Orthodox Belief

[Mr.Cat]

[quote]Orthodox Christians do believe that Mary was without sin for her entire life, but they do not share the Catholic Church's views on original sin. They note that St. Augustine (d. 430), whose works were not well known in Eastern Christianity until after the 17th century, has exerted considerable influence over the theology of sin that has generally taken root through the Holy See, and since Eastern Orthodoxy does not share Rome's (or most Protestants') view of original sin, [u]it considers unnecessary the doctrine that Mary would require purification prior to the Incarnation[/u]. [b]Instead, Eastern Orthodox theologians suggest that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state, but to her conduct after birth[/b]. Although this is not a dogma in the Orthodox Church, there is the universal belief that there was a pre-sanctification of Mary at the time of her conception, similar to the conception of Saint John the Baptist. However, there was no cleansing of original sin, since Orthodox Christians believe that one cannot inherit original sin, or any sin for that matter; instead, 'original sin' in Orthodoxy refers to the general tendency towards sin and pain in the world, caused by the fall of Adam.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception[/url][/quote][quote]"I do not see any irresoluble conflict between the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the full humanity and freedom of Mary as of the same race as Eve." - alleged to Vladimir Lossky but not verified.

"...being Himself at once God and man, His flesh and soul were and are holy - and beyond holy. God is holy, [u]just as He was and is and shall be, and the Virgin is immaculate, without spot or stain[/u], and so, too, was that rib which was taken from Adam. However the rest of humanity, even though they are His brothers and kin according to the flesh, yet remained even as they were, of dust, and did not immediately become holy and sons of God."
- St. Symeon the New Theologian

[url="http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception"]http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception[/url][/quote][quote]The words "full of grace", as noted above, come from [b]Luke 1:28[/b]. The Greek behind this phrase consists of the single word [i]kecharitomene [/i]which admits of various translations. Renderings can include "graced one" (hence "full of grace") or "favored one" or "the one to whom has been given freely [or: bestowed]" and since [i]kecharitomene [/i]is a feminine word, one could also say "she who is full of grace" or "Lady full of grace," etc. The concept of grace meant one thing in the Bible and something else later on, [u]and the later concept of grace is one Orthodox and Roman Catholic faithful are more comfortable with than are Protestant Christians[/u], in relation to the Virgin Mary. [u]Hence the translation "full of grace" reflects an understanding of[/u] [b]Luke 1:28 [/b][u][b]that is more popular with Orthodox and Roman Catholics[/b][/u], while other versions of Luke 1:28, emanating from Protestant circles, have tended to use a wording such as "highly favored."
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_Mary"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_Mary[/url][/quote][quote]In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin, but loved God above of all things and obeyed his commandments, and thus was sanctified by God through Jesus Christ who incarnated himself of her. She obeyed Him like one of the faithful, and addressed herself to Him with a Mother’s trust. Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.

Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. [u][b]We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain[/b][/u]. - Bartholomew I
[url="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2005/03/08/patriach-bartholomew-on-the-immaculate-conception/"]http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2005/03...ate-conception/[/url][/quote]I had a conversation with a person claiming to be Orthodox but they seemingly proposed something different than this, could someone help me understand what is going on?

Edited March 10, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[theculturewarrior]

Simple answer: Orthodox have no papacy, and therefore have divergent opinions.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' post='1211534' date='Mar 10 2007, 04:35 PM']Simple answer: Orthodox have no papacy, and therefore have divergent opinions.[/quote]

Actually Orthodox do have a "patriarch" or "pope". Pope St. Kyrillos VI was a pope or "patriarch".

Reza

[theculturewarrior]

They have nothing equivalent to the papacy though.

Edited March 11, 2007 by theculturewarrior

[Mr.Cat]

It was always explained to me that among the Orthodox Communities their Bishops can disagree with each other, thus theological disagreements can happen. Such as it is up to their Bishop to decide how “temporal punishments due to already forgiven sin” is handled. That some Bishops propose after Absolution all temporal punishments are taken away and others hold that it isn’t, and that what is true falls to what the local Bishop says.

