Author Topic: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.  (Read 1519 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Raylight

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,299
  • On this rock I will build my church.
  • Faith: Catholic.
Sometimes finding what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches or believes is a bit complicated, and as always, I'm used to the Roman Catholic way which is the catechism where you can easily find what the Church teaches on certain matters.

What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following:

1) Immaculate Conception.

2) Immaculate Assumption.

3) Original Sin.




« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 10:42:54 PM by Raylight »

Offline William T

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2016, 11:08:43 PM »
Sometimes finding what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches or believes is a bit complicated, and as always, I'm used to the Roman Catholic way which is the catechism where you can easily find what the Church teaches on certain matters.

What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following:

1) Immaculate Conception.

2) Immaculate Assumption.

3) Original Sin.
oversimplification:


1) they don't believe in it.  The Theotokas was conceived naturally by Sts. Johachim and Anna, albeit in typical "prophetic" fashion, they conceived Her very advanced in age.  Their Icon shows them embracing with a bed behind them.  The Orthodox tend to have a different view of see and marriage than the Catholics, this relates a bit to original sin.

2) We celebrate the Dormition of The Theotokas, She died just like Her Son and the rest of us.  The only people who didn't die were Enoch and Elijah, which is why some say that's why they'll come back as the two witnesses, they're human, so maybe they have to die too.

3)It exists, It's different than the Catholics, or at least St. Augustine hopefully someone will get more into this.  I think Pope's Benedict, Francis, and John Paul II really saw no conflicting view of Original Sin, and may be stressing it like we do now.  Either way, this is a long answer.  I'll answer in a day or two, and get more into the other two points later if no one else does.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 11:15:18 PM by William T »
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Offline Raylight

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,299
  • On this rock I will build my church.
  • Faith: Catholic.
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2016, 11:17:47 PM »

1) they don't believe in it.  The Theotokas was conceived naturally by Sts. Johachim and Anna, albeit in typical "prophetic" fashion, they conceived Her very advanced in age.  Their Icon shows them embracing with a bed behind them.  The Orthodox tend to have a different view of see and marriage than the Catholics, this relates a bit to original sin.


As far as I understand the dogma of Immaculate Conception. It is not about if the Theotokos was born of a virgin or not. It is about the Virgin Mary born without the original sin. I don't think Catholic believe that St Anna was virgin when she gave birth to the Holy Mother of God.



2) We celebrate the Dormition of The Theotokas, She died just like Her Son and the rest of us.


What about her body being taken to Heavens?



3)It exists, It's different than the Catholics, or at least St. Augustine hopefully someone will get more into this.  I think Pope's Benedict, Francis, and John Paul II really saw no conflicting view of Original Sin, and may be stressing it like we do now.  Either way, this is a long answer.  I'll answer in a day or two, and get more into the other two points later if no one else does.


Looking forward for your answer. Thank you :)

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,603
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2016, 11:34:45 PM »
Sometimes finding what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches or believes is a bit complicated, and as always, I'm used to the Roman Catholic way which is the catechism where you can easily find what the Church teaches on certain matters.

What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following:

1) Immaculate Conception.

2) Immaculate Assumption.

3) Original Sin.

1) Orthodox Theology does not adhere to the belief of the Immacualte Conception. That she was born normally like any of us, and that she was destined to die like us as well.
  ( The wages of sin is death) St. Paul is quoted as saying "no one is without sin", and if the Blessed Mother was the exception Im sure he would have noted such.
2) Assumption: We believe the Theotokos died and was intered for three days before she was assumed into heaven.  She did experience a real death and she was assumed into heaven through her Son Jesus Christ.
Now, the argument or debate on Original sin goes: If the Virgin Mary was conceived without Original Sin then she never died but was assumed in the heaven body AND soul as is believed by Roman Catholics ergo the Feast of the Assumption.  We, as Orthodox celebrate what is know as the Feast of the Dormition , or the "falling asleep of the Theotokos".
Our Dormition Icons depict Christ holding the Soul of the Theotokos in swaddling clothes as the Virgin Mary lies in repose in the tomb.
3) Original Sin: RCC believes everyone except Christ and the Blessed Mother are born with this "Stain" of sin that has to be erased at Baptism.  We also believe in the "Sin of Adam" as the original sin but we dont look upon it the same way. 
Therefore, if the the Blessed Mother was born as normal as we, she had to die, but if she was born without sin "Immaculate Conception" then she didnt have to die. 
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 11:36:28 PM by JoeS2 »

