papacy with its many horns these days. I do not find myself shipwrecked in the Orthodox faith, for I know that I have some fear of God, because He is God and He knows all things. It is the Lord God that creates all things visible and invisible. Many of these things that Rome produces are lies, distortions and illusions concocted to lead many astray, "beware of wolves in sheep's clothing."

Of course we do not want to think evil in our hearts about any man for man is made in the image and likeness of God, but when we hear perverse things coming from Rome we are not deaf.

The spirit of Ecumenism is foul and terrible thing, in Orthodoxytoday.org an article

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

was written conveying what Rome would need to do using patristic references to have unity with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church. The article also mentions what the Orthodox would need to do from the articleist perspective. With all those Orthodox references in the text the author puts forth the following:


"It is also the direct result of the immediate impact of the modern technology and electronic media that served to bring the Roman popes of the last half century, especially the remarkably gifted and charismatic Pope John Paul II, out of their Vatican enclosures and directly and immediately into the daily lives of people all around the world. Like it or not, by God's inscrutable providence, the emergence of contemporary electronic technology inevitably and inexorably led to the Pope of Rome becoming the universally acknowledged leader of Christianity in the world. And barring something wholly unforeseen, the Roman pope is sure to remain the world's Christian leader as long as the planet earth - and its global electronic culture - endures.

The Bishop of Rome is not "the universally acknowledged leader of Christianity in the world",
at least here and at the Orthodox Christian Church here. We might ask how do such things end up in Orthodox publications these days even by those that study and teach Orthodox theology? It is how things are read and understood as I mentioned to you earlier that can lead to erroneous conclusions. Let us look at things in a fuller context for it is written, a tree is known by its fruit.

From another tree we can read the following, the place that does have a different understanding of Original Sin. Let us use the authors emergence of contemporary electronic technology inevitably and inexorably leads somewhere.


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000915_jubilee-apost-nuncios_en.html

JUBILEE OF APOSTOLIC NUNCIOS AND
PAPAL REPRESENTATIVES
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II

Friday, 15 September 2000

"Everyone needs peace. In a special way, however, each of those who, like you, are participating in the "sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum" proper to the Bishop of Rome, has the task of contributing with all his energy to the ministry of communion that Christ entrusted to Peter and to his Successors, and thus must be a "man in peace" and a "man of peace".

"When lived in this way, dear Nuncios, your ministry will clearly create the necessary bond between the particular and universal dimensions of the Church. By helping the Successor of Christ to tend Christ's flock, you help the particular Churches to grow and to develop. In this service you may often find yourselves facing problems, difficulties and tensions. I warmly thank you for the very valuable contribution of your experience, through which you combine sensitivity for the Churches and societies in which you work with fidelity to the inspiring guidelines of the action of the Holy See, in both the ecclesial and civil sectors."

There is no question in my mind that the Patristic witness certainly would be against the "Successor of Christ" title or believe that such a one and his followers can really be "man in peace" "man of peace". Yet the learned author of that article in Orthodoxy today suggest to us,

"Like it or not, by God's inscrutable providence, the emergence of contemporary electronic technology inevitably and inexorably led to the Pope of Rome becoming the universally acknowledged leader of Christianity in the world."

Yet here it has not lead us to such a conclusion because it can't here, it's not a suffered shipwreck in the Orthodox Church. A "Successor of Christ" according to my understanding, is the most blasphemous thing to hear, a bottommost pit. But sojourn with us for a season, for when we hear such things we may hear what Saint Paul writes in Acts;

"Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves"

Christ warns us of the great danger of false teachings, saying: "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many. Do not follow them. For false Christ's and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand" (Mt.24:5, 24; Mk. 13:6).

Saint John Chrysostom reminds us:

"The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of priests, and the bottommost pit of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

I bring to mind the Blessed Theophylact who is said to express the mind of the Church well.

Commenting on the Gospel of St. Matthew he says:

“And Jesus answered them and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Many, He says, will come declaring themselves to be Christ's. For Dositheus the Samaritan said, “I am that prophet foretold by Moses, “ Dt. 18:18 and
Simon the Samaritan called himself the great power of God. Simon Magus Acts 8:9 ff. “

It is noted here that Simon Magus proclaimed that he is the (Successor to) Christ and the "Power of God.

St. Ephraim the Syrian in his Homilies 4:1 mentions:

“Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church [Matt 16:18]. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you are the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is the life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you authority over all my treasures.”

From the Clementine Homilies we may read and recall the humility of Saint Peter, who “inspected” Simon Magnus thusly.

"Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome: ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

It is written:

“Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

I suspect you are aware of the dismantling of the Liturgical traditions post Vatican II and the Liturgical traditions coming from the Protestant children of Rome. Such places have much different understandings of Original Sin, than the understandings of the Orthodox Church.

The reason I mention these things is just because things are read that does not mean they are understood, people can end up in difficult places, creating problems. It is Christ's flock the rational flock that is guided by the Holy Spirit, the comforter.

Do not think that the Orthodox Church and her true understandings slander the west. You and Hugh have found the Pearl of a Great price, the Orthodox Church, be at peace.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Symeon P.]

Dear Symeon,



I did not find the blogs by Ephrem Hugh Bensusan to be convincing at all. There is a distinct difference between the Protestant/Papal understanding and the Orthodox Churches view of Original Sin. Within the Protestant ways, understandings of Original Sin vary.

Ok then, outline the difference.


I can assure you that Saint John of Shanghia would certainly understand that a false conception of Original/ Ancestral Sin as well as many other errors cause the Orthodox Church to reject many of Rome's understandings. We have heard from those in the West in the past when we disagree with them that we are slandering them, particularly when in comes to the Bishop of Rome's place because "he sits in the chair of Peter", etc.If St. John understood a false understanding of Original Sin to be the root of the papal theory/heresy of the Immaculate Conception, it is strange indeed that he did not give any indication of such when he actually wrote against it.

What needs to be shown is how a false understanding of Original Sin is at the root of the IC.


Saint John of Shanghai and indeed the entire brotherhood of Saint Job of Pochaev would easily discern the root problem of the novel Immaculate conception dogma, it would be rather obvious. I know this because I'm familiar with that brotherhood, His Grace Bishop Peter was Saint Johns cell attendant and Archbishop Alypy is part of that brotherhood as well. The fact that the IC dogma reduces the Theotokas in Orthodox life and the misunderstanding in the west of Original/ Ancestral Sin is rather clear I'm sure. Saint John of Shanghai is able tell the differences between an authentic Icon and a non-authentic Icon, in short the causes and effects of Western influences. I suspect if I spoke with a monk at Jordanville or someone in San Francisco and asked them to look around and see if Saint John wrote anything specifically about his understandings Original/ Ancestral Sin compared to the Latin community, I strongly suspect it would be considered a rather odd inquiry.I would be strongly surprised if he did write anything specifically about this issue. The opposition of Orthodox and Western views on this issue is something that has only really come about due to certain modern theologians of the 20th century with a desire to rescue us all from the "western captivity." And I doubt he would have spoken in terms of Ancestral vs. Original Sin. This emphasis appears to originate with Fr. John Romanides.


Do not think that the Orthodox Church and her true understandings slander the west. You and Hugh have found the Pearl of a Great price, the Orthodox Church, be at peace.


In Christ,

Matthew PanchisinYes, the "the Orthodox Church and her true understandings" does not "slander the west." What does slander the west is the straw man of the Western understanding that has been propagated by some modern Orthodox theologians of the Parisian and Neo-Patristic schools.

God bless.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Symeon,


Ok then, outline the difference.

If St. John understood a false understanding of Original Sin to be the root of the papal theory/heresy of the Immaculate Conception, it is strange indeed that he did not give any indication of such when he actually wrote against it.

What needs to be shown is how a false understanding of Original Sin is at the root of the IC.

I would be strongly surprised if he did write anything specifically about this issue. The opposition of Orthodox and Western views on this issue is something that has only really come about due to certain modern theologians of the 20th century with a desire to rescue us all from the "western captivity." And I doubt he would have spoken in terms of Ancestral vs. Original Sin. This emphasis appears to originate with Fr. John Romanides.

I put all these segments together for you here.

It should be obvious that a false understanding of Original Sin is at the root of the IC. I do not know of any Orthodox Bishop that would not agree, do you think your Orthodox Bishops are wrong and Hugh and you will have better understandings and conclusions?

I would say a false understanding of Original sin is at the root of all such errors. You see, Saint John knew very well that it is how one approaches things for knowledge of things, he didn't question the faith of his forefathers, the Bishops that rightly divide the word of God's truth. You see they continue to rightly divide the word of God's truth for the Orthodox. For those that have a false understanding of Original Sin, the Protestants and those in the papal community it is how and the way so to speak they arrived at a different understanding of Original Sin than the Orthodox Church, that is the problem. So good soil needs to be cultivated, Saint John gave many indications of such. Both of those places read Holy writ and often come up with understandings that are much different than the Orthodox Church, they solidify those errors and in that way the issue of Original sin can't ever really be understood or addressed unless they return to the Church.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Symeon P.]

Simply asserting a thing is so with nothing to back it up is not "obvious" or proof of anything. You outlined some papal errors and heresies. What you did not do was connect any of this to a false conception of Original Sin. As such, there is unfortunately nothing for me to respond to. I have not "question[ed] the faith of my forefathers," I question some of the theological material on the marketplace today and it's representation of the Western view of Original Sin.

God bless.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Symeon,


What you did not do was connect any of this to a false conception of Original Sin.

Actually I think I did. Nevertheless I just read through the old Baltimore catechism from the Latins. Some years ago they had a call in radio program and used that catechism to teach from, that's when they had tubes instead of transistors.