So the doctrine of the Blessed Virgin being free from sin, because it is not a dogma, that they are free to disagree but that the intensity of this belief varies place to place. But from theses quotes what should I believe the Orthodox profess concerning this subject?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1211801' date='Mar 11 2007, 01:01 AM']It was always explained to me that among the Orthodox Communities their Bishops can disagree with each other, thus theological disagreements can happen. Such as it is up to their Bishop to decide how “temporal punishments due to already forgiven sin” is handled. That some Bishops propose after Absolution all temporal punishments are taken away and others hold that it isn’t, and that what is true falls to what the local Bishop says.

So the doctrine of the Blessed Virgin being free from sin, because it is not a dogma, that they are free to disagree but that the intensity of this belief varies place to place. But from theses quotes what should I believe the Orthodox profess concerning this subject?[/quote]

We dont hold that the Pope is infallible but typically an issue like that, that's written in our doctrine since the beginning isn't up for discussion, so bishops dont waste their time discussing it. What generally happens is that the pope prays about it, his bishops pray about it and everything works out as it should but the Pope is the final authority before God. God obviously is the final authority but he's also put the Pope here to guide us.

Things that cannot be known thou, orthodox generally just leave as "mysteries", such as in communion, at what point does the bread turn into Jesus's body, we don't define that but just leave it to mystery.

Reza

Edited March 11, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Mr.Cat]

Thank you; the next time I am in a discussion about the quotes I will explain that it is a mystery, and maybe they will be more receptive to the theology stating the Blessed Virgin is sinless (or others). That or I can refer them to you in this topic.

[Apotheoun]

Eastern Orthodox theology does not accept the concepts of "merit" and "temporal punishment" that are found in Western (particularly Augustinian) theology. In fact, Byzantine theology had no real contact with Augustinian theological theories in these areas (and in many others as well, e.g., Triadology, Christology, etc.) until the 14th century when many of Augustine's works were finally translated into Greek. Moreover, it is important to note that even after that occurred (i.e., the translation of many of Augustine's writings) Byzantine theology still tended to ignore Augustine's thought, because his ideas did not mesh well with the teachings of the great Eastern Fathers (e.g., St. Athanasios, the Cappadocians, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. John Damascene, St. Gregory Palamas, et al.).

Now, as far as the Holy Theotokos is concerned, Eastern Orthodox Christians do not necessarily deny that she is sinless; instead, they just understand how she was sinless differently, because they do not accept the Augustinian idea that there is a "stain" of sin on the human soul after the ancestral sin of Adam.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

The following extended quotation, which is taken from Fr. John Meyendorff's book [u]Byzantine Theology[/u], explains the Eastern Orthodox understanding of [i]the original sin[/i] of Adam:

[quote]In order to understand many major theological problems, which arose between East and West both before and after the schism, the extraordinary impact upon Western thought of Augustine’s polemics against Pelagius and Julian of Eclanum must be fully taken into account. In the Byzantine world where Augustinian thought exercised practically no influence, the significance of the sin of Adam and of its consequences for mankind was understood along quite different lines.

We have seen that in the East man’s relationship with God was understood as a communion of the human person with that, which is above nature. "Nature" therefore designates that, which is, in virtue of creation, distinct from God. But nature can and must be transcended; this is the privilege and the function of the free mind made "according to God’s image."

Now, in Greek patristic thought, only this free, personal mind can commit sin and incur the concomitant "guilt" — a point made particularly clear by Maximos the Confessor in his distinction between "natural will" and "gnomic will." Human nature as God’s creature always exercises its dynamic properties (which together constitute the "natural will" — a created dynamism) in accordance with the divine will, which creates it. But when the human person, or hypostasis, by rebelling against both God and nature misuses its freedom, it can distort the "natural will" and thus corrupt nature itself. It is able to do so because it possesses freedom, or "gnomic will," which is capable of orienting man toward the good and of "imitating God" ("God alone is good by nature," writes Maximos, "and only God’s imitator is good by his [i]gnome[/i]"); it is also capable of sin because "our salvation depends on our will." But sin is always a personal act and never an act of nature. Patriarch Photios even goes so far as to say, referring to Western doctrines, that the belief in a "sin of nature" is a heresy.