Offline William T

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2016, 01:57:36 AM »

1) they don't believe in it.  The Theotokas was conceived naturally by Sts. Johachim and Anna, albeit in typical "prophetic" fashion, they conceived Her very advanced in age.  Their Icon shows them embracing with a bed behind them.  The Orthodox tend to have a different view of see and marriage than the Catholics, this relates a bit to original sin.


As far as I understand the dogma of Immaculate Conception. It is not about if the Theotokos was born of a virgin or not. It is about the Virgin Mary born without the original sin. I don't think Catholic believe that St Anna was virgin when she gave birth to the Holy Mother of God.



2) We celebrate the Dormition of The Theotokas, She died just like Her Son and the rest of us.


What about her body being taken to Heavens?



3)It exists, It's different than the Catholics, or at least St. Augustine hopefully someone will get more into this.  I think Pope's Benedict, Francis, and John Paul II really saw no conflicting view of Original Sin, and may be stressing it like we do now.  Either way, this is a long answer.  I'll answer in a day or two, and get more into the other two points later if no one else does.


Looking forward for your answer. Thank you :)

Let me start off by saying that no matter what answer I give you, it's going to be superficial.  I'm just trying to give you the general "flavor" of the way this looks at an Orthodox 101 level (and honestly, I don't think most of us ought be too overly focused on talking about the Immaculate Conception, original sin and Christ's victory on the cross should be our primary thing to talk about if we feel the need to talk). Unfortunately, I'm going to be pitting this off a (perhaps vulgar) Catholic view because based off the way you formulated the questions it's the easiest way for me to convey information.  I'm not trying to be polemic.  Ultimately you can't argue, think, or read your way to Faith so these things should be secondary anyway and merely based off all our experience in The Church (Orthodox or Catholic).

I think with doctrines like the three you brought up and the Filioque, some sympathy can be afforded why they came up.  The West was dealing with different issues in the East and had a different tool kit in some ways.  And as I said, I don't think the last three Pope's see a conflict with standard Eastern formulations, it tends to be the East who has reservations. Still, The Catholic Church has really not been able to officially formulate any of these doctrines to the Orthodox likings. 

What needs clarification this:


The Catholic Church would have to say the Theotokos' conception by her parents was pure and holy, without a need for God extraordinarily to apply “the merits of Christ” to Joachim and Anna’s sexual act of conceiving their daughter in order to free her from “the stain of original sin.”   Clarification is needed that Mary really died and was not assumed bodily into heaven before vanquishing death through her own death, by faith in her Son, Jesus Christ.  So, in Orthodoxy it's affirmed that the Theotokos was Immaculately conceived by her parents, but it required no exceptional act by God to relieve her of the stain of original sin.

Original Sin:

Everyone bears the consequences for the sin of Adam and Eve, most notably we die.  Only they are guilty of that sin, we do not bear their guilt.  If my child were to inherent a genetic disease from me, it's not because she's guilty, it is just the nature of sin and death.  She would bear the consequences, but not the guilt of her ancestors.  So when we get to the Cross, it's not about our Lord satisfying God's honour, or some guilt debt - it's about Christ's Victory over death, the final enemy, by trampling down death by death for His Bride.  It's our duty to figure out how to deal with what we've been dealt.

Once again, perhaps the Catholics believe this too, I'm just giving you the basic "terms" of disagreement in the way I see it.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 02:13:22 AM by William T »
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Offline Rohzek

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 533
    • Shameless Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Orthodox and Postpositivist
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2016, 02:36:23 AM »
Sometimes finding what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches or believes is a bit complicated, and as always, I'm used to the Roman Catholic way which is the catechism where you can easily find what the Church teaches on certain matters.

What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following:

3) Original Sin.