Anyway, they do not have the same understanding of Original Sin. As I mentioned before, that is conclusion of the heirarchy of the Orthodox Church, Priests, Deacons, and Monastics. In short basically every Orthodox theologian I've ever met etc.

Here you can start with lesson #5 and explain how the Latin OS understandings are same understanding as Orthodox understandings.

http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson5.htm

Move on to lesson #6

http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson6.htm

For lesson 7 we might go back to some earlier Latin catechisms, If my memory serves me correctly there was one around the 13th or 14th centuries that seemed to have some much different understandings of Original Sin than the Orthodox Church. I'll see if I can dig it up.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Symeon P.]

There is only one thing I find really objectionable in the Baltimore catechism, and it is not the frequently misunderstood word "guilt" (and as Mina Soliman pointed out, this doesn't really mean anything more than "condemnability"). As I have noted, it is affirmed even in Patriarch Jeremiah's reply to the Lutherans (one of our Symbolical Books). Eve Tibbs writes that the "initial response of Patriarch Jeremias II is considered to be the last example of pure Byzantine theology without any western influence whatsoever." http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/sixteenthcentury.htm There is no question of "western captivity." The real issue is not "guilt."

The chief problem comes when the catechism discusses God withdrawing his grace from Adam and Eve. The Orthodox understanding is that Adam himself made himself unreceptive to God's grace.

In Fr. Michael Pomazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, another more traditional critique, it is understood that a false understanding of the consequences of Original Sin led to the Latin dogma of the immaculate conception, but Fr. Pomazansky sees the above error as being the major cause. "According to the Roman teaching, the burden of the sin of our first ancestors consists in the removal from mankind of a supernatural gift of grace. But here there arose a theological question: if mankind had been deprived of the gifts of grace, then how is one to understand the words of the Archangel addressed to Mary: "Rejoice, thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art thou among women . . . Thou hast found grace with God?" One could only conclude that the Most Holy Virgin Mary had been removed from the general law of the "deprivation of grace" and of the guilt of the sin of Adam. And since her life was holy from her birth, consequently she received, in the form of an exception, a supernatural gift, a grace of sanctity, even before her birth, that is, at her conception. Such a deduction was made by the Latin theologians." Fr. Michael Pomazansky, it should be noted, does appear to misunderstand what Westerns mean by "guilt," interpreting it as personal guilt, which no one actually teaches (or at least very few). But this is not the main thrust of his critique of the Latin understanding of Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception, as it has become for more modern Orthodox polemicists.

[Aidan Kimel]

If I may be so bold, I would like to offer a couple of brief observations:

First, when Catholics speak of the "guilt" of original sin, they are speaking analogically, not literally. This is made clear in the Catholic Catechism and the writings of John Paul II. Whatever St Augustine may have taught about original sin, the fact remains that a great deal of theological reflection has occurred since then. St Thomas Aquinas clearly states, for example, that infants are not guilty for the condition they have inherited from their parents.

Second, for the Catholic, original sin means that human beings are born into a state of spiritual death, i.e., they are born without sanctifying grace.

Third, the Catholic understanding of original sin needs to be clearly distinguished from the classic Lutheran and Reformed understandings. They are not identical.

Fourth, the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception simply states that the Blessed Virgin was not born into a condition of spiritual death and alienation from God. From the moment of her conception she was filled with the Holy Spirit--hence her freedom to offer herself to God fully and completely. My question for the Orthodox is this: Do you really want to say that the Theotokos was a sinner just like the rest of us? Yes, I understand that she too endured the penalty of mortality, but do you want to also insist that she was guilty of personal sin, vice, and selfishness? If not, might it perhaps be possible for us to agree on her original holiness?

Folks may find of interest a couple of blog articles I wrote on this subject earlier this year: http://tinyurl.com/265pbz.

[Alexius]

There is only one thing I find really objectionable in the Baltimore catechism, and it is not the frequently misunderstood word "guilt" (and as Mina Soliman pointed out, this doesn't really mean anything more than "condemnability"). As I have noted, it is affirmed even in Patriarch Jeremiah's reply to the Lutherans (one of our Symbolical Books). Eve Tibbs writes that the "initial response of Patriarch Jeremias II is considered to be the last example of pure Byzantine theology without any western influence whatsoever." http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/sixteenthcentury.htm There is no question of "western captivity." The real issue is not "guilt."

The chief problem comes when the catechism discusses God withdrawing his grace from Adam and Eve. The Orthodox understanding is that Adam himself made himself unreceptive to God's grace.

In Fr. Michael Pomazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, another more traditional critique, it is understood that a false understanding of the consequences of Original Sin led to the Latin dogma of the immaculate conception, but Fr. Pomazansky sees the above error as being the major cause. "According to the Roman teaching, the burden of the sin of our first ancestors consists in the removal from mankind of a supernatural gift of grace. But here there arose a theological question: if mankind had been deprived of the gifts of grace, then how is one to understand the words of the Archangel addressed to Mary: "Rejoice, thou that art full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art thou among women . . . Thou hast found grace with God?" One could only conclude that the Most Holy Virgin Mary had been removed from the general law of the "deprivation of grace" and of the guilt of the sin of Adam. And since her life was holy from her birth, consequently she received, in the form of an exception, a supernatural gift, a grace of sanctity, even before her birth, that is, at her conception. Such a deduction was made by the Latin theologians." Fr. Michael Pomazansky, it should be noted, does appear to misunderstand what Westerns mean by "guilt," interpreting it as personal guilt, which no one actually teaches (or at least very few). But this is not the main thrust of his critique of the Latin understanding of Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception, as it has become for more modern Orthodox polemicists.

My problem goes much deeper than this. For me, it is not a matter of semantics. Terms like "guilt" are generally not used by many of the Eastern Fathers, but the idea of it is. By guilt of course, I do not mean a personal guilt. For instance, St. Gregory Palamas teaches that the body and soul share the same human nature. Consequently, both share in the same consequences, i.e. both die. The body dies when the soul departs from it and the soul dies with sin. Because death is part of our human nature (the same nature as Adam), we are thus born spiritually dead in that the soul lacks the Grace of GOD needed for our sanctification. We receive this in Holy Baptism. Here is where the problem comes in. Do we understand this lack of Grace to be a "stain?" If so, then that makes us guilty insofar as we are without God. This is what the Latins teach. That this lack of GOD is enough to keep us from entering heaven. So, when one says that the Blessed Theotokos were preserved from the "stain," this can mean one of two things. One, it can simply mean she was united to GOD (through His presence and Grace in her soul) from conception; or two, it can mean that this also prevented her from sinning. Add to this the issue of physical death, and you can see the dilemma. Some however, do not believe our nature is different from that of Adam and Eve before the Fall. I do not understand that view and I don't think it works. I have; however, heard the opposite. That we are born with a distorted nature because of Adam, but the Blessed Theotokos was not because of her special grace and its attachment to human nature. If you have followed me to this point and understand this, then you are smarter than I am...:)

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Father,

First of all let me welcome you to the Monachos Forum along with your contribution to the discussions.

You asked:


My question for the Orthodox is this: Do you really want to say that the Theotokos was a sinner just like the rest of us? Yes, I understand that she too endured the penalty of mortality, but do you want to also insist that she was guilty of personal sin, vice, and selfishness? If not, might it perhaps be possible for us to agree on her original holiness?

There are a whole set of questions about sin and guilt which provide the context from which your question comes I think. While we would not deny the importance of these questions we normally would always first off maintain that the Mother of God fully is of human nature.

By her own personal effort however in synergy with God's grace she maintains a state of relative sinlessness. By relative is meant that we do not mean sin has not touched her in any way whatsoever. Even from the Gospel we can see that doubt approaches her at the time of the Annunciation. Also she does die. This is a sign of how she shares in the human condition and is touched in some fashion by the effects of the Fall.

But yet these effects do not overcome her- doubt is resolved through obedient acceptance, death through humble acceptance of the life offered through Her Son- due to her own efforts. Thus she is for us a sign of that new life in Christ from the way of life she pursues. She is the new Eve overcoming through her obedience the disobedience of the first Eve.

Certainly there is a degree to which the quality of her life- to her purity and humble obedience- leaves us in awe. But still we must say that what she attains is by nature fully related to us. That after all is the sense in which we see her as our Mother also.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

I feel like part of the problem is that word "guilty". As I understand it, Orthodoxy is more of the position that sin not a crime to be punished, it is an illness to be healed. Is someone "guilty" of having cancer? Is the baby born of a drug-addicted mother "guilty" of drug addiction?

Orthodoxy, again as this simple mind understands it, believes that the Theotokos was born in the same condition as the rest of us. But she is no more "guilty" than anyone else of the inherited propensity of a sinful nature. But when you look at sin in the sense of the original Greek word, which means "missing the mark" as in an archer missing his target, "sin" is a function of the choices we make. I cannot help but think that the Theotokos, by whatever means, Divine or otherwise, managed to make much better choices than most of us tend to do, and had much better "aim" (no doubt through much practice learned in the Temple and from her very devout parents) than most of us and managed to "hit" the target much more often than we tend to do.

Therefore most of the theology from the Catholic "A Team" (Augustine/Aquinas/Anselm) is simply superfluous from an Orthodox view, it is all based on a flawed understanding of "sin nature". Healing man from the sickness of sin is not a matter of jurisprudence (guilt). It makes the Church a hospital, not a court, the bishop a physician, not a judge.

At least that is the understanding of this bear of very little brain. I await correction from better minds than mine if I have erred.

