There really isn’t that much difference between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy’s understanding of Original Sin.
The problem with Eastern Orthodoxy not making connections and developing their doctrine of Original Sin as it concerns the BVM’s Immaculate Conception, Sinlessness in this life, dormition rather than death and possibly the Mediatrix of all Graces, is that they don’t continue their own tradition, prior to their Great Schism, in making connections, developing theology and refining doctrine and deepening it into dogmas.
- The Orthodox Christians acknowledge the inheritance of consequences from Adam's sin, such as mortality, a weakened will, and a tendency towards sin.
- Orthodoxy often uses the metaphor of sin as a disease that affects humanity's nature and leads to a state of estrangement from God.
The Orthodox disconnect as it concerns the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary, while in the womb of St. Anne was consecrated and divinized by God the Most Holy Trinity. She was divinized as is a part of Orthodox doctrine as Orthodoxy emphasizes the concept of "Theosis," or "divinization," which is the process of growing in union with God through grace, rather than simply being freed from guilt.
It is repugnant to the Schismatic Orthodox as to Catholics that God Incarnate would enter the womb of a woman with sin and undivinized by God’s Grace! A woman with the potential to be a grave sinner.
While the Orthodox have developed a belief of the dormition of Mary, rather than her death, they have no explanation as to why. It is because of their theology of Divination of God’s people by His grace alone. For Mary it happened in the womb of Anne and thus divinized she could not experience original sin, sinfulness, disease or death. Where is her body now? Do the Orthodox say there is a tomb? No she’s in heaven, body and soul- Assumption.
We can go on and on to support all Catholic development of doctrine which is rooted in the West’s and East’s understanding of Original Sin and its consequences and Mary who was conceived free of that by God’s grace alone.
The only reason the Eastern Orthodox don’t accept Catholic development of doctrine or the deepening of it isn’t because they don’t have a tradition of it prior to their Great Schism but because they are arrogant in refusing to unite with the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome and follow the truly orthodox development of doctrine or deepening of it that developed after their Great Schism but in union with their own theology of Original Sin!
The problem then, isn’t the development of doctrine but the arrogance born of schism with the pope.
- .Catholicism, influenced by St. Augustine, teaches that all humans inherit Adam's original sin and the consequent guilt. This is understood as a debt owed to God, a state of "disadvantage" from which humanity needs to be redeemed.
- .The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes original sin as a deprivation of original holiness and justice, leading to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death.
- .Baptism is seen as the sacrament that removes the guilt of original sin and restores a person's relationship with God.
- .Catholics believe that Mary, the Mother of God, was conceived without original sin.
- Orthodox Christians acknowledge the inheritance of consequences from Adam's sin, such as mortality, a weakened will, and a tendency towards sin.
- Orthodoxy often uses the metaphor of sin as a disease that affects humanity's nature and leads to a state of estrangement from God.
- Orthodox tradition emphasizes that individuals are not born with Adam's guilt but with the consequences of his sin.
- Baptism is seen as a means of cleansing the individual of the inherited "disease" of sin and restoring them to a state of grace, but not as a removal of original guilt.
- Orthodoxy emphasizes the concept of "Theosis," or "divinization," which is the process of growing in union with God through grace, rather than simply being freed from guilt.
- The central difference lies in whether individuals inherit Adam's personal guilt (Catholic) or only the consequences of his sin (Orthodox).
- Both traditions recognize the role of grace in restoring and healing humanity, but their understanding of grace's relationship to original sin differs.
- Orthodoxy focuses on "Theosis", a process of becoming like God, while Catholic soteriology (the study of salvation) often emphasizes "Justification," which is God's forgiveness of sins and the restoration of righteousness.
32 comments:
Personally, I do not see the necessity of developing doctrines except when required to clarify points of contention leading to heresy. Especially in regards to how many angels can dance on the head of pin type arguments of churchmen playing inside baseball divorced from prior core beliefs required of earlier Christians who had better things to do than worry about such things....the various statements were pretty much forced by earlier ones in seeking to logically defend what might better have been left unsaid at the start. I certainly am not going to go after Eastern churches for not subscribing to things that most Roman Catholics don't understand (or truly subscribe to) themselves.