I'll just address the third one. Any Catholic today would probably tell you that they do not understand Original Sin in the fashion that we bear the personal guilt of Adam and Eve's transgression. In accordance to this view, it is not very different if at all from the Orthodox understanding of Ancestral Sin, whereby human nature was damaged but not entirely depraved. However, the Latin West has never held to their current position throughout its history. Aside from the 5th and 6th-century debates with the Pelagians and the Massilians, whom I would argue St. John Cassian was a member of the latter; for almost the entirety of the early Middle Ages, Latin Christians believed as Augustine did (with the possible exception of Bede): that is to say that they believed in predestination. According to Augustine, human nature was so damaged that it could never hope to do good. For all intensive purposes, Free Will did not exist unless God gave grace to the elect. So to speak, only the Elect had Free Will according to Augustine because Free Will itself was a form of grace. Thereby the Elect were saved by God's grace and their own good works enabled by the grace of Free Will, and the wicked were damned according to the merit of their evil deeds (including unbaptised babies because Augustine held them accountable for Original Sin in some sort of fashion). This sort of view remained relatively unchallenged until the 9th-century Gottschalk Controversy, whereby there were some murmurs of dissent, but ultimately Augustine's views were endorsed as final even though Gottschalk was condemned at the same time. We only see a serious challenge beginning with the scholastics. This challenge is most notable in the debates between the leading French theologians (of the emerging scholastics) and Rupert of Deutz, who upheld the traditional Augustinian view. Since then, there has been a back and forth cycle between which position the Catholic Church holds on Original Sin: Augustine's or a more moderate view.

This all seems sort of strange, I know, considering the fact that Augustine is so highly praised in Catholicism, but the Jansenists and Calvinists are somehow heretics that deserve no serious regard. Why the former is not condemned for his errors, but the latter are is something of a historical irony; although I must confess that I am not intimate with the latter two groups, but it is difficult to see how their predestination theologies could differ significantly from Augustine's.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 02:51:52 AM by Rohzek »
"What I have shown you is reality. What you remember, that is the illusion." - Sephiroth from Final Fantasy VII

“Fools have a habit of believing that everything written by a famous author is admirable. For my part I read only to please myself and like only what suits my taste.” - Lord Pococurante in Candide by Voltaire

Check out my new blog: Shameless Orthodoxy Latest Post: The Latin Church: Merovingians to the Hildebrand Popes

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 322
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
  • Faith: Orthodox inquirer
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2016, 08:10:13 AM »
Clarification is needed that Mary really died and was not assumed bodily into heaven before vanquishing death through her own death, by faith in her Son, Jesus Christ.

If you read the bull Munificentissimus Deus of Pius XII (1950) which dogmatized the Assumption, it is clear that the belief of the Church has been that Mary died. The pope cites the Gregorian Sacramentary (a 1st-century Missal, more or less) as giving this antiphon: "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." The confusion among Catholics about whether she died is due to (1) unrestricted speculation on the part of some, and (2) in the papal bull, at the actual definition, Pope Pius did not use the word "died," but instead said, "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." Reading that out of context might give the impression that her death is an open question, but the thrust of the bull seems to say she died, even though that is not really the object of the bull.
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,574
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2016, 10:08:20 AM »
Your #1 is tied to your #3: Immaculate Conception simply means she was conceived without Original Sin.

Immaculate Assumption simply means her BODY went to Heaven; RC Church does not definitively state that she died, though it is a valid position.
I've only found Orthodoxy pointing in that direction, just not explicitly stating so; my mileage does vary as I've read little Orthodox theology (proudly and foolishly so).

As to Original Sin; St. Augustine came up with that, while the Orthodox write of Ancestral Sin.

IOW: aside from the foolishness of men, there's not a whole heck of a lot of difference, IMNSHO.
But we make smart-aching-monkey sounds at each other all the same.  :D
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,059
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2016, 10:20:23 AM »
The immaculate conception has historically been accepted in some form by Orthodox Christians.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Delusional Overlord
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,911
  • And the cat is back again.
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2016, 10:24:17 AM »
As others have said, we believe in Original Sin, but what we mean by the term is different than what it meant by the term in Western Christianity. In Orthodoxy, it is frequently referred to as Ancestral Sin.
The term planet earth is an innovation which has arisen in recent centuries with the error of heliocentrism.