Herman the Pooh

[Paul Cowan]

This is also how I was taught when received into the Church. I still grapple however at times with her sinlessness and Christ being without sin. It brings up the PC in me to argue only Christ was the only sinless One. The One from an intrinsic Nature to hers being one of choice. Though this still causes consternation between me and my relatives.

Paul

[Alexius]

If I may be so bold, I would like to offer a couple of brief observations:

First, when Catholics speak of the "guilt" of original sin, they are speaking analogically, not literally. This is made clear in the Catholic Catechism and the writings of John Paul II. Whatever St Augustine may have taught about original sin, the fact remains that a great deal of theological reflection has occurred since then. St Thomas Aquinas clearly states, for example, that infants are not guilty for the condition they have inherited from their parents.

Second, for the Catholic, original sin means that human beings are born into a state of spiritual death, i.e., they are born without sanctifying grace.

Third, the Catholic understanding of original sin needs to be clearly distinguished from the classic Lutheran and Reformed understandings. They are not identical.

Fourth, the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception simply states that the Blessed Virgin was not born into a condition of spiritual death and alienation from God. From the moment of her conception she was filled with the Holy Spirit--hence her freedom to offer herself to God fully and completely. My question for the Orthodox is this: Do you really want to say that the Theotokos was a sinner just like the rest of us? Yes, I understand that she too endured the penalty of mortality, but do you want to also insist that she was guilty of personal sin, vice, and selfishness? If not, might it perhaps be possible for us to agree on her original holiness?

Folks may find of interest a couple of blog articles I wrote on this subject earlier this year: http://tinyurl.com/265pbz.

This is how I have understood it as well...I am perplexed though. Is human nature connected to this "stain" of spiritual death, or is this "stain" separate? In that way, was the Blessed Theotokos born of the same nature of Adam and Eve before the Fall? If so, did she die? If not, she must have died, but then in what way is her purification not over physical death? How deep does this purificatin go? Could she still sin? Some say no...Does any of this make sense? I am a little confused about this...

[Aidan Kimel]

This is how I have understood it as well...I am perplexed though. Is human nature connected to this "stain" of spiritual death, or is this "stain" separate? In that way, was the Blessed Theotokos born of the same nature of Adam and Eve before the Fall? If so, did she die? If not, she must have died, but then in what way is her purification not over physical death? How deep does this purificatin go? Could she still sin? Some say no...Does any of this make sense? I am a little confused about this...

Alexius, thank you for your questions. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to provide adequate answers, unfortunately. A couple of thoughts.

First, when we speak of original sin as a "stain," we are speaking metaphorically. It is a way of speaking of our inherited fallen nature that must be "cleansed" through the regeneration of baptism and the gift of sanctifying grace.

Second, the Catholic understanding of original sin is dependent on the distinction between grace and nature. It is this distinction that allows us to speak of that which we have lost through the fall, specifically, living communion with the Holy Trinity, while at the same time maintaining the integrity of our human nature. Human nature did not cease to be human nature when Adam ate the apple.

Third, the Virgin Mary is of course of the human race. The critical difference between the blessed Virgin and the rest of humanity is that she possessed the gift of sanctifying grace from the beginning of her existence, whereas everyone else who receives this gift receives it subsequent to their conception and birth, typically in the sacrament of holy baptism.

Fourth, while the Catholic Church has not dogmatically defined the dormition of the Theotokos, it is certainly the case that most Latin Catholics, with their Eastern brethren, believe she did die a natural death. The Immaculate Conception did not protect the Mary from suffering, deprivation, and death. I commend to you Karl Rahner's book Mary, Mother of the Lord.

I hope this helps a bit.

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

After the pronouncement of the IC many began to speculate that the Theotokos never physically died. In 1955 the pope passed the Assumption dogma which done away with the tradition of the church as found in the Liturgy of the Dormition of the Theotokos and simply said at the end of her earthly life she was translated.Dear Kosta,

The Pope said far more than that and it's hard to see how her death can be disputed by Roman Catholics considering the words of Pope Pius XII in the very document by which he dogmatically defined the Assumption.

It would, btw, be quite impossible for Eastern Catholics not to believe that the Mother of God died without doing an act of violence to their sacred Tradition. The iconography, the hymnography and the oral Tradition all teach that she did in fact die.

People like to say that the Apostolic Constitution "Munificentissimus Deus" by which Pope Pius XII established the dogma of the Assumption in 1950 makes no mention of whether Mary died or did not die.

This is quite inaccurate. One only has to read the document to see that the Pope believes that she died. For example, he says:

"Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."

and

"As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb."

and

"They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt.."

and

"she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb.."

and

"What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death if he could?"

Al these quotes from the papal document defining the Assumption are incontrovertible proof that the Pope taught that Mary died and was buried in a tomb and from there she was resurrected by her Son.

_________________________________
"MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS" Pope Pius XII
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

The doctrine of the IC is easier to except if you accept the doctrine of infallibility. There are Catholic Churches subject to the Pope which do not accept papal infallibility nor the Immaculate Conception. It's interesting that the Pope appears to allow them to deny his infallibility.


Interesting take on this from the Melkite Catholic site in the US. It goes so far as to

1) label Pius IX' s declaration of this dogma "imprudent."

2) declare that the Immaculate Conception makes no sense to Eastern Catholics

3) deny that the Pope can declare any infallible dogma. Only an Ecumenical Council has that authority.

"This privilege of the Theotokos, accepted throughout the centuries, was officially proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in the year 1854. In the West, this Feast is called the Immaculate Conception and is celebrated on 8 Dec.

"Pius IX's unilateral declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was considered imprudent by Byzantine Catholics.

"Since the Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox do not understand Original Sin in the same way as the Latins, the concept of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense in Eastern theology. The Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox believe that only an Ecumenical Council can declare dogma."

http://www.mliles.com/melkite/theotokosminorconception.shtml

[Symeon P.]

I feel like part of the problem is that word "guilty". As I understand it, Orthodoxy is more of the position that sin not a crime to be punished, it is an illness to be healed. Is someone "guilty" of having cancer? Is the baby born of a drug-addicted mother "guilty" of drug addiction?

Hmm... what's this?

St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Chapter XXIV:


Who ever originated a heresy that did not first dissever himself from the consentient agreement of the universality and antiquity of the Catholic Church? That this is so is demonstrated in the clearest way by examples. For who ever before that profane Pelagius attributed so much antecedent strength to Free-will, as to deny the necessity of God's grace to aid it towards good in every single act? Who ever before his monstrous disciple Coelestius denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin? Who ever before sacrilegious Arius dared to rend asunder the unity of the Trinity? Who before impious Sabellius was so audacious as to confound the Trinity of the Unity? Who before cruellest Novatian represented God as cruel in that He had rather the wicked should die than that he should be converted and live?St. Vincent of Lerins, a man hardly sympathetic to Augustinianism and who is today often accused of "semi-Pelagianism," says that it is the universal Catholic tradition that the whole human race is guilty of Adam's sin.

Let's hear St. Ambrose of Milan:


In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam I died; how shall the Lord call me back, except He find me in Adam; guilty as I was in him, so now justified in Christ. If, then, death be the debt of all, we must be able to endure the payment. But this topic must be reserved for later treatment.Or St. Gregory the Dialogist, from his Morals on Job:


For that fatal persuasion had polluted us all with the infection of sin from our very origin; and there was no one who, in speaking to God in behalf of sinners, could appear free from sin; because an equal guilt had involved all alike who were created from the same lump. Therefore the Only-begotten of the Father came to us, and assumed our nature without committing sin. For it was requisite that one who could intercede for sinners should be free from sin, because doubtless He could not wipe away the infection of others' guilt, if He had to bear His own. It is well said then, that in appearing in our likeness He announced righteousness to men.Guilt is not the real issue, so long as it is understood rightly.

[Herman Blaydoe]

From St. Gregory's quote:

infection of sin

As in sickness, rather than crime. We are all "infected" with a propensity, and as long as that sense is preserved, it is Orthodox. And note that the only exception mentioned is Christ alone, there is no mention or exception made for the Theotokos, which seems to conflict with the doctrine of the IC. This is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways.

[Symeon P.]

From St. Gregory's quote:


As in sickness, rather than crime. We are all "infected" with a propensity, and as long as that sense is preserved, it is Orthodox. And note that the only exception mentioned is Christ alone, there is no mention or exception made for the Theotokos, which seems to conflict with the doctrine of the IC. This is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways.

I'm pretty sure the RC's don't deny the sickness/viral aspect of Original Sin. No one does. But we are talking about the "guilt" aspect. Original Sin "infected" Adam, and it infects all of us. The two emphases don't disagree with each other. St. Gregory uses both. As for the IC, I don't believe or defend it, so that's irrelevant. I'm Orthodox.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Symeon,



The two emphases don't disagree with each other.

For you to make claims by offering quotes and putting them together because they have the word guilty in them to support your position is precisely how things errors like the IC dogma show up.

You have made the claim that the RC's do not have a false understanding of Original Sin and that it is not at the root of the IC Dogma. I had mentioned that the entire Orthodox Church disagrees with you yet that does not seem to matter.

There is rather long tradition of a wrathful and punishing God in the West that is not found in the East because of the different understandings of Original Sin, guilt, punishment and judicial interpretations.

One can certainly read words, use words in a legalistic way to create ones own reality or present your case but the danger is that such ways. They alter the past, present and future but often not for just the case builders. Where is the justice in that for the guilty?

Back in the around the 12th century the Latin's introduced something called the Red Mass, liturgical theology. Today it is interpreted as a Mass celebrated for legal people, such as prosecutors, attorneys, judges etc. However it should be noted that originally it began during the Inquisition, that's when the guilty heretics needed to be punished.