As for the Great Schism, that was purely political, largely over Roman bishop authority over other churches, with the excuse of the hundreds of years later addition filioque clause to the Creed to which ALL churches had previously subscribed, and which additional clause was not even initially unanimous among Western churches.
The Marian things you cite are no cause of the schism, but only a later symptom of a schism as differences continued to build with East and West operating independently and ignoring one another. East and West could now agree over the two true causes of the early schism, but having painted themselves into corners by later acts, still be unable to unite.
Orthodox believe that the Mother of God died. That is the consequence of the Fall — all things die.
There’s no theological necessity for the Immaculate Conception in the Orthodox understanding of the Fall and its consequences. The necessity arose in the West as they embraced St. Augustine’s conception of the Fall and the theological developments that followed from it. Orthodox do not rely on St. Augustine like the West does.
My question then arises if a non baptized person may receive Holy Communion and is the Orthodox Church okay with an unrepentant sinner receiving Holy Communion. Seems to me that the answer is yes if our Blessed Mother could receive Christ in her womb at the annunciation.
Father McDonald, forbidding sacraments to unbaptised, or (another matter) unrepentant sinners, did not arise only after adoption of the idea of the immaculate conception, but was a constant from earliest times, in no way dependent upon a sinless Mary.
When Christ was conceived, the Mother of God had already been divinized thru the grace of God and the holiness of her life.
Despite the consequences of original sin, fallen nature as opposed to inherent guilt by way of Adam/Eve, Mother Mary was born without personal sin and lived her life that way. The view is different for the reasons Marc mentioned. There was no necessity to codify as absolute law - you are required to believe to be a member - that which was just accepted. In very simple terms, the 7 ecumenical councils principally defined core dogmas of our faith, and addressed doctrinal disputes/heresies.
Mother Mary also reposed then being assumed bodily into heaven - the result of the fall coupled with the assumption that acknowledges her exalted position.
A non-baptized/non-chrismated person may not receive holy communion in the Orthodox Churches. The Russian Church does not recognize the baptisms of other Churches.
An unrepentant sinner should not receive holy communion in the Orthodox Churches, no different from any within the Catholic Communion.
Defer to Marc as he is a stronger theologian than I.
Wow! Let me just say that it is wonderful that the Orthodox did not go into Schism prior to the Council of Nicaea!!!!
Or the Counsell of Jerusalem for that matter!
“The Russian Church does not recognize the baptisms of other Churches.”
Not just the Russian Church. Many Orthodox Churches accept converts thru baptism. It seems to me that the practice in America of receiving people thru Chrismation rather than baptism is waning. But I’m not sure the statistics on that.
It makes little to no sense from an Orthodox perspective to receive converts without baptizing them.
Thank you. I should have said "perhaps others". I know the most about the Russian Church.
Again, I'll admit to not having the strongest theological background. That said, I found the following which may be additive:
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not affirm the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as defined by the Roman Catholic Church. The primary reason is that the Orthodox view of original sin differs from the Catholic understanding, which underpins the Immaculate Conception doctrine. While Orthodox theology affirms Mary's purity and preservation from sin, it doesn't hold that she was conceived without original sin.
Elaboration:
Differing Views of Original Sin:
.
Orthodox theology understands original sin as a condition inherited from Adam, impacting the human condition but not necessarily personal guilt. In contrast, the Catholic understanding of original sin involves both a hereditary stain and a personal guilt inherited from Adam.
Eastern Orthodoxy's View of Mary:
.
Orthodox theology emphasizes Mary's extraordinary holiness and her cooperation with God's grace, leading to her sinlessness. However, it does not believe she was conceived free of the inherited condition of original sin, as the Immaculate Conception doctrine asserts.
Historical Context:
.
The Catholic Church defined the Immaculate Conception as dogma in 1854, a move that was not accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Some Orthodox theologians have questioned the validity of the doctrine, finding it unnecessary or even potentially damaging to the understanding of salvation.
Orthodox View of Mary's Purity:
.