If one wants to confess a pure doctrine of Orthodoxy, they should be careful not to refer to the earth as a planet, unlike the current Pope as well as Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew, who regularly speak in error when they refer to our planet earth.

Offline Clemente

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 390
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2016, 10:31:46 AM »
The immaculate conception has historically been mistakenly accepted in some form by some Orthodox Christians.
...who have a poor understanding of either the Immaculate Conception or Orthodoxy.

Offline seekeroftruth777

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,505
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2016, 10:39:06 AM »
You know this question been on my mind a lot lately, What is the Orthodox view of te assumption, I was confused by the riest at the Greek Church about it, he made it sound like te Orthodox believe in the Dormition of the Theotokos, but not the Assumption of her. Is this correct?

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,750
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2016, 01:03:17 PM »
You know this question been on my mind a lot lately, What is the Orthodox view of te assumption, I was confused by the riest at the Greek Church about it, he made it sound like te Orthodox believe in the Dormition of the Theotokos, but not the Assumption of her. Is this correct?

No. JoeS2 has it correct above. She was assumed on the third day.  Otherwise, there would not be so many Assumption Orthodox Churches around.

Offline Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,059
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2016, 01:18:04 PM »
The immaculate conception has historically been mistakenly accepted in some form by some Orthodox Christians.
...who have a poor understanding of either the Immaculate Conception or Orthodoxy.

Once you move beyond the revisionist polemics and sloganeering, things look very different.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church/
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 01:20:35 PM by Iconodule »

Offline Clemente

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 390
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2016, 01:26:31 PM »
The immaculate conception has historically been mistakenly accepted in some form by some Orthodox Christians.
...who have a poor understanding of either the Immaculate Conception or Orthodoxy.

Once you move beyond the revisionist polemics and sloganeering, things look very different.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church/

Very aware of his arguments. And his arguments in favour of universalism. He is an ex RC and hardly mainstream Orthodoxy, by his own admission.

Offline Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,059
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2016, 01:29:11 PM »
The immaculate conception has historically been mistakenly accepted in some form by some Orthodox Christians.
...who have a poor understanding of either the Immaculate Conception or Orthodoxy.

Once you move beyond the revisionist polemics and sloganeering, things look very different.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church/

Very aware of his arguments. And his arguments in favour of universalism. He is an ex RC and hardly mainstream Orthodoxy, by his own admission.

Irrelevant.

Offline Clemente

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 390
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2016, 01:44:50 PM »
The immaculate conception has historically been mistakenly accepted in some form by some Orthodox Christians.
...who have a poor understanding of either the Immaculate Conception or Orthodoxy.

Once you move beyond the revisionist polemics and sloganeering, things look very different.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church/

Very aware of his arguments. And his arguments in favour of universalism. He is an ex RC and hardly mainstream Orthodoxy, by his own admission.

Irrelevant.
Highly relevant if we want to "move beyond revisionist polemics" as you suggest, since he is by his own admission revisionist and polemical:
Quote
Not only has my comprehension of the Orthodox faith been strongly influenced by Eastern theologians regarded as suspect by traditional Orthodox, but it continues to be influenced by the Western theologians

Or is now universalism considered mainstream here at OC.net?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 01:46:04 PM by Clemente »

Offline seekeroftruth777

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,505
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2016, 02:11:17 PM »
You know this question been on my mind a lot lately, What is the Orthodox view of te assumption, I was confused by the riest at the Greek Church about it, he made it sound like te Orthodox believe in the Dormition of the Theotokos, but not the Assumption of her. Is this correct?

No. JoeS2 has it correct above. She was assumed on the third day.  Otherwise, there would not be so many Assumption Orthodox Churches around.

K thanks Opus118, and thanks Joe, that's a clear explaination for me.

Offline christiane777

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 286
  • I do not think on thee – I am too near thee.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: God
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2016, 02:12:34 PM »

1) they don't believe in it.  The Theotokas was conceived naturally by Sts. Johachim and Anna, albeit in typical "prophetic" fashion, they conceived Her very advanced in age.  Their Icon shows them embracing with a bed behind them.  The Orthodox tend to have a different view of see and marriage than the Catholics, this relates a bit to original sin.