People: For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.

Priest He hath put down the mighty from their seats and hath exalted the humble and meek.

People: For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire. Alleluia.

Priest He hath filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He hath sent empty away.
People. Alleluia.

Such things seem like an infection to me Symeon and I would say the two emphases do disagree with each other.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Symeon P.]

For you to make claims by offering quotes and putting them together because they have the word guilty in them to support your position is precisely how things errors like the IC dogma show up.

And in all those patristic quotes guilt is connected to Original Sin. Hmm... This is something that many 20th Century Orthodox, whose thinking is so shaped by the Russian Emigre and Greek Neo-Patristic schools will have to deal with, even if the language rubs some the wrong way. I do not say that this must be understood in a "legalistic" sense, but this language is part of our Orthodox heritage and tradition.


You have made the claim that the RC's do not have a false understanding of Original Sin and that it is not at the root of the IC Dogma. I had mentioned that the entire Orthodox Church disagrees with you yet that does not seem to matter.Well, you didn't really offer much evidence. Simply asserting that the entire Orthodox Church disagrees with me doesn't make it so. Go tell Patriarch Jeremias that he has the entire Orthodox Church disagreeing with him when he says we are guilty of Original Sin. But wait, isn't this is in one of our Symbolical Books? Go tell it to St. Vincent of Lerins... but didn't he write the book on how to discern Catholicity?

Irregardless of all this, if you had read my last reply to you, you would see that I did come to realize that a false conception of Original Sin is at the root of the IC, but that aspect has to do with grace, not guilt. Please read what I wrote.


Such things seem like an infection to me Symeon and I would say the two emphases do disagree with each other.So why does St. Gregory use both? Adam is guilty of Original Sin, and he is also infected with a strong propensity for future sin. We are infected with Original Sin, and we are also guilty of it, but analogically, not personally.

[Aidan Kimel]

I'm pretty sure the RC's don't deny the sickness/viral aspect of Original Sin. No one does. But we are talking about the "guilt" aspect. Original Sin "infected" Adam, and it infects all of us. The two emphases don't disagree with each other. St. Gregory uses both. As for the IC, I don't believe or defend it, so that's irrelevant. I'm Orthodox.

Symeon is quite correct. The Orthodox polemic against the alleged Catholic doctrine of original guilt is misplaced. The Catholic Church does not teach that the descendants of Adam are personally responsible for the sin of Adam and thus deserving of punishment. (I refer again to the series of articles I cited in my first comment above.) As John Paul II states:


In this context it is evident that original sin in Adam's descendants does not have the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which has been diverted from its supernatural end through the fault of the first parents. It is a "sin of nature," only analogically comparable to "personal sin." In the state of original justice, before sin, sanctifying grace was like a supernatural "endowment" of human nature. The loss of grace is contained in the inner "logic" of sin, which is a rejection of the will of God, who bestows this gift. Sanctifying grace has ceased to constitute the supernatural enrichment of that nature which the first parents passed on to all their descendants in the state in which it existed when human generation began. Therefore man is conceived and born without sanctifying grace. It is precisely this "initial state" of man, linked to his origin, that constitutes the essence of original sin as a legacy (peccatum originale originatum, as it is usually called).

Where then is the difference on ancestral sin between Catholicism and Orthodoxy? It appears to be lie here: Catholics teach that each human being is born into a condition of spiritual death and alienation from God. The Holy Spirit does not indwell humanity in the way that he indwelt Adam and Eve, with the consequence that each human being is conceived into an orientation directed away from God. Hence the absolute necessity of a divine act to spiritually regenerate human beings and restore to them the life of grace.

As far as I can tell, modern Orthodox do not speak this way. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that most Orthodox teach that sin is inevitable because of our inherited mortality. Hence the popularity of Rom 5:12 in Orthodox presentations of ancestral sin: “As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men; and because of death, all men have sinned …”

Do these two approaches contradict each other? I personally believe they should be viewed as complementary, rather than contradictory. I also note that the notion of original "spiritual death" is not alien to older Catholic reflection. For example, St Gregory Palamas:


As the separation of the soul from the body is the death of the body, so the separation of God from the soul is the death of the soul. And this death of the soul is the true death. This is made clear by the commandment given in paradise, when God said to Adam, `On whatever day you eat from the forbidden tree you will certainly die.’ And it was indeed Adam’s soul that died by becoming through his transgression separated from God; for bodily he continued to live after that time, even for nine hundred and thirty years. The death, however, that befell the soul because of the transgression not only crippled the soul and made man accursed; it also rendered the body itself subject to fatigue, suffering and corruptibility, and finally handed it over to death. For it was after the dying of his inner self brought about by the transgression that the earthly Adam heard the words, `Earth will be cursed because of what you do, it will produce thorns and thistles for you.’ … Thus the violation of God’s commandment is the cause of all types of death, both of soul and body, whether in the present life or in that endless chastisement. And death, properly speaking, is this: for the soul to be unharnessed from divine grace and to be yoked to sin. This death, for those who have their wits, is truly dreadful and something to be avoided. This, for those who think aright, is more terrible than the chastisement of Gehenna. … As the death of the soul is authentic death, so the life of the soul is authentic life. Life of the soul is union with God, as life of the body is union with the soul. As the soul was separated from God and died in consequence of the violation of the commandment, so by obedience to the commandment it is again united to God and is quickened. … The death of the soul through transgression and sin, is then, followed by the death of the body and by its dissolution in the earth and its conversion into dust; and this bodily death is followed in its turn by the soul’s banishment to Hades. …

After our forefather’s transgression in paradise through the tree, we suffered the death of our soul—which is the separation of the soul from God—prior to our bodily death; yet although we cast away our divine likeness, we did not lose our divine image.

(“Topics on Natural and Theological Science”, Chapters 9-14, Philokalia 4:296-297, 363)



I suspect that a constructive theological discussion could take place on the basis of this text.

[Owen Jones]

I recoil when I hear Orthodox try to maintain that there is no juridicial element to Atonement.

Let's look at the various attempts over the millenia by the civil authorities to deal with criminals. Today, they are put in what are called penitentiaries. The purpose is to accomplish two things at once: the criminal pays his debt to society through serving his sentence in prison. But the other purpose is to give him time to reflect on his crimes and become penitent. The fact that this doesn't work in most cases does not necessarily obscure the fact that the two go hand in hand.

Sin is a legal/juridicial issue in that it involves a violation of God's laws and this issues in a debt that must be repayed. Christ pays that debt for us. It is at the same time an infection or corruption of the body and soul that must be treated. It is treated by incorporating God's very own fleshly existence into ours as medicine. Why is this so difficult?

[Matthew Panchisin]

I think, from an Orthodox perspective it is not a question of appeasement or atonement but rather greater life in Christ.

It is difficult for me to express how offensive some of the things that are have been written in this thread are to me, so I'm going to try to gather my thoughts a bit and perhaps I can explain why.

So far, I think it is because the very way some of these things have been presented represent a disconnection with patristic thought in a rather profound way, distortions that seem to go against the glory God and Christ, via the incarnation.

I have to give this some thought as to exactly why this is so strange sounding to me particularly perhaps because the notions that are being advanced are coming from Orthodox Christians that converted from the west but know better than others.

It really is so very strange to me.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Alexius]

I used to think that the Orthodox (and even Eastern Catholic) belief in Original Sin was totally incompatible with the Catholic view. I remained unconvinced until I read the writings of the Orthodox Fathers and the Confession of Dositheus, Longer Catechism of Philaret, and Peter Mohila's Confession (that one was a little too Western, even for me). All of these together with the great Fathers (St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory Palamas and others) agree on Original Sin. It is a state of death, both physical and spiritual. It is also corruption of the passions, propensity to sin, illness, sickness, pains in childbirth. It seems many like to speak of death as only physical, and everyone is born with the infused grace necessary to reach salvation. Not according to the Fathers, though. Grace operates on us at birth, but within the soul, it is absent. At baptism, grace is infused in the soul and we are "born again...of the Spirit." Before baptism, we are separated from God insofar as He is not dwelling within our souls.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

[Alexius]

Alexius, thank you for your questions. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to provide adequate answers, unfortunately. A couple of thoughts.

First, when we speak of original sin as a "stain," we are speaking metaphorically. It is a way of speaking of our inherited fallen nature that must be "cleansed" through the regeneration of baptism and the gift of sanctifying grace.

Second, the Catholic understanding of original sin is dependent on the distinction between grace and nature. It is this distinction that allows us to speak of that which we have lost through the fall, specifically, living communion with the Holy Trinity, while at the same time maintaining the integrity of our human nature. Human nature did not cease to be human nature when Adam ate the apple.

Third, the Virgin Mary is of course of the human race. The critical difference between the blessed Virgin and the rest of humanity is that she possessed the gift of sanctifying grace from the beginning of her existence, whereas everyone else who receives this gift receives it subsequent to their conception and birth, typically in the sacrament of holy baptism.

Fourth, while the Catholic Church has not dogmatically defined the dormition of the Theotokos, it is certainly the case that most Latin Catholics, with their Eastern brethren, believe she did die a natural death. The Immaculate Conception did not protect the Mary from suffering, deprivation, and death. I commend to you Karl Rahner's book Mary, Mother of the Lord.

I hope this helps a bit.

Thank you, Father. It seems we do not have any disagreements on this, then.

[Herman Blaydoe]

While I agree that there are certainly definitions that both Churches can agree on, the fact remains that the ultimate definition of "guilt" as taught by the Catholic Church has been extrapolated in an unacceptable way as shown by formulation of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. We may have started from the same place, but we have ended up in a different place.