From these basic ideas about the personal character of sin, it is evident that the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God could be conceived only as their personal sin; there would be no place, then, in such an anthropology for the concept of inherited guilt, or for a "sin of nature," although it admits that human nature incurs the consequences of Adam’s sin.

The Greek patristic understanding of man never denies the unity of mankind or replaces it with a radical individualism. The Pauline doctrine of the two Adams ("As in Adam all men die, so also in Christ all are brought to life" [1 Co 15:22]) as well as the Platonic concept of the ideal man leads Gregory of Nyssa to understand Genesis 1:27 — "God created man in His own image" — to refer to the creation of mankind as a whole. It is obvious therefore that the sin of Adam must also be related to all men, just as salvation brought by Christ is salvation for all mankind; but neither original sin nor salvation can be realized in an individual’s life without involving his personal and free responsibility.

The scriptural text, which played a decisive role in the polemics between Augustine and the Pelagians, is found in Romans 5:12 where Paul speaking of Adam writes, "As sin came into the world through one man and through sin, death, so death spread to all men because [i]all men have sinned[/i] [[i]eph ho pantes hemarton[/i]]." In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as [i]in quo omnes peccaverunt[/i] ("in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned"), and this translation was used in the West to justify the doctrine of guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek — the text read, of course, by the Byzantines. The form [i]eph ho[/i] — a contraction of [i]epi[/i] with the relative pronoun [i]ho[/i] — can be translated as "because," a meaning accepted by most modern scholars of all confessional backgrounds. Such a translation renders Paul’s thought to mean that death, which is "the wages of sin" (Romans 6:23) for Adam, is also the punishment applied to those who like him sin. It presupposed a cosmic significance of the sin of Adam, but did not say that his descendants are "guilty" as he was unless they also sinned as he did.

A number of Byzantine authors, including Photios, understood the [i]eph ho[/i] to mean "because" and saw nothing in the Pauline text beyond a moral similarity between Adam and other sinners in death being the normal retribution for sin. But there is also the consensus of the majority of Eastern Fathers, who interpret Romans 5:12 in close connection with 1 Corinthians 15:22 — between Adam and his descendants there is a solidarity [i]in death[/i] just as there is a solidarity [i]in life[/i] between the risen Lord and the baptized. This interpretation comes, obviously, from the literal, grammatical meaning of Romans 5:12. [i]Eph ho[/i], if it means "because," is a neuter pronoun; but it can also be masculine referring to the immediately preceding substantive [i]thanatos[/i] ("death"). The sentence then may have a meaning, which seems improbable to a reader trained in Augustine, but which is indeed the meaning which most Greek Fathers accepted: "As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men; and [i]because of death[/i], all men have sinned..."

Mortality, or "corruption," or simply death (understood in a personalized sense), has indeed been viewed since Christian antiquity as a cosmic disease, which holds humanity under its sway, both spiritually and physically, and is controlled by the one who is "the murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44). It is this death, which makes sin inevitable and in this sense "corrupts" nature.

For Cyril of Alexandria, humanity after the sin of Adam "fell sick of corruption." Cyril’s opponents, the theologians of the School of Antioch, agreed with him on the consequence of Adam’s sin. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, "by becoming mortal, we acquired greater urge to sin." The necessity of satisfying the needs of the body — food, drink, and other bodily needs — are absent in immortal beings; but among mortals, they lead to "passions," for they present unavoidable means of temporary survival. Theodoret of Cyrus repeats almost literally the arguments of Theodore in his own commentary on Romans; elsewhere, he argues against the sinfulness of marriage by affirming that transmission of mortal life is not sinful in itself, in spite of Psalm 51:7 ("my mother conceived me in sin"). This verse, according to Theodoret, refers not to the sexual act but to the general sinful condition of [i]mortal[/i] humanity: "Having become mortal, [Adam and Eve] conceived mortal children, and mortal beings are a necessarily subject to passions and fears, to pleasures and sorrows, to anger and hatred."