As far as I understand the dogma of Immaculate Conception. It is not about if the Theotokos was born of a virgin or not. It is about the Virgin Mary born without the original sin. I don't think Catholic believe that St Anna was virgin when she gave birth to the Holy Mother of God.



2) We celebrate the Dormition of The Theotokas, She died just like Her Son and the rest of us.


What about her body being taken to Heavens?



3)It exists, It's different than the Catholics, or at least St. Augustine hopefully someone will get more into this.  I think Pope's Benedict, Francis, and John Paul II really saw no conflicting view of Original Sin, and may be stressing it like we do now.  Either way, this is a long answer.  I'll answer in a day or two, and get more into the other two points later if no one else does.


Looking forward for your answer. Thank you :)

Re bold - correct.  This is a common misunderstanding.  (One I had actually myself before returning to the Catholic Church.)
 
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

I know the Orthodox and Catholics differ on these issues, but I myself have never had a problem embracing the Catholic view - it doesn't ruffle my feathers if I am told to believe Mary was conceived without original sin.  Not going to march out of the Church about it in a state of grave offense....ditto the other two.
The face of all of the world is changed, I think,
Since I first heard the footsteps of thy soul
Move still, oh, still beside me -

Offline Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,059
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2016, 02:30:37 PM »
The immaculate conception has historically been mistakenly accepted in some form by some Orthodox Christians.
...who have a poor understanding of either the Immaculate Conception or Orthodoxy.

Once you move beyond the revisionist polemics and sloganeering, things look very different.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church/

Very aware of his arguments. And his arguments in favour of universalism. He is an ex RC and hardly mainstream Orthodoxy, by his own admission.

Irrelevant.
Highly relevant if we want to "move beyond revisionist polemics" as you suggest, since he is by his own admission revisionist and polemical:
Quote
Not only has my comprehension of the Orthodox faith been strongly influenced by Eastern theologians regarded as suspect by traditional Orthodox, but it continues to be influenced by the Western theologians

Or is now universalism considered mainstream here at OC.net?

None of which has anything to do with the article's contents.

Offline William T

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2016, 02:34:22 PM »
Sometimes finding what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches or believes is a bit complicated, and as always, I'm used to the Roman Catholic way which is the catechism where you can easily find what the Church teaches on certain matters.

What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following:

3) Original Sin.



This all seems sort of strange, I know, considering the fact that Augustine is so highly praised in Catholicism, but the Jansenists and Calvinists are somehow heretics that deserve no serious regard. Why the former is not condemned for his errors, but the latter are is something of a historical irony; although I must confess that I am not intimate with the latter two groups, but it is difficult to see how their predestination theologies could differ significantly from Augustine's.

Everyone makes errors, sometimes with major consequences.  This is no big deal.  St. Augustin was right in a lot 8th things, and wrong in a few.  What matters is the way he made errors, it wasn't in a heretical way.  It may be a better comparison to ask why St. Augustin is accepted and Origen is not.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Offline christiane777

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 286
  • I do not think on thee – I am too near thee.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: God
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2016, 02:42:23 PM »
Whoa.  The Jansenists and the Calvinists in the same sentence?

Please.  I quite admire the Jansenists and feel they were given a raw deal.  In my mind, they were good Augustinian Catholics.

As they say, it is a fine line between a saint and a heretic.
The face of all of the world is changed, I think,
Since I first heard the footsteps of thy soul
Move still, oh, still beside me -

Offline Clemente

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 390
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2016, 03:03:30 PM »
The immaculate conception has historically been mistakenly accepted in some form by some Orthodox Christians.
...who have a poor understanding of either the Immaculate Conception or Orthodoxy.

Once you move beyond the revisionist polemics and sloganeering, things look very different.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church/

Very aware of his arguments. And his arguments in favour of universalism. He is an ex RC and hardly mainstream Orthodoxy, by his own admission.

Irrelevant.
Highly relevant if we want to "move beyond revisionist polemics" as you suggest, since he is by his own admission revisionist and polemical:
Quote
Not only has my comprehension of the Orthodox faith been strongly influenced by Eastern theologians regarded as suspect by traditional Orthodox, but it continues to be influenced by the Western theologians

Or is now universalism considered mainstream here at OC.net?

None of which has anything to do with the article's contents.
It has everything to do with its contents, because they were written by a self admitted polemicist and revisionist.