[Aidan Kimel]

While I agree that there are certainly definitions that both Churches can agree on, the fact remains that the ultimate definition of "guilt" as taught by the Catholic Church has been extrapolated in an unacceptable way as shown by formulation of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. We may have started from the same place, but we have ended up in a different place.

Herman, you may be right, but I am not yet convinced. I do not believe that this determination can be made until real dialogue and exploration has taken place, and this dialogue and exploration has clearly not yet occurred--as evidenced by the common Orthodox allegation that Catholicism teaches that God condemns all human beings because of Adam's disobedience, i.e., original guilt. Whatever individual Catholic theologians may have taught in the past, the fact remains that this is not magisterial Catholic teaching. Only last year, a good friend of mine and well-known Orthodox theologian asked me to comment on a popular article he was composing on the limbo controversy. In this article he advanced the caricature of original guilt. I had to tell him, "Father ___, this is not what the Catholic Church teaches," and I pointed him to the Catholic Catechism and the writings of Popes and theologians. He was surprised and pleased and gladly altered his article.

It simply is not correct to quote passages from St Augustine and say, "This is what Latin Catholics believe." In fact, a lot of theological reflection on the matter has occurred since the fifth century on original sin, most significantly in the scholastic period. And this reflection continues.

If Orthodoxy does not understand what Catholics mean by "original sin," then how can it condemn the Catholic dogma that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin? Constructive, substantive study and conversation is long overdue on this issue. Theologians need to sit down together and study and reflect on the Scriptures and the texts and practices of Holy Tradition. Catholics and Orthodox need to understand what each means by grace and sin and freedom. What are the concerns which drive each in their respective dogmatic formulations? What is the meaning of the profound veneration that each Church bestows upon the Theotokos? Only then is it possible to calmly analyze and assess the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

I do not know if Pius IX was wise to promulgate a dogmatic definition when he did. Given the absence in the 19th century of serious Catholic controversy on the question, I tend to think that it was not; but fortunately for the Church I have not been entrusted with such responsibility. But the the Pope did define the matter--and the definition itself is quite limited--and now it is up to Catholics to understand and interpret the dogma. What is its essential point?

I offer the following unoriginal suggestions:

First, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception embodies the Catholic intuition, an intuition which the Catholic Church believes belongs to the apostolic tradition, that the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the words of Fr Herbert McCabe, was "as holy as she could be said to be." The dogma is thus rooted in the long-standing desire to praise and venerate the Mother of God "beyond all other creatures." The question then becomes, how holy can a redeemed creature be? Upon this question Catholic theologians have pondered for over a thousand years. (I commend McCabe's essay "The Immaculate Conception" in God Matters.)

Second, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception asserts and protects the priority of God in God's work of salvation. Given the dependence of the Incarnation upon the free and full consent of Mary, it is theologically necessary to maintain, at least within the Western understanding of grace and original sin, that this consent is radically dependent upon the initiative of God. As Cardinal Ratzinger writes, "The dogma of Mary's freedom from original sin is at bottom meant solely to show that it is not human being who sets the redemption in motion by her own power; rather, her Yes is contained wholly within the primacy and priority of divine love ,which already embraces her before she is born. 'All is grace.' Yet grace does not cancel freedom; it creates it."

Does Orthodoxy, can Orthodoxy, share these concerns? Is it possible that the IC dogma might not be as objectionable as it first appears? Is it possible that the dogma might even say something which Orthodoxy also wants to affirm, though perhaps in other ways?

[Symeon P.]

First, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception embodies the Catholic intuition, an intuition which the Catholic Church believes belongs to the apostolic tradition, that the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the words of Fr Herbert McCabe, was "as holy as she could be said to be." The dogma is thus rooted in the long-standing desire to praise and venerate the Mother of God "beyond all other creatures." The question then becomes, how holy can a redeemed creature be? Upon this question Catholic theologians have pondered for over a thousand years. (I commend McCabe's essay "The Immaculate Conception" in God Matters.)Bernard of Clairvaux:


I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we really more learned and more pious than our fathers? You will say, 'One must glorify the Mother of God as much as Possible.' This is true; but the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment. This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications, possessing as She does true crowns of glory and signs of dignity. Glorify the purity of Her flesh and the sanctity of Her life. Marvel at the abundance of the gifts of this Virgin; venerate Her Divine Son; exalt Her Who conceived without knowing concupiscence and gave birth without knowing pain. But what does one yet need to add to these dignities?
Second, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception asserts and protects the priority of God in God's work of salvation. Given the dependence of the Incarnation upon the free and full consent of Mary, it is theologically necessary to maintain, at least within the Western understanding of grace and original sin, that this consent is radically dependent upon the initiative of God. As Cardinal Ratzinger writes, "The dogma of Mary's freedom from original sin is at bottom meant solely to show that it is not human being who sets the redemption in motion by her own power; rather, her Yes is contained wholly within the primacy and priority of divine love ,which already embraces her before she is born. 'All is grace.' Yet grace does not cancel freedom; it creates it." All steps we make towards salvation must of necessity depend on the grace of God. But what connection would an immaculate conception have with the free consent of the Theotokos (contingent on God's grace, of course) to the Incarnation? She did not consent to this in the womb. What need then of this superfluous display of grace? The Theotokos' free consent would be no less dependent on God's grace without it. St. John Maximovitch:


The teaching that the Mother of God was preserved from original sin, as likewise the teaching that She was preserved by God's grace from personal sins, makes God unmerciful and unjust; because if God could preserve Mary from sin and purify Her before Her birth, then why does He not purify other men before their birth, but rather leaves them in sin? It follows likewise that God saves men apart from their will, predetermining certain ones before their birth to salvation
Does Orthodoxy, can Orthodoxy, share these concerns? Is it possible that the IC dogma might not be as objectionable as it might first appear? Is it in fact possible that the dogma might even say something which Orthodoxy also wants to affirm, though perhaps in other ways?I think we Orthodox should not be afraid to say that the most Blessed Theotokos was infected with Original Sin, as we all are. We can affirm with St. John Maximovitch, quoting Ss. Ambrose and Ignatius Brianchaninov,


"Despite the righteousness and the immaculateness of the life which the Mother of God led, sin and eternal death manifested their presence in Her. They could not but be manifested: Such is the precise and faithful teaching of the Orthodox Church concerning the Mother of God with relation to original sin and death." (Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, "Exposition of the Teaching of the Orthodox Church on the Mother of God.") "A stranger to any fall into sin" (St. Ambrose of Milan, Commentary on the I I 8th Psalm), "She was not a stranger to sinful temptations." "God alone is without sin" (St. Ambrose, same source), "while man will always have in himself something yet needing correction and perfection in order to fulfill the commandment of God; Be ye holy as I the Lord your God am Holy (Leviticus 19:2). The more pure and perfect one is, the more he notices his imperfections and considers himself all the more unworthy.

The Virgin Mary, having given Herself entirely up to God, even though She repulsed from Herself every impulse to sin, still felt the weakness of human nature more powerfully than others and ardently desired the coming of the Saviour. In Her humility She considered Herself unworthy to be even the servant-girl of the Virgin Who was to give Him birth.http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/library/st_john_maximovich/on_veneration_of_the_theotokos.htm#immaculate_conc eption

[Owen Jones]

There are perhaps some other issues and questions concerning IC dogma worth considering. The intentionality behind the dogma appears to be a desire to dogmatize the feminine principle, not only in the economy of salvation, but in the Godhead itself, to the degree that Mary almost becomes a fourth person of the Godhead. i.e. it is a movement to deify Mary almost on a par with Christ, especially when considered alongside the proposed doctrine that Mary is mediatrix of all Grace.

In Orthodoxy, the feminine principle is firmly established in our doctrine of Mary as Theotokos, but also in our Church architecture and iconography, in which the Church resembles the womb of Mary. So the Church is not only the Body of Christ, but in symbolizing our own spiritual gestation and birth, it imitates Mary's role. There is no need to go beyond that.

There are also some practical pastoral considerations. One of the last significant Christological controversies centered around the question of Christ having one or two wills. And the position propounded by St. Maximos is, basically, if Christ did not also have a human will, what does He have to do with me?

From a similar perspective, it seems to me that there are certain pastoral problems with the dogma that Mary was not "conceived in sin." e.g. she would not have been born with the same propensity to sin as you or me. So what does her faith and loyalty to Christ have to do with me, if that was her natural state? Sure, she can be an intercessor, and even a mediator, but how can she be an exemplar on my level? How can I, a man born of the union between a man and a woman, hope to acquire Mary's virtues, if she is some being substantively different than myself? If purity is the natural state she was born to, how do I acquire purity of heart by her example? It seems to me that debates regarding inherited sin and guilt vs. inherited mortality pale in significance to the practical pastoral implications.

It also seems to me that we have been avoiding the obvious issue of sexual union. I won't go into the whole issue of Augustine's impact on this, but the attempt to de-sex Mary's conception as a solution to a theological problem, seems to me to be, well, unreal.



Finally, I hardly find Scriptural credence for the doctrine. Whereas Christ's conception is explicit.

[Alexius]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Immaculate Conception did not prevent the Blessed Theotokos from sinning, did it? Logic would follow that we would likewise be prevented from sinning after baptism, but that isn't so. I believe Orthodox still teach that she was purified, but not until the Annunciation. I honestly don't know where the idea of her being prevented from sinning came from...

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

[Nina]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Immaculate Conception did not prevent the Blessed Theotokos from sinning, did it? Logic would follow that we would likewise be prevented from sinning after baptism, but that isn't so. I believe Orthodox still teach that she was purified, but not until the Annunciation. I honestly don't know where the idea of her being prevented from sinning came from...