Orthodox theology venerates Mary as the "All-Holy Mother of God" and believes she was preserved from personal sin through her free will and God's grace. They believe she lived a life of exceptional prayer and obedience, leading to her sinlessness, but not necessarily from a conception free of original sin.
Orthodox Acceptance of Mary's Sanctification:
.
Orthodox Christians believe that while Mary was conceived in the inherited condition of original sin, she was purified through the coming of Christ into the world. They believe she was purified by God's grace and her own free cooperation with God's grace, leading to her sinlessness.
Relying again on AI as I haven't the time to lay things out this well:
Byzantine Catholics accept the Immaculate Conception, which is the belief that Mary was conceived without sin. While they share the same fundamental belief with the Roman Catholic Church, they often emphasize Mary's sinlessness from birth as a result of God's grace, rather than focusing on the specific notion of being conceived "immaculate". This distinction is more about emphasis and theological nuance than a denial of the doctrine itself.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Shared Belief:
Both Byzantine Catholics and Roman Catholics agree that Mary was free from all sin, both inherited (original sin) and personal sin. They believe Mary was perfectly holy and worthy to be the Mother of God.
Emphasis on Grace:
Byzantine Catholics often highlight Mary's "fullness of grace" from the moment of her conception, emphasizing that she was preserved from all stain of sin due to her future role as the Mother of God.
Liturgical Focus:
The Byzantine rite emphasizes liturgical theology, and the Feast of the Annunciation, which celebrates the Annunciation to Mary, may be seen as a central point in their understanding of Mary's sinlessness.
Shared Tradition:
Byzantine Catholics, like all Catholics, have a deep respect for Mary and her role in salvation history. The traditions and practices surrounding the veneration of Mary are similar across the Catholic Church.
Well, Rome was totally absent from the Council of Constantinople, but the Council defined important Trinitarian doctrines, accepting the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers as dogmatic. So it doesn’t seem to have been very important to those great saints to have no representative from the Western Church present to ensure orthodoxy.
The Council of Jerusalem is good example since it was presided over by the Bishop of Jerusalem, St. James, the Brother of the Lord, to resolve the latent schism caused at least partially by… St. Peter’s tendency toward the Judaizing heresy.
Byz - That summary of the Orthodox response to the IC dogma seems accurate to me.
I’ve heard it said that the purpose of the Old Testament and the entire history of the Israelites was oriented toward and culminated in the birth of the Mother of God. She was born to holy elderly parents, entrusted to the Temple as a consecrated virgin at age 3, and remained there until she could no longer remain due to her coming of age, at which time she was entrusted to the holy elder Joseph’s care as her betrothed. This is all manifested in the liturgical cycle and its hymnography.
Just as an observation on the constant AI citations as if coming from AI makes it correct, and AI an automatic authority...
AI is biased by programmers, google among the worst in bias in burying inconvenient truths from search engines, and AI creates its responses based on what it gleans from the internet, which itself is subject to censorship....so, what AI says may be correct, and then, again, it might be wrong, which does not spell trustworthy to me.
Well, the post and some of the comments came from there, so, we'll have to make the best of it. I'm not a trained theologian, but, based on what I do know, a critical eye and a willingness to engage others to fact check, I hope to avoid both error, heresy or schismatic behavior. I'm not justifying myself to you, I'm merely suggesting that while availing ourselves of technology might not be the ideal, my sense is we're all reasonably careful so doing.
Your resident Orthodox reader who doesn't comment as much as he used to for various reasons here:
1. Marc is right, we really have zero need for a definition of the Immaculate Conception.
2. We in the East would say that God is the Lord and hath revealed himself unto us, that the Faith is given, and it is our job to preserve it, not develop it or change it. The 7 Ecumenical Councils do indeed define the faith
3. No unbaptized person or a person outside of communion is eligible to receive in the Orthodox Church. Certainly, in the cases of near death, there may be possible exceptions (just as it is in Rome)...exceptions don't make the rule.