There is indeed a consensus in Greek patristic and Byzantine traditions in identifying the inheritance of the Fall as an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than of sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality. The idea appears in Chrysostom, who specifically denies the imputation of sin to the descendants of Adam; in the eleventh-century commentator Theophylact of Ohrida; and in later Byzantine authors, particularly in Gregory Palamas. The always-more-sophisticated Maximos the Confessor, when he speaks of the consequences of the sin of Adam, identifies them mainly with the mind’s submission to the flesh and finds in sexual procreation the most obvious expression of man’s acquiescence in animal instincts; but as we have seen, sin remains, for Maximos, a personal act, and inherited guilt is impossible. For him, as for the others, "the wrong choice made by Adam brought in passion, corruption, and mortality," but not inherited guilt.

The contrast with Western tradition on this point is brought into sharp focus when Eastern authors discuss the meaning of baptism. Augustine’s arguments in favor of infant baptism were taken from the text of the creeds (baptism for "the remission of sins") and from his understanding of Romans 5:12. Children are born sinful, not because they have sinned personally, but because they have sinned "in Adam"; their baptism is therefore also a baptism "for the remission of sins." At the same time, an Eastern contemporary of Augustine’s, Theodoret of Cyrus, flatly denies that the creedal formula "for the remission of sins" is applicable to infant baptism. For Theodoret, in fact, the "remission of sins" is only a side effect of baptism, fully real in cases of adult baptism, which is the norm, of course, in the early Church and which indeed "remits sins." But the principal meaning of baptism is wider and more positive: "If the only meaning of baptism is the remission of sins," writes Theodoret, "why would we baptize the newborn children who have not yet tasted of sin? But the mystery [of baptism] is not limited to this; it is a promise of greater and more perfect gifts. In it, there are the promises of future delights; it is a type of the future resurrection, a communion with the master’s passion, a participation in His resurrection, a mantle of salvation, a tunic of gladness, a garment of light, or rather it is light itself."

Thus, the Church baptizes children not to "remit" their yet nonexistent sins, but in order to give them a new and immortal [i]life[/i], which their mortal parents are unable to communicate to them. The opposition between the two Adams is seen in terms not of guilt and forgiveness but of death and life. "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven; as was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven" (1 Corinthians 15:47-48). Baptism is the paschal mystery, the "passage." All its ancient forms, especially the Byzantine, include a renunciation of Satan, a triple immersion as type of death and resurrection, and the positive gift of new life through anointing and Eucharistic communion.

In this perspective, death and mortality are viewed, not so much as retribution for sin (although they are also a just retribution for personal sins) but as means through which the fundamentally unjust "tyranny" of the devil is exercised over mankind after Adam’s sin. From this, baptism is liberation, because it gives access to the new immortal life brought into the world by Christ’s Resurrection. The Resurrection delivers men from the fear of death and, therefore, also from the necessity of struggling for existence. Only in the light of the risen Lord does the Sermon on the Mount acquire its full realism: "Do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?" (Matthew 6:25).

Communion in the risen body of Christ, participation in divine life, sanctification through the energy of God, which penetrates true humanity and restores it to its "natural" state rather than justification, or remission of inherited guilt, — these are at the center of Byzantine understanding of the Christian Gospel. [Fr. John Meyendorff, [u]Byzantine Theology[/u], (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), pages 143-146][/quote]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1212076' date='Mar 11 2007, 10:54 AM']Thank you; the next time I am in a discussion about the quotes I will explain that it is a mystery, and maybe they will be more receptive to the theology stating the Blessed Virgin is sinless (or others). That or I can refer them to you in this topic.[/quote] What do you mean by "receptive to the theology stating" that St. Mary is sinless? Orthodox don't believe in that and never have, get over it.