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius




According to St. Gregory Palamas, as well as other holy Fathers, the Panagia had already been full of grace [This is confirmed also by the words of the Archangel Gabriel himself, who called Theotokos 'full of grace'] before the day of the annunciation. Living in the holy of holies of the Temple, she had reached the holy of holies of the spiritual life, which is deification. If the forecourt of the Temple was intended for the proselytes and if the Temple proper was for the priests, the holy of holies was intended for the high priest. The Panagia entered there, an indication that she had attained deification. It is well known that in the Christian era the narthex was intended for the catechumens and the impure, the Temple proper for the illuminated, the members of the Church, and the holy of holies for those who had attained deification.

Thus the Panagia was already deified before she received the visit of the archangel. She had used a special method for knowing God and communing with Him, as St. Gregory Palamas interprets in a wonderful and inspired way: it is hesychia, the hesychastic way. The Panagia understood that one can reach God not by logic, sensation, imagination and human fame, but through one's 'nous', which is sometimes called the eye of the heart. Thus she silenced all the powers of her soul which derive from sensation, and through noetic prayer she activated her nous. In this way she reached illumination and deification, and she therefore was granted to become the Mother of Christ, to give her flesh to Christ. She had not only virtues but the deifying grace of God.

[...]

No one is born free of the ancestral sin. [...] So the Panagia too was born with the ancestral sin. [...] In the Orthodox Church the inheritance of ancestral sin does not mean inheritance of the guilt of the ancestral sin, but rather of the consequences of sin, which are decay and death. [...] The Panagia was born with the ancestral sin, she had all the consequences of decay and death in her body. When she entered the holy of holies she had attained deification, but this deification was not enough to rid her of those consequences which meant corruption and death, just because the divine nature had not been united with the human nature in the person of the Word. Thus it was at the moment when by the power of the Holy Spirit the divine nature was united with the human nature in the womb of the Panagia that the Panagia first tasted her release from the so-called ancestral sin and its consequences. Furthermore, at that moment there took place what Adam and Eve had failed to do in their free personal struggle. At the moment of the Annunciation the Panagia reached a higher state than that in which Adam and Eve were before the fall. She was granted to taste the final goal of creation, as we shall see in other analyses.

Therefore for the Panagia no Pentecost, no Baptism was needed. What the Apostles experienced on the day of the Pentecost, when they became members of the Body of Christ through the Holy Spirit, and what happens to all of us in the sacrament of Baptism, happened to the Panagia on the day of the Annunciation. It was then that she was released from the ancestral sin, not that she had any guilt, but she was deified in soul and body by reason of her union with Christ.

This is the background for interpreting the words of St. John of Damaskos that on the day of the Annunciation the Panagia received the Holy Spirit, which purified her and gave her the power at the same time both to receive the divinity of the Word and to give birth. That is to say, the Panagia received from the Holy Spirit both purifying grace and the power to receive and give birth to the Word of God as man. pp. 25-28 From Feasts of the Lord by the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos

[Anthony]

I have a straightforward and perhaps naive question, which I have asked before but not really had an answer. I have often seen western "theories of the Atonement" (such as Anselm's) described on this site as heretical. Have they actually been condemned as such by some recognized authority in the Church, or is this just the view of some Orthodox writers? I am just asking for information here.

[Aidan Kimel]

Knowing that this topic must have been discussed several times before in this forum, I thought I would search back and see what has been said before. I was particularly impressed by a post written by Matthew Steenberg (http://monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=33394&postcount=19) four years ago.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I have a straightforward and perhaps naive question, which I have asked before but not really had an answer. I have often seen western "theories of the Atonement" (such as Anselm's) described on this site as heretical. Have they actually been condemned as such by some recognized authority in the Church, or is this just the view of some Orthodox writers? I am just asking for information here.

I doubt you will find anything "official" per se, other than the fact that some of those "Orthodox Writers" happen to be bishops (Metropolitan Hierotheos?). In that Anselm is NOT recognized as a spokesperson for Orthodoxy, his writings are outside the Church until such time as you find a recognized Orthodox authority claiming they are INSIDE, and that individual seconded and thirded by other Orthodox as well.

[Anthony]

Another naive question, this time concerning liturgical translation. I have always thought that the natural English translation of words like "akhrantos" (and its many virtual synonyms) was "immaculate", as I remember from Timothy Ware's book The Orthodox Church (original edition, not sure about subsequent editions). But I have noticed a tendency to substitute expressions like "Most Pure", which I assume arises from reservations about the Immaculate Conception. But is there any real reason why English-speaking Orthodox should not use the word "immaculate" in their worship?

[Anthony]

I doubt you will find anything "official" per se, other than the fact that some of those "Orthodox Writers" happen to be bishops (Metropolitan Hierotheos?).

Thank you, that is the kind of instance I was looking for.


In that Anselm is NOT recognized as a spokesperson for Orthodoxy, his writings are outside the Church until such time as you find a recognized Orthodox authority claiming they are INSIDE, and that individual seconded and thirded by other Orthodox as well.

Just to clarify, I am certainly not trying to make such a claim.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Another naive question, this time concerning liturgical translation. I have always thought that the natural English translation of words like "akhrantos" (and its many virtual synonyms) was "immaculate", as I remember from Timothy Ware's book The Orthodox Church (original edition, not sure about subsequent editions). But I have noticed a tendency to substitute expressions like "Most Pure", which I assume arises from reservations about the Immaculate Conception. But is there any real reason why English-speaking Orthodox should not use the word "immaculate" in their worship?

The problem arises in that the same word does not have the same meaning when placed in a different context. Orthodoxy and Catholicism (and Protestantism for that matter) often use the same words, but with very different definitions. This obviously can be a source for some confusion in interfaith discussions, particularly when certain parties acknowledge the Orthodox meaning but neglect to account for other implied meanings that deviate from the Orthodox understanding, or in the spirit of "I'll accept your meaning if you accept mine". In that sense, we can accept the Theotokos as "immaculate" without accepting that she was "immaculately conceived". I leave the debate as to which words to use in our corporate worship to those whose duty it is to preserve the authentic Apostolic Witness, and accept the Orthodox definition of any words that are used, rejecting such definitions that are at odds with the teachings of the Orthodox Faith, even if they can be found in a dictionary or in heterodox writings.

[Anthony]

A wise attitude. I was just wondering.

Anthony

[Aidan Kimel]

I have a straightforward and perhaps naive question, which I have asked before but not really had an answer. I have often seen western "theories of the Atonement" (such as Anselm's) described on this site as heretical. Have they actually been condemned as such by some recognized authority in the Church, or is this just the view of some Orthodox writers? I am just asking for information here.

St Anselm may be one of the most misunderstood theologians. He is misunderstood by everyone, Western and Eastern. For an appeciative analysis of Anselm's work on the atonement, see David B. Hart, "A Gift Exceeding Every Debt: An Eastern Orthodox Appreciation of Anselm's Cur Deus Homo," Pro Ecclesia, Vol. VII, No. 3, pp. 333-348). Hart also discusses Anselm in his very difficult book The Beauty of the Infinite.

[Owen Jones]

I have tried a simple formula which is helpful to me to sort out some of the differences between, say, Anselm and, say Palamas, i.e. between Orthodox theology and "late" Latin theology. In Anselm, theology is about thinking. In Palamas, theology is about seeing.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I have tried a simple formula which is helpful to me to sort out some of the differences between, say, Anselm and, say Palamas, i.e. between Orthodox theology and "late" Latin theology. In Anselm, theology is about thinking. In Palamas, theology is about seeing.

There is a real point to this I think. Differences are not only based on dogmatic differences in theology; eg the difference between Christ as one in essence with the Father or else unlike in essence from Him.

They also arise from differences in what we hold theology to be. Here more subtle things come into play such as spiritual approach, something which even culture affects (and which affects culture).

That such is very important to those such as St Gregory Palamas comes out in the implications of what they write. What they increasingly criticize is a certain kind of spiritual & theological approach which feed on and inform each other.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Antonios]

I have tried a simple formula which is helpful to me to sort out some of the differences between, say, Anselm and, say Palamas, i.e. between Orthodox theology and "late" Latin theology. In Anselm, theology is about thinking. In Palamas, theology is about seeing.


Dear Owen,

It could also be stated like one believes it by proving to himself, and the other believes because it is proved to him.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Aidan Kimel]

"I acknowledge, Lord, and I give thanks that You have created Your image in me, so that I may remember You, think of You, love You. But this image is so effaced and worn away by vice, so darkened by the smoke of sin, that it cannot do what it was made to do unless You renew it and reform it. I do not try, Lord, to attain Your lofty heights, because my understanding is in no way equal to it. But I do desire to understand Your truth a little, that truth that my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand so that I may believe; but I believe so that I may understand. For I believe this also, that 'unless I believe, I shall not understand.'"

--St Anselm

[Herman Blaydoe]

It could also be stated like one believes it by proving to himself, and the other believes because it is proved to him.

Except that convincing oneself of something is not the same thing as "proving" it. Proof consists of consistant, repeatable results based on commonly accepted assumptions and conditions. Many people confuse "rationalization" with "proof", but they are not the same thing, just as "opinion" and "fact" are, in fact, different things (in my opinion). Can you prove me wrong?

[Antonios]

Except that convincing oneself of something is not the same thing as "proving" it. Proof consists of consistant, repeatable results based on commonly accepted assumptions and conditions. Many people confuse "rationalization" with "proof", but they are not the same thing, just as "opinion" and "fact" are, in fact, different things (in my opinion). Can you prove me wrong?