Can you cite a more mainstream source that shares his opinion? Otherwise, your argument would seem self-defeating.

Offline Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,059
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2016, 03:09:35 PM »
The immaculate conception has historically been mistakenly accepted in some form by some Orthodox Christians.
...who have a poor understanding of either the Immaculate Conception or Orthodoxy.

Once you move beyond the revisionist polemics and sloganeering, things look very different.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church/

Very aware of his arguments. And his arguments in favour of universalism. He is an ex RC and hardly mainstream Orthodoxy, by his own admission.

Irrelevant.
Highly relevant if we want to "move beyond revisionist polemics" as you suggest, since he is by his own admission revisionist and polemical:
Quote
Not only has my comprehension of the Orthodox faith been strongly influenced by Eastern theologians regarded as suspect by traditional Orthodox, but it continues to be influenced by the Western theologians

Or is now universalism considered mainstream here at OC.net?

None of which has anything to do with the article's contents.
It has everything to do with its contents, because they were written by a self admitted polemicist and revisionist.

Can you cite a more mainstream source that shares his opinion? Otherwise, your argument would seem self-defeating.

I see you want to continue to avoid the inconvenient contents of the article by attacking the host (the author is Fr. Lev Gillet, BTW).

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,707
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2016, 03:12:33 PM »
The immaculate conception has historically been mistakenly accepted in some form by some Orthodox Christians.
...who have a poor understanding of either the Immaculate Conception or Orthodoxy.

Once you move beyond the revisionist polemics and sloganeering, things look very different.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church/

Very aware of his arguments. And his arguments in favour of universalism. He is an ex RC and hardly mainstream Orthodoxy, by his own admission.

Irrelevant.
Highly relevant if we want to "move beyond revisionist polemics" as you suggest, since he is by his own admission revisionist and polemical:
Quote
Not only has my comprehension of the Orthodox faith been strongly influenced by Eastern theologians regarded as suspect by traditional Orthodox, but it continues to be influenced by the Western theologians

Or is now universalism considered mainstream here at OC.net?

Fr. Aiden is revisionist, but I don't see what makes him polemic (at least not in the sense that Iconodule is using the word). Fr. Aiden seems like a pretty irenic writer to me.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 03:17:12 PM by Volnutt »
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline William T

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2016, 03:16:34 PM »
Whoa.  The Jansenists and the Calvinists in the same sentence?

Please.  I quite admire the Jansenists and feel they were given a raw deal.  In my mind, they were good Augustinian Catholics.

As they say, it is a fine line between a saint and a heretic.


I've only read about them and am used to seeing them compared to Calvinists.  They seem to represent a kind of odd look at sin and flesh that you see crop up from time to time when groups take some of St. Augustine's teaching to an extreme.  I really have no clue if that's what they taught, or if their views are being represented accurately, I'm just saying they tend to get grouped in with Calvinists.  My Catholic teachers (Oblates) said the same thing in one of my classes.  Maybe they're just useful to caricature when talking about ways in which some Christians can make mistakes when viewing the body...sort of like how Origen may be useful to talk about excessive allegory.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 03:18:57 PM by William T »
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Offline Clemente

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 390
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #26 on: January 13, 2016, 03:35:55 PM »
The immaculate conception has historically been mistakenly accepted in some form by some Orthodox Christians.
...who have a poor understanding of either the Immaculate Conception or Orthodoxy.

Once you move beyond the revisionist polemics and sloganeering, things look very different.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church/

Very aware of his arguments. And his arguments in favour of universalism. He is an ex RC and hardly mainstream Orthodoxy, by his own admission.

Irrelevant.
Highly relevant if we want to "move beyond revisionist polemics" as you suggest, since he is by his own admission revisionist and polemical:
Quote
Not only has my comprehension of the Orthodox faith been strongly influenced by Eastern theologians regarded as suspect by traditional Orthodox, but it continues to be influenced by the Western theologians

Or is now universalism considered mainstream here at OC.net?

None of which has anything to do with the article's contents.
It has everything to do with its contents, because they were written by a self admitted polemicist and revisionist.

Can you cite a more mainstream source that shares his opinion? Otherwise, your argument would seem self-defeating.