Reza

[Mr.Cat]

I quoted four quotes that say otherwise, it just shows your inability to believe Orthodox theology. I also gave you a chance to explain it. Too bad you just showed why you are not Orthodox or how you diverge from that belief.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1212374' date='Mar 11 2007, 08:19 PM']I quoted four quotes that say otherwise, it just shows your inability to believe Orthodox theology. I also gave you a chance to explain it. Too bad you just showed why you are not Orthodox or how you diverge from that belief. [/quote]

I did show you in the other thread, but you got prideful [which is typical] and assumed you were right. I gave a clear example of how orthodox and romans differ in terminology and their definitions, etc but you again assumed that orthodox doctrine said something that it didnt. If you really want to find out what orthodox believe, it would help to not take the approach that they are automically wrong, before even reading their doctrine. Read it from the perspective what the doctrine actually says and actually means, rather then your own assumptions.

Reza

Edited March 12, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Mr.Cat]

"[i]We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain[/i]." This is the Orthodox belief according to Orthodox websites and leaders. I do not automatically presume Orthodox are wrong, I do reflect about what is written and I do even disagree with this statement. But in the other topic you said that she did have the stain of sin and you never once quoted a single source or explained anything (just became offended, something that happens to you a lot it appears).

So I see that it would be easy to accuse me of being prideful, but I dont see how that is when the quotes that I have listed very clearly disagree with you. I already disagree with you on this topic but the bigger issue is, why are the Orthodox disagreeing with you? That is the point and the only point...

But I do not intend on offending you or sounding full of "pride." Although instead of "name calling" how about you either brush it off or show me some evidence. That is my biggest problem with accepting what you say because I know that is what "You think" but in light of the quotes I gave and what I know so far I have a very hard time believing what you say is Orthodox belief.

Like I said in other topics, I have been wrong before and I posted this topic so you could explain or show me how I am misunderstanding. You have always refused to do this...

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1212429' date='Mar 11 2007, 10:17 PM']"[i]We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain[/i]." This is the Orthodox belief according to Orthodox websites and leaders. I do not automatically presume Orthodox are wrong, I do reflect about what is written and I do even disagree with this statement. But in the other topic you said that she did have the stain of sin and you never once quoted a single source or explained anything (just became offended, something that happens to you a lot it appears).[/quote] No see here's the problem, you don't properly define it and put it into the right context ;-) I have quoted numerous sources proclaiming the proper context of your quotes and those of other sources you have quoted. I even quoted an exerp from a book written by an Orthodox Priest, which you shunnned as "bashing the Roman Church".

[quote]So I see that it would be easy to accuse me of being prideful, but I dont see how that is when the quotes that I have listed very clearly disagree with you. I already disagree with you on this topic but the bigger issue is, why are the Orthodox disagreeing with you? That is the point and the only point...[/quote]Because I could post a grip of quotes from Roman Sources "proclaiming something" which could be taken outside of context, etc and you wouldn't like that much but I'd rather attempt to get the full context. Go to any orthodox priest and you'll see that we don't believe in the sinelessness of St. Mary ;-)

[quote]But I do not intend on offending you or sounding full of "pride." Although instead of "name calling" how about you either brush it off or show me some evidence. That is my biggest problem with accepting what you say because I know that is what "You think" but in light of the quotes I gave and what I know so far I have a very hard time believing what you say is Orthodox belief.[/quote] Name calling? I tried to have a good conversation with you but you right off the start didn't like the fact that I wouldn't let the conversation go in your direction and started calling me and the church "schimatic orthodox", now who's calling who names? You're very prideful.

[quote]Like I said in other topics, I have been wrong before and I posted this topic so you could explain or show me how I am misunderstanding. You have always refused to do this... [/quote] No you've always refused to stick to the facts and have resulted to insulting everyone that doesn't believe the same as you, [hence why alot of protestants have left this board and it's no longer interfaith dialog but roman faith dialog]. If you wanna have a real conversation about this, then lets have it but making accuasions, misquoting, taking orthodox writings out of context, is ridiculous.

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

Perhaps you should both apologize to one another. [i]Even if [/i]your statements which were found offensive were not intended to be. Apologize shake hands and move on. Then try to be considerate of what you say, and at the same time try to not take things offensive. In other words bite your tongue and grow some tuff skin.

Edited March 12, 2007 by KnightofChrist