Dear Herman,

Thank your for this post. I agree with you. Because we rationalize it as 'proof' does not make it so. I should have been more clear. The point I was trying to make was that on the one side, that is Latin theology, there is a heavy reliance on mental reassurance via logic and rationalization, whereas in Orthodox theology, the mind is quelled outright, the heart is purified, and theology becomes living, experiential, and demonstrated, even to the beholding of the Uncreated Light.

Also, the quote provided on St. Anselm by the good Roman Catholic priest Alvin Kimmel is a beautiful one and quite poignant. The main message by St. Anselm of this quote seems to be about the importance of faith in our knowledge of God (which I am not arguing). However, it seems when he says "but I do desire to understand Your truth a little" he is again trying to mentally understand what he states his 'heart believes and loves'. This is the 'heady' aspect I am talking about which is stressed in Latin theology. I do not wish to imply that this is not an important aspect in our life in Christ and movement towards Him, I'm simply stating that it is a point in which the two theologies differ in practice and form.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Rick H.]

. . . whereas in Orthodox theology, the mind is quelled outright, . . .




Dear Antonios,

I think I know what you mean here with this as it relates to your post as a whole; but, I wonder if you would have time to clarify a bit what this means (viz. 'quelled outright').

Thank you.

In Christ,
Rick

[Antonios]

Dear Rick,


I guess what I'm (poorly) trying to explain is the Patristic teachings regarding the hesychatic approach toward the passible aspects of the soul.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Rick H.]

Dear Antonios,

Thank you.

In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

quelled outright means that we resign from the debating society and listen.

[Rick H.]

quelled outright means that we resign from the debating society and listen.




In that case, then this is my new favorite expression! Makes your mouth water just thinking about the possibilty of less debating and more listening.

[Owen Jones]

OBEY:

[Middle English obeien, from Old French obeir, from Latin oboedīre, to listen to : ob-, to; see ob- + audīre, to hear; see au- in Indo-European roots.]

[Rick H.]

Betach and Obey

Here's a 'trip' down memory lane for some (if you click on this have your sound on):

Trust and Obey (http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh467.sht)

[Sean M.]

I read through most of the responses in the thread. How do the Orthodox define inheriting the guilt of original sin from Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were naked in the garden and only became ashamed after they disobeyed God and eat from the tree of life. Would we be able to recognize the shame/guilt of our own sins if it had not been for the original sin of Adam and Eve?

[Father David Moser]

I read through most of the responses in the thread. How do the Orthodox define inheriting the guilt of original sin from Adam and Eve.


We do not inherit guilt from Adam and Eve. I would strongly suggest, if you are interested in this matter, the book by Fr John Romanides The Ancestral Sin


Fr David Moser

[Nina]

I read through most of the responses in the thread. How do the Orthodox define inheriting the guilt of original sin from Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were naked in the garden and only became ashamed after they disobeyed God and eat from the tree of life. Would we be able to recognize the shame/guilt of our own sins if it had not been for the original sin of Adam and Eve?

Yes, the advise of Father Moser is precious if you would like to learn more about that matter, Sean.

And here is a very short summary of the attitude of the Orthodox Church:


In the Orthodox Church the inheritance of ancestral sin does not mean inheritance of the guilt of the ancestral sin, but rather of the consequences of sin, which are decay and death. Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos

[Herman Blaydoe]

I read through most of the responses in the thread. How do the Orthodox define inheriting the guilt of original sin from Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were naked in the garden and only became ashamed after they disobeyed God and eat from the tree of life. Would we be able to recognize the shame/guilt of our own sins if it had not been for the original sin of Adam and Eve?

We don't because they didn't.

Does the baby born from a drug-addicted mother go to jail because it is "guilty" of drug use? But it does "inherit" its mother's addiction. The descendent is not guilty of the ancestor's crime, but does suffer the consequences of their actions.

[Symeon P.]

Back to square one. [sigh]

Anyway, here is an excerpt from an article by Vladimir Lossky against the IC, where he speaks of Original Sin:


First of all, we must distinguish between original sin, as an offense
committed against God and common to the entire human race since Adam; and
the same sin, the force of evil operating in the nature of fallen humanity;
at the same time, we must distinguish between the nature common to all of
humanity and the personality proper to each one in particular. Personally,
the stain of all sin was alien to the Virgin, but by virtue of Her nature,
She bore -- along with all the descendants of Adam-- the responsibility for
original sin. This presumes that sin as an evil force was dormant in the
nature of the chosen Virgin, which was progressively purified in the
generations of Her just ancestors and was protected in Her grace from
the moment of Her conception.The entire article, which is very interesting, maybe be found here: https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind9503A&L=ORTHODOX&P=R7702

The editor of this article preceeded this quote (and indeed the article) with a rant about "ancestral sin," and how "Augustinianism" is at the base of the IC. He then warns that we should pretty much ignore this part of Lossky's article, implying that he was in prelest on this point and propagating heresy.

As for Limbo, which was brought up much earlier in this thread and which I forgot to address, this too does not stem from the idea of "guilt." No less than St. Gregory the Theologian says that unbaptized infants do not merit Heaven, although they also will not receive the torments of Hell. Food for thought.

[Sean M.]

We do not inherit guilt from Adam and Eve. I would strongly suggest, if you are interested in this matter, the book by Fr John Romanides The Ancestral Sin


Fr David Moser

I will look up the book thank you.


We don't because they didn't.

Does the baby born from a drug-addicted mother go to jail because it is "guilty" of drug use? But it does "inherit" its mother's addiction. The descendent is not guilty of the ancestor's crime, but does suffer the consequences of their actions.

Yes but the reason we feel guilty on committing a sin is a direct result of the original sin. Adam and Eve became aware that they were naked only after they eat of the tree.

Genesis3:7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

They were naked before but were not ashamed, they then hid themselves in the garden when they heard God. The reason Adam gives for hiding from God is he was afraid because he was naked.

He recognized something which he had not recognized before, he was ashamed and guilty because of it. Two emotions which were not evident before.

Do we inherit this recognition of guilt for sins committed because of the original fall of Adam and Eve?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Do we inherit this recognition of guilt for sins committed because of the original fall of Adam and Eve?

Do you believe that the Theotokos was unable to recognize sin? Do you think she was INCAPABLE of sinning? Or did she simply choose not to? Did she have or lack something intrinsic that made her different from the rest of us or did her "yes" to God make all the difference?

I think one of the major differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is how you answer this question.

[Nicolaj]

No! It is the way you approach such questions!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Paul Cowan]

I will look up the book thank you.



Yes but the reason we feel guilty on committing a sin is a direct result of the original sin. Adam and Eve became aware that they were naked only after they eat of the tree.

Genesis3:7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

They were naked before but were not ashamed, they then hid themselves in the garden when they heard God. The reason Adam gives for hiding from God is he was afraid because he was naked.

He recognized something which he had not recognized before, he was ashamed and guilty because of it. Two emotions which were not evident before.

Do we inherit this recognition of guilt for sins committed because of the original fall of Adam and Eve?

I think this begs another question also. If there eyes were opened to their shame and then they realized they were naked (or sinned) how do we see people who today "sin" (yes a judgement) but don't think they are, to be evaluated? If some one says it is not wrong to take something of someone elses; is he sinning? Or does he have to know it is wrong before it becomes his sin? Does my qustion make sence?

I know God said He would write His laws on our hearts, does this mean everyone DOES know right from wrong and chooses not to listen, or that some truely do not know the difference?

Paul

[Antonios]

Yes but the reason we feel guilty on committing a sin is a direct result of the original sin. Adam and Eve became aware that they were naked only after they eat of the tree.

Dear Sean,

From what tree was the fruit you are talking about? God had a name for it...

In Christ,
Antonios

[Sean M.]

I think this begs another question also. If there eyes were opened to their shame and then they realized they were naked (or sinned) how do we see people who today "sin" (yes a judgement) but don't think they are, to be evaluated? If some one says it is not wrong to take something of someone elses; is he sinning? Or does he have to know it is wrong before it becomes his sin? Does my qustion make sence?

I know God said He would write His laws on our hearts, does this mean everyone DOES know right from wrong and chooses not to listen, or that some truely do not know the difference?

I believe in Catholicism it is believed that everyone has what is called the "Natural Law." I don't know the Orthodox position on this, I think that it basically means we all are instinctively gifted with a certain degree of morality.


Do you believe that the Theotokos was unable to recognize sin? Do you think she was INCAPABLE of sinning? Or did she simply choose not to? Did she have or lack something intrinsic that made her different from the rest of us or did her "yes" to God make all the difference?

I think one of the major differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is how you answer this question.

I believe that Theotokos could recognize sin, but unlike Eve she chose obedience rather than disobedience. She had free will and that made her capable of sin. By being fully obedient to God before she was told that she would give birth to the Messiah she had already said, "yes," to God.


Dear Sean,

From what tree was the fruit you are talking about? God had a name for it...

Dear Antonios

The name given to the tree was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[Br Tom Forde OFM Cap]

Dear Fr. Raphael, As I read no. 405 'original sin' does affect our will because it harms our human nature which is rational. It harms it but does not destroy it, rendering us in need of healing or we cannot see God. We do not have to sin, ("remember, it's all your fault.") this is how I read traditional teaching, but our unaided human nature is incapable of perfectly desiring, knowing and choosing good. As I tell penitents in Confession deep down we all believe the lie that we are the centre of the universe not God. Without Divine intervention our wills are turned to our own service not God's. To reveal His Love and Mercy the Father sent the Son so that the Spirit might unite us to the Father and our will restored by being united to the will of the Son. In order for the Mother of God to say a perfect 'yes' she had to have a will free of that corruption of self-service and self-worship. She said 'yes' on behalf of all of us but it all depended on the Sacrifice, the death and Resurrection of Her Son and God. Perhaps the difficulty with the Immaculate Conception lies in the overuse of the term 'original sin'. I believe it can be formulated in the terms of and harmonised with Orthodox theology.