4. The great schism was indeed super political, an abuse of power that went far beyond what the West exercised. The Church has always believed in papal primacy, that is, the first amongst equals. Papal Supremacy...Latin Rite Superiority complex (There are hyperdox that do the same for the Byzantines, and they're also wrong)...not so much. If the pontificate of Pope Francis has taught us anything, it is the manifestation of the warnings of those who were against the Vatican I definitions were exactly warning about...(I would also make the argument there was zero need for the definition of Papal Infalibility given the political nature of this dogma...but that's not for here)
5. As I like to say with the filioque, it's not so much that it was added to the creed insofar as it was the way that it was done, without consent, and without the Church as a whole partaking in it. A point most people don't know is that the official creed of the Church does NOT have the filioque in it, and the filioque is only used liturgically within Rome....every other church does not have it....hence when Pope Benedict and Patriarch Bartholomew were together a number of years back, they both said the creed without the filioque. :)
6. To have Christ is to have everything, which the CCC acknowledges, since the Orthodox Church has valid sacraments and orders with real authority, and wouldn't fall under false religions under the old pre-Vatican II definition.
7. The three biggest turn-offs to us Easterners are: No respect for your own traditions and praxis, a lust for power that makes Hilary Clinton look like a living saint, trying to put onesself in the place that no one belongs...(the savior complex)
8. The Council of Jerusalem is rather interesting as it wasn't the pope (Peter) who presided, but rather James (bishop of Jerusalem). Thankfully Peter's will did not prevail, lest we still be following kosher laws and such things ;)...I for one enjoy bacon far too much.
9. The reception of Roman converts is a bit tricky. In one aspect, Rome could just be considered schismatic, in which case, schismatics are received via chrismation via the canons. There are some that would call Rome heretical because of the additions, in which case, they should be baptised. Strictly speaking Rome, should not be called heretical as they affirm the first 7 ecumenical councils....anything after that would be in theological error or an addition. Just as you wouldn't call Aquinas a heretic for denying the Immaculate Conception, one can't deny what did not exist. Those hyperdox who believe that Rome is on the road to perdition should not be listened to.
I hope that everyone is having a blessed pascha season! Christ is Risen.
One of the reasons why I brought up the issue of someone being allowed to receive Holy Communion prior to baptism or in a state of unrepentant sin after baptism is that the Catholic Church and I presume the Orthodox Churches state that one must not bring to one’s soul, God the Most Holy Trinity through Jesus Christ if the soul is contaminated with the disease of Original Sin or after baptism unrepentant actual sin. Doing so would be a sacrilege. Here we are speaking about the Mystical, Sacramental Presence of the Crucified, Risen and Glorified Lord. Yet, no one who knows Orthodox Teaching can tell me when and where the Blessed Virgin Mary was purified of the disease of Original Sin she would have inherited prior to accepting the Physical Christ, True God and True Man into her womb! Was our Blessed Mother’s soul diseased with Original Sin or not? The Catholic Church, deepening her theology and doctrines about our Blessed Mother and how our Providential God would make a vessel for His Son Incarnate states that our Blessed Mother, know to God from all eternity at the moment of her conception by natural means in the womb of Saint Anne, was created and consecrated as Adam and Eve were, without sin. She did not inherit the disease of Original Sin and thus is the New Eve who never disobeyed God with her free will, although, technically she could have. The Orthodox can’t make connections in doctrines because of their ossified approach to doctrinal development in the orthodox sense because they hate the Church of the West after the Great Schism. I asked too about the sinlessness of Mary, apart from Original Sin, no real answer there. I asked about her Assumption and if it isn’t believed where Mary’s body is buried or entombed. No answer there. i asked about Christ’s Virgin birth in Bethlehem and if Mary experience the pangs and physical trapping of giving birth, no answer there. I asked about the theological concept of Mary, the Mediatrix of all Graces, no answer there.
When was Mary cleansed from Original Sin? Mary never sinned because she was divinized from her birth. But she was subject to Original Sin just like everyone else, which means she was tempted and did not sin.
I already answered that Mary died and was assumed.
Did she have pain in birth? I’d think so since she was a human.
I think I’ve answered all your questions. No doctrinal development needed.
Divinized at her birth and not at her conception? Either way, that’s a development of doctrine if there ever was one but heretical!
Not a doctrinal development because the Church has always taught it, as exemplified by the Scriptures, the liturgical prayers and the writings of the Fathers. And it does not rest on human reason.