I see you want to continue to avoid the inconvenient contents of the article by attacking the host (the author is Fr. Lev Gillet, BTW).

The "inconvenient contents" are hardly inconvenient if they come from a source that is polemical and revisionist. You've got an unreliable witness for your case. You said you want to get beyond revisionism, yet you source a website whose raison d'etre appears to be exactly this. That doesn't necessarily mean that Father Kimel is wrong about everything, but one can reasonably conclude that he is suspect when he holds other "eclectic" views.

The author, Father Gillet, another ex RC, by his own admission, states: "First, it is an undeniable fact that the great majority of the members of the Orthodox Church did not admit the dogma of the Immaculate Conception".

Saint John Maximovitch warned against the teachings of the Immaculate Conception and the hypertrophy of the Theotokos being advanced by Sergius Bulgakov (another polemical figure whom Father Kimel also esteems): http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/print73378.htm. St. John Maximovitch is generally not considered "revisionist" or "polemical".

Again, can you provide any mainstream Orthodox author who argues for the Immaculate Conception?


Offline Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,059
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #27 on: January 13, 2016, 03:47:17 PM »
The "inconvenient contents" are hardly inconvenient if they come from a source that is polemical and revisionist. You've got an unreliable witness for your case. You said you want to get beyond revisionism, yet you source a website whose raison d'etre appears to be exactly this.

In this particular instance, the revisionism is from those who currently argue against the immaculate conception as inconsistent with Orthodox tradition (using, curiously, arguments lifted from Aquinas).

 
Quote
The author, Father Gillet, another ex RC, by his own admission, states: "First, it is an undeniable fact that the great majority of the members of the Orthodox Church did not admit the dogma of the Immaculate Conception".

You left out "...as it was defined by Pius IX in 1854." Nice try. Well, at least I got you to at least look at the article.

Quote
Saint John Maximovitch warned against the teachings of the Immaculate Conception and the hypertrophy of the Theotokos being advanced by Sergius Bulgakov (another polemical figure whom Father Kimel also esteems): http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/print73378.htm. St. John Maximovitch is generally not considered "revisionist" or "polemical".

He certainly is revisionist in his assessment of this particular question. Note that his article against the immaculate conception relies on Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux. His discussion of the sinlessless of the Theotokos puts him into conflict with St. Gregory Palamas.

Quote
Again, can you provide any mainstream Orthodox author who argues for the Immaculate Conception?

Saint Dmitri of Rostov, Saint Gennadius Scholarius, Saint Gregory Palamas.

Offline Clemente

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 390
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2016, 04:35:54 PM »
The "inconvenient contents" are hardly inconvenient if they come from a source that is polemical and revisionist. You've got an unreliable witness for your case. You said you want to get beyond revisionism, yet you source a website whose raison d'etre appears to be exactly this.

In this particular instance, the revisionism is from those who currently argue against the immaculate conception as inconsistent with Orthodox tradition (using, curiously, arguments lifted from Aquinas).

 
Quote
The author, Father Gillet, another ex RC, by his own admission, states: "First, it is an undeniable fact that the great majority of the members of the Orthodox Church did not admit the dogma of the Immaculate Conception".

You left out "...as it was defined by Pius IX in 1854." Nice try. Well, at least I got you to at least look at the article.

Quote
Saint John Maximovitch warned against the teachings of the Immaculate Conception and the hypertrophy of the Theotokos being advanced by Sergius Bulgakov (another polemical figure whom Father Kimel also esteems): http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/print73378.htm. St. John Maximovitch is generally not considered "revisionist" or "polemical".

He certainly is revisionist in his assessment of this particular question. Note that his article against the immaculate conception relies on Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux. His discussion of the sinlessless of the Theotokos puts him into conflict with St. Gregory Palamas.

Quote
Again, can you provide any mainstream Orthodox author who argues for the Immaculate Conception?

Saint Dmitri of Rostov, Saint Gennadius Scholarius, Saint Gregory Palamas.

I left out "as it was defined by Pius IX in 1854" because that is the only time it has been defined! That is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the RC church.

I have read that article and Fr Kimel's "eclectic" views long before your citing them here.