Yours in Christ,
Br. Tom Forde OFM Cap

[Christopher Dombrowski]

How can you be baptized for the remission of sins if you have no personal sins?

Infants are Baptized for the remission of ancestral sin. The phrase is not "baptism for the remission of personal sin", but simply "baptism for the remission of sin".

[Christopher Dombrowski]

I'm not so sure, on closer inspection, it could be called a 'heresy'.

Well, certainly the vast majority of Eastern Orthodox have decided it to be contrary to the orthodox faith, rather believing that Mary, while never having committed personal sin, did truly inherit the ancestral sin. Thus, for us, it is at very least a heterodoxy.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

My understanding of the Immaculate Conception is that the Theotokos was filled with the same sanctifying grace from conception that Adam and Eve had...She still had to cooperate with God, but she was able to remain sinless by her own will. The lack of sactifying grace in the soul is the "stain," although I dislike that term because it implies a sort of guilt and there is none. I know the Roman Catholics have a different view of the Immaculate Concetion, but it isn't really compatible with the Eastern expression of faith...

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

And this is exactly the view that Orthodox theologians reject. Mary is taught to have been without the sanctifying grace present with Adam and Eve until the indwelling of the Lord in her womb.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

My question for the Orthodox is this: Do you really want to say that the Theotokos was a sinner just like the rest of us? Yes, I understand that she too endured the penalty of mortality, but do you want to also insist that she was guilty of personal sin, vice, and selfishness? If not, might it perhaps be possible for us to agree on her original holiness?

Folks may find of interest a couple of blog articles I wrote on this subject earlier this year: http://tinyurl.com/265pbz.

It's not as if between the Immaculate Conception and the Protestant view of Mary as some typical sinner there lies no middle ground. In between these views is that I've typically heard in the Eastern Orthodox Church, that Mary was separated from God at birth because of her inheritance of original sin and was also lacking sanctifying grace, yet she was forever without personal sin and was healed from the ancestral sin when the Lord came to dwell within her at the Annunciation.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

My problem goes much deeper than this. For me, it is not a matter of semantics. Terms like "guilt" are generally not used by many of the Eastern Fathers, but the idea of it is. By guilt of course, I do not mean a personal guilt. For instance, St. Gregory Palamas teaches that the body and soul share the same human nature. Consequently, both share in the same consequences, i.e. both die. The body dies when the soul departs from it and the soul dies with sin. Because death is part of our human nature (the same nature as Adam), we are thus born spiritually dead in that the soul lacks the Grace of GOD needed for our sanctification. We receive this in Holy Baptism. Here is where the problem comes in. Do we understand this lack of Grace to be a "stain?" If so, then that makes us guilty insofar as we are without God. This is what the Latins teach. That this lack of GOD is enough to keep us from entering heaven. So, when one says that the Blessed Theotokos were preserved from the "stain," this can mean one of two things. One, it can simply mean she was united to GOD (through His presence and Grace in her soul) from conception; or two, it can mean that this also prevented her from sinning. Add to this the issue of physical death, and you can see the dilemma. Some however, do not believe our nature is different from that of Adam and Eve before the Fall. I do not understand that view and I don't think it works. I have; however, heard the opposite. That we are born with a distorted nature because of Adam, but the Blessed Theotokos was not because of her special grace and its attachment to human nature. If you have followed me to this point and understand this, then you are smarter than I am...:)

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Honestly, it seems to me that you are portraying the Western conception of original sin as more Orthodox than it actual is. To explain the "stain" or "guilt" of original sin as simply the lack of grace as depicted in the Byzantine view of ancestral sin simply does not make sense.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

This is also how I was taught when received into the Church. I still grapple however at times with her sinlessness and Christ being without sin. It brings up the PC in me to argue only Christ was the only sinless One. The One from an intrinsic Nature to hers being one of choice. Though this still causes consternation between me and my relatives.

Paul

Well, with regard to sin in terms of "lack of holiness", you can with confidence in the Orthodox Church say that Jesus Christ is absolutely the only human being who was never with sin. In rejecting the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, we assert that Mary inherited the ancestral sin, and was thus separated from God and without sanctifying grace, and thus before the Annunciation she was lacking in holiness, even if she was never with personal sin. The sinlessness of Mary only comes in when we hone in on the subject of personal sin.

[Alexius]

And this is exactly the view that Orthodox theologians reject. Mary is taught to have been without the sanctifying grace present with Adam and Eve until the indwelling of the Lord in her womb.

Looking back on what I originally wrote some time ago, I find my own reply somewhat problematic. I still maintain that the Blessed Theotokos was immaculate at her conception, the Divine Grace she received aided her along to her special purpose. GOD gave her a special grace for a unique purpose, but I dislike delving too deeply into the details. I believe in the spirit of the dogma of IC as well as the Dormition--that is the passing of the Holy Virgin. She was not spared the death as she remained a human being. She was spiritually alive, yet her body was that of Adam and Eve. As for the Dogma which Rome declared in 1950 regarding the Assumption, I believe it is fairly clear from tradition as well as the declaration that the Holy Theotokos did indeed die.

I understand that many Orthodox theologians accept the idea that the Blessed Virgin Mary received grace only after her conception, but there is no clearly definitive teaching. Some say she received grace at birth, others at the annunciation, while others say she received grace at multiple times. Not all reject the idea of the Immaculate Conception either. Unfortunately, many stopped considering it when Rome declared it, refusing to consider a Catholic dogma for many reasons. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is simply a theologumena for Orthodox, not so for Catholics, though I wish it were so :(

[Alexius]

Honestly, it seems to me that you are portraying the Western conception of original sin as more Orthodox than it actual is. To explain the "stain" or "guilt" of original sin as simply the lack of grace as depicted in the Byzantine view of ancestral sin simply does not make sense.

It comes down to understanding Western terminology. The terms stain and guilt are not used in Eastern theology much, and when they are it is in a personal, not corporate, sense. Guilt means personal guilt, or personal sin. Stain means a darkness from personal sin. In Western theology, and this has been since the earliest Latin fathers, these terms apply a more corporate idea. Guilt is shared, not because one committed the offense, but because one shares in the activity. Many legal systems are based on this idea. We share in Adam and Eve's sin in the sense that we are human in their same corrupted flesh and we therefore inherit the consequences. Again, the West understands that we did not commit the sin! We merely receive the consequences. This is considered guilt in the West. This term seems to have falling from common use due to misunderstanding and misuse. The term sin does not imply a personal act, but a deprivation or removal of grace. Stain refers not to a consequence on the soul from a personal sin, but to the deprivation of grace. It is an absense of grace--that is the stain.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

I still maintain that the Blessed Theotokos was immaculate at her conception,

I'm curious exactly what you mean by that? Because I actually may or may not agree with you.




the Divine Grace she received aided her along to her special purpose. GOD gave her a special grace for a unique purpose, but I dislike delving too deeply into the details.

This may be delving outside of what has been defined in the Orthodox Tradition here, but at that point I would start speaking of prevenient grace (a concept popular in the Arminian school, but from what I understand it predates Arminianism). This is the divine grace that is present with all human beings and which enables us, even outside of the sanctifying grace of the New Covenant, to choose to co-operate with God and which prevents us from falling into total depravity. And while this doesn't explain the peculiarity of Mary, as prevenient grace is something all humans have, it does explain how she was able to choose to be exceptional.




As for the Dogma which Rome declared in 1950 regarding the Assumption, I believe it is fairly clear from tradition as well as the declaration that the Holy Theotokos did indeed die.

Really? I've experienced most Roman Catholics explaining that the status of Mary as having died or not having died as amiguous in the definition of 1950. Further, I've observed many Roman riters holding the private opinion that she never died, justifying the acceptability of this view on the ambiguity of the definition of 1950.




I understand that many Orthodox theologians accept the idea that the Blessed Virgin Mary received grace only after her conception, but there is no clearly definitive teaching.

This is true. I don't think the Eastern Orthodox can call the IC a heresy in terms of it violating the dogmatic tradition of the EOC because there really has not yet been anything defined on the matter.




The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is simply a theologumena for Orthodox, not so for Catholics, though I wish it were so :(

I have much respect for you holding to the dogmas of the Roman Church, even being in the Byzantine rite. I have encountered a number of Eastern Catholics who reject the concept of papal infallibility and do not hold to a number of the dogmatic traditions of the RCC, which just seems absolutely absurd.

[Father David Moser]

I still maintain that the Blessed Theotokos was immaculate at her conception, the Divine Grace she received aided her along to her special purpose.

I think this is fully consistent with Orthodox teaching about mankind in general. We are all conceived without the "stain" of original sin (that is the guilt of Adam's sin) but not without the consequences of the fall (our fallen nature). We each receive Divine Grace according to our calling to aid us in our spiritual lives.

Fr David Moser

[Christopher Dombrowski]

I think this is fully consistent with Orthodox teaching about mankind in general. We are all conceived without the "stain" of original sin (that is the guilt of Adam's sin) but not without the consequences of the fall (our fallen nature). We each receive Divine Grace according to our calling to aid us in our spiritual lives.

Fr David Moser

Alexius seems as if, however, that he is suggesting that the Mother of God was born with pretty much the same status with regards to sin as the Lord Jesus did, that while effected by the consequences of the Fall and affected by the corruption thereof, that she did not actually inherit the broken communion with God and lack of sanctifying grace that all the rest of us did. I don't think this view is compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy.