Candace Owens posts from ‘unbelievably beautiful’ Moscow (PHOTOS)
That is a great question Jeffery, and a great way to frame the question. The framing of the question is completely Western. NOTHING wrong with that! :-) But it reveals the nature of the Western approach to theology - burrowing down everything to a yes-or-no question.
- The Greek/Eastern approach is to get close to the holiness of God and then stop and say "this and that I know, beyond that it is a mystery of God." That would be the approach to the sinlessness on holy Mary the mother of God, that she was always sinless, this we know absolutely. How God accomplished this we don't know.
- By deduction we would clearly answer your question, did Mary "inherit the trait of original sin?" - no, she couldn't have or else she wouldn't be the Immaculate one.
- That is why even though the Greek/Byzantine feast is for the Conception of Anna (i.e. conception by Anna of blessed Mary) rather than the feast of the Immaculate Conception. It is an Eastern feast for a long long time. But even though the language and approach to the question is different in the East - while arriving at the same understanding that Mary was sinless and immaculate - some Greek Catholic churches even bear the title of Immaculate Conception parish (eg: Home - The Conception of the Immaculate Mother … ).
- There is a difference in approach to theology West/East and it is complementary.
Candace Owens posts from ‘unbelievably beautiful’ Moscow (PHOTOS)
Jeffery, you asked for a citation, but a citation was already given. It is in a book, not an internet link - real scholarship, old school style. I suspect that for your citation you asked an AI tool to find you a quote from the Orthodox that matches your position, because I have never heard of Met. Vlachos and his statement (if the text in that web link can be trusted). Vlachos's isn't a majority position among the Orthodox.
- Please try using your AI tool and search the opposite - "Orthodox teaching on the sinlessness of Mary." There you will likely find a more complete result.
- BUT! Your quote brings up a major defect in Orthodox ecclesiology - that they don't have a central magisterium. It is possible to get different views from different theologians.
- My point in the first place was to be careful to not broad-brush ALL Orthodox with a statement that is condemned by MOST of their theologians throughout all times.
- Here is an analogy of why we want to be careful to accurately classify differences. Hypothetical situation: What if we told everybody that Mormons believe that they ascend to their (alleged) planets on Martian UFO's? They teach that they get their own planets, but not via UFO's, right? If we say that it is by UFO's, then we Catholics lose credibility in our proclamation of what IS the truth and Who is the Way, TRUTH, and the LIFE. We can point out the errors of Mormons personal diety/planet system all day long. But if we are to be credible, we need to represent their belief system accurately.
- If we circle back to the Orthodox position on the sinlessness of Mary, we need to understand that their position is rooted in a different understanding of original sin, not in a different understanding of the sinlessness of Mary. In a nutshell, the Byzantine position of original sin is that it is an inherited trait, whereas the Western position is that original sin is basically a stain on the soul handed down from generation. Again Mary as Immaculate is proclaimed over and over and over in every sacrament and liturgical service in the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic rites. "Immaculate" in context reference only has one meaning - the universal Catholic meaning.
- If we stick to understanding the real differences in theology we will build the bridges that will help us all to be united in the single magesterium because we are then united in Christ our Head
Candace Owens posts from ‘unbelievably beautiful’ Moscow (PHOTOS)
Jeffery, with all due respect, you are incorrect. You are getting your information from people who hate the Orthodox. In essence you are, without realizing it, doing the same thing that Jack Chick's Protestant "Tracts" due to us Catholics.
I'll give you one example from a well respected Russian Orthodox theologian, Vladimir Lossky. From his 'The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church' page 140 he addresses the Roman Catholic formula of the definition of Mary's Immaculate Conception. Lossky writes: "Nevertheless, sin acting as a force in her nature, and as impurity, find no place in her." This and the context of the paragraph where it appears are unambiguous - no sin in the Holy Theotokos before, during, or after her holy earthly life.
Please read first hand sources to confirm this from any legitimate Eastern theologian. God's peace be with you!
Candace Owens posts from ‘unbelievably beautiful’ Moscow (PHOTOS)
You are completely incorrect. The Russian Orthodox have the same teaching that the Theotokos is Immaculate that, all of us Byzantine Catholics have.
They have a different way of arriving at that definition than you do, but three times in every Divine Liturgy (Mass), and during every vespers they call Mary 'our most Holy and Immaculate, most blessed and glorious Lady, the Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary...' the same as we do in the Byzantine Catholic church.
I don't recall hearing Mary proclaimed as Immaculate the last time I was at Mass (new or old).
Please be accurate - Jesus prayed that "all be one" we do that by learning about each other, not with pitch-forks.
In fact, the Russian Orthodox share the exact same use of the term Immaculate for Mary, that St Thomas Aquinas and St Catherine of Sienna preferred.
Greek Catholic Uniates in Hungary Removed the Filioque in September
'Forward' - that was a very thoughtful response and full of facts. I appreciate it. Urget nos
Greek Catholic Uniates in Hungary Removed the Filioque in September
The original form of the Creed does not have the Filioque. Just a reminder - the Creed that is recited as the Nicaean Creed is actually the Nicaean-Constantinopolitan Creed. It was formulated at the 1st General Council in Nicaea in the year 325 and then updated to the modern usage at the 2nd General Council known as 1st Constantinople in the year 381. Look up both versions - they are very different from each other.
The 381 Creed can be read in full here in English translation: CHURCH FATHERS: First Council of Constantinople … You will notice that it is very familiar, but in the original form it does not have the Filioque (proceeds from the Son).
Do a double take on that. Common Roman Catholic thought these days is that the Filioque is necessary. But including the Filioque is not what the General Council (which was an authoritative body of the assembled Church in a decision in union with the Pope of Rome) established.
Remember from our Church history that the first use of the Filioque began to come slowly into usage in Spain a couple hundred years later. It is a Western addition, and it was not universally adopted for the next 400 years.
To call the Creed without the Filioque 'heresy' is to call all of the bishops, West and East, in 381 heretics. That isn't someplace that we want to go, because the Holy Spirit is the author of the Magesterium.