I have never heard that Mary was divinized at her birth, some 9 months after she was created. Thus she was not created as Adam and Eve were, without original sin, but disordered by Adam and Eve’s original sin which you say she inherited. I have never heard of any doctrine or theological construct that it was at her birth that God acted to forgive her of the disease of Original Sin. Please show your sources for this bizarre doctrine. Thanks.
Also, thanks to AI, this is what it says about Eastern Orthodoxy’s belief of Mary’s divinization, which is more in line with the Immaculate Conception than what you describe taking place at the time of or after her birth: AI Overview
Learn more
In Eastern Orthodox teaching, Mary was divinized not in the sense of becoming a part of the Trinity like Jesus Christ, but in the sense of being free from sin, both inherited and personal, and being raised to a glorified state after her death. Mary is not considered divine, but is revered as Theotokos (Mother of God) and a Theotokos is not considered divine in Eastern Orthodox theology. The title Theotokos, meaning "Mother of God," was affirmed by the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 AD. This affirmation did not mean Mary was divine, but that she was the mother of the God-man, Jesus Christ. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe Mary was sinless from conception and that her body was raised to glory after her death.
The result of Original Sin is death. The evidence that Mary was subject to Original Sin is that she died.
Furthermore, Scripture is clear that all have sinned.
The liturgical tradition is clear too. We celebrate the Conception of the Theotokos on December 9 and her birth on September 8, showing the relative lack of perfection between her and Christ — rather than the newly developed idea in the West that saw the date of her conception moved to December 8 when the IC dogma was created. (See also the conception of St John on September 23 and his birth on June 24, again indicating the lack of perfection as only Christ’s nativity is celebrated exactly 9 months from his conception).
Obviously, no Church father believed the IC dogma because the Fathers did not believe in the Western idea of Original Sin. But the West backed itself into a theological concern by embracing Augustine’s Original Sin ideas, so the IC became a necessity under that construct. That’s the nature of embracing human errors in reasoning, more reasoning is going to be required to address the issues that follow from it because human reasoning is always flawed.
You’re falling into the word-concept fallacy — just because Orthodox and Latins both use the phrase “Original Sin” doesn’t mean that the same definition is attached to it.
Everyone is sinless at their conception. But everyone is subject to the fallen human state at their conception.
The Orthodox Church celebrates the “Dormition of Mary” not “The Death of Mary” the two are quite different. Dormition is a development of doctrine by saying she fell asleep rather than died. The True Church led by the pope has developed dormition into the dogma of the Assumption, quite logical to say the least. As it concerns Original sin, inherited or actual, Mary, even in Orthodox teaching which differs only slights from the True Church’s definition, was conceived without it as she was divinized at her conception, not her birth.
Fr. AJM,
I appreciate the challenge you are presenting, and, thank you for allowing its discussion.
I agree with Marc. This is an Eastern view, not limited to the Orthodox. Our views are absolutely identical, so if that makes me a heretic in communion with Rome, I suppose I'll have to live with that.
Christ was like US in every way but sin. Mother Mary is included in US.
The 7 Ecumenical Councils do not mention the above referenced dogmatic constitutions because there was not then, nor now, a reason to say anything as doctrine already present within Scripture, the Canons and Patristic writings that address Christ's divinity, or the perpetual virginity of Mother Mary. All that we need has been provided.
Original Sin:
Roman Catholic: Humanity born with BOTH the guilt and consequences of Adam's sin.
Orthodox and Byzantine: Humanity born with the consequences of Adam's sin, not the guilt itself. It's ancestral sin healed by baptism, sustained through free will yet Christ's death and resurrection offers the possibility of salvation and union with God.
Dormition of Mary:
Orthodox/Byzantine: Mary died a natural death and was buried. Then, her body was resurrected and taken up to heaven - the Assumption. The New Testament does not detail Mary's death or burial. Orthodox/Byzantine "Why"? Mother Mary was a mortal whose nature was subject to the fall, like any other human.