If you would like to try to stick the square peg of the traditional Orthodox veneration of the Theotokos into that round peg of the 19th dogma of the Immaculate Conception as defined by the RC, proving names such as St. Gregory Palamas (without citation) who predate that dogma by five centuries, you are required to do some interesting ecumenical gymnastics. You can redefine the IC or redefine the traditional Orthodox view of the Theotokos.

But what you are doing is necessarily revisionism--you are redefining the IC to find consonance with Orthodox thought--precisely that which you ostensibly vilify.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,707
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2016, 04:53:29 PM »
I think this is getting into a semantic grey area. It's like asking if Orthodoxy teaches predestination- yes but not in the sense that Calvin uses the term. Do Orthodox believe in the Trinity? Yes, but not in the sense that Mormonism uses the term.

I don't see anything wrong with that. I also don't think that Iconodule is just trying to minimize the differences between the the RCC and the EOC as you seem to be accusing him of.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 04:55:32 PM by Volnutt »
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline Clemente

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 390
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2016, 10:36:46 AM »
I also don't think that Iconodule is just trying to minimize the differences between the the RCC and the EOC as you seem to be accusing him of.

And yet, this is precisely what the two ex Roman Catholics cited, namely Fr. Gillet and Fr. Kimel, are seeking to do. Fr. Gillet spent his life working for reunion of the two churches and Fr. Kimel admits he is heavily influenced by Roman Catholics and this puts him outside of mainstream Orthodoxy.

So what? I have no problem with their ecumenical influences and intentions (my wife is RC).

But let's be honest about it.

Let's not whitewash the differences or pretend that we all mean the same things about the Immaculate Conception with different words, when we do not, as Father John Maximovitch rightly points out.

And please, don't call the mainstream Orthodox view of the Roman Catholic dogma of the IC "polemical" or "revisionist" without any substantial evidence to support that assertion.


Offline Raylight

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,299
  • On this rock I will build my church.
  • Faith: Catholic.
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2016, 11:28:12 AM »
Very interesting responses, It will take some quality time for me to read them thoroughly :)

Offline gavaisky

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2016, 10:48:27 PM »
Sometimes finding what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches or believes is a bit complicated, and as always, I'm used to the Roman Catholic way which is the catechism where you can easily find what the Church teaches on certain matters.

What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following:

1) Immaculate Conception.

2) Immaculate Assumption.

3) Original Sin.

I’d like to make a contribution about the Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX, in his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, defined the dogma in this manner:

Quote
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

In other words, according to Pope Pius, the Theotokos has a prelapsarian human nature from her conception. She was not touched in any way by the original sin (the original Latin states, “ ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem”). However, according to our own liturgical tradition, as stated in the Octoechos, Christ received our corrupted human nature from His Mother:

Quote
From your womb, O all-blameless, the Incorruptible took our unstable mortal nature and through his compassion revealed it as stable in himself; and so as Mother of God we magnify you. Sunday Octoechos, 4th Tone, Canon to the Theotokos 9th Ode

Note the paradox: Christ receives our fallen nature from His Immaculate Mother. If the Roman doctrine were correct, how could Our Lady pass on a fallen human nature if she never had a fallen nature in the first place? But we confess that although she inherited the corruption and mortality common to human nature, she herself was blameless and fulfilled all righteousness as was possible before the Incarnation.

For further reading, I suggest reading The Mariology of [St.] Nicholas Cabasilas.

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,603
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: What is the Eastern Orthodox Church's stance on the following.
« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2016, 09:32:14 PM »
You know this question been on my mind a lot lately, What is the Orthodox view of te assumption, I was confused by the riest at the Greek Church about it, he made it sound like te Orthodox believe in the Dormition of the Theotokos, but not the Assumption of her. Is this correct?

No. JoeS2 has it correct above. She was assumed on the third day.  Otherwise, there would not be so many Assumption Orthodox Churches around.

Something else to consider as well, if she was not assumed into heaven , as chief and most important of all the Saints, we and the RCC would surely have pieces of bone or fragments of her body as relics somewhere.  Yes, tradition has it that the cloth she wore was left behind but thats all of her earthly being we have.  We  have fragments of bone of St. John the Baptist (second in importance) and so on but WHY not the blessed Mother?   Something to ponder.