Mediatrix:
Orthodox/Byzantine: Mother Mary is revered as A mediatrix. She intercedes and facilitates the distribution of divine grace. Why? Jesus Christ is only mediator between god and humanity. Mother Mary's role is subordinate, yet vital. Mother Mary's role relative to the divine plan of salvation is obviously significant, and ongoing.
Mary's sinlessness:
From AI, to me this reads correctly, Byzantines adhere to the same: In Orthodox Christianity, Mary is believed to have been sinless throughout her life, meaning she never committed any sins, even in thought. This belief is based on the understanding that Mary, while bearing the consequences of original sin like all humans, was cleansed by the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation and overcame the inclination to sin through her free will. The Orthodox view is that Mary's sinlessness is a testament to her humility, purity, and obedience to God's will.
Orthodox do not hate the Roman Church or the Catholic communion at-large. At the same time, it is a trait to grumble about one's neighbor, rightly/wrongly.
None of our Churches are ossified. The Eastern Churches do believe that doctrine develops as understood in the West. The Eastern Churches do recognize that doctrine can evolve over time as was the case with the ecumenical councils and the teachings of the Church Fathers, however and now, such statements would simply be clarifications of unchanging doctrine, not the creation of new dogma.
If this dialogue could have resolved anything, it likely would have occurred +1K years ago. Our differences might seem profound, but, fundamentally, they are not. Lobbing heretical barbs is something that needs to stop both here, and within the various churches - it's old news.
Mary died: “falling asleep” is how we say that someone died.
Her death is clear in the liturgical rite since we literally bring a funeral bier into the middle of the church to venerate her body on a shroud just as we do for Christ on Great Friday.
The hymns make it clear that she died: “In giving birth, you preserved your virginity, and in falling asleep you did not forsake the world, O Theotokos. You passed into life as the Mother of Life, and by your prayers, you deliver our souls from death.” (Troparion of the Dormition).
She was divinized at her birth is a way that is different than you would conceptualize that in the Western framework. To illustrate the difference, consider that all saints are divinized at some point — Mary’s divinization from her birth is a way to say that she was experiencing theosis from an early age. Put differently, she was always acting in symbiosis with the uncreated Energies of God always, but she was subject to temptation and could have sinned.
Fr. This is "better" "AI'ing":
Marc/Joe, jump in at any time.
Bottom Line, Fr. we're arriving at very similar places. The main difference, where the Western Church created Dogma - Absolute Law, the Eastern Churches felt the elements that I mentioned earlier, the ecumenical councils, Patristic writings and Sacred Scripture provided all that was needed.
In Orthodox Christian theology, Mary is understood as sinless, but not necessarily in the way the Immaculate Conception doctrine of Catholicism suggests. Orthodox Christians believe Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the moment of her conception, ensuring her body was a perfect vessel for the birth of Jesus. However, Orthodox theology emphasizes that Mary, like all humans, is subject to the consequences of the Fall, including bodily death, while still remaining personally sinless.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Sinlessness:
Orthodox Christians believe Mary was born without original sin and lived a sinless life. They believe she was holy and blameless, a vessel worthy of bearing the Son of God.
Consequences of Original Sin:
While Mary was preserved from the sinfulness of the Fall, she was not exempt from its consequences, such as mortality.
Orthodox Perspective on Original Sin:
Orthodox theology views original sin as the corruption of human nature inherited from Adam, rather than a personal guilt that needs to be removed.
No Official Doctrine on Immaculate Conception:
While many Eastern Orthodox believers hold that Mary was preserved from original sin, there is no official doctrine comparable to the Catholic Church's Immaculate Conception.
Key Differences from Catholic Theology:
The main difference lies in the understanding of original sin and the timing of its removal. Catholic doctrine states that Mary was conceived without original sin, while Orthodox theology emphasizes her sinlessness and the consequences of the Fall.
Mary as the Theotokos:
Orthodox Christians venerate Mary as the Theotokos (God-bearer), recognizing her special role in the incarnation of Christ.
Marc, no different for us in the Byzantine tradition.
I do believe Dormition implies a peaceful passing, nonetheless, it's as you described and observed in exactly the way you outlined.
As well, your description of divinization is the same as ours, achieving theosis, yet not on parity with Christ's divinity.
Exactly!
Post a Comment