Catholics and "the Sacred Heart of Mary"

[zippy2006]

One of the important hurdles to an Orthodox agreemement with the IC involves the nature of Original Sin, and why the Theotokos needed to be preserved from it, and what that means for the flesh that Christ took from her.

As St. Athanasius is often quoted, "What has not been assumed has not been healed." If the Virgin Mary did not have the SAME flesh as the rest of mankind, but was somehow elevated, then did Christ really take on HUMAN flesh? And would we have redemption?

These questions are more at the heart of the issue. Yes, the Virgin Mary was subject to death. We observe the Dormition every year in August. The flesh Christ took from her was the same flesh as the rest of mankind. He is fully man, as well as fully God. Not a Demi-God of some kind in the flesh.

It seems that for Orthodox the question is not whether the Virgin was Immaculate but rather when the Virgin was Immaculate. For example, consider a 2004 interview with Patriarch Bartholomew I:

Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. 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.​

So according to Bartholomew, Mary was just as immaculate at Jesus' conception as Catholics believe she was from the moment of her conception. This would presumably pose the same problem to Orthodox that you pose to Catholics.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It's true that Catholics often seek unity and Orthodox are more apt to point out differences. What I have commonly noticed among Orthodox is a certain bitterness or resentfulness towards the Catholic Church. Perhaps it is due to the sacking of Constantinople, the claims of Papal Primacy, or the Westernization of Christianity that "left out" the East. In any case, there are a number of things that will cause many Orthodox to almost rejoice in this bitter attitude; some include Papal pronouncements, Scholasticism or Latinization, or talk of Original Sin. It's not just that Orthodox disagree with Augustine on Original Sin or with scholastic Tridentine formulations, but they take some kind of strange communal joy in their disagreement. This sort of culture of despising Catholicism seems to drive some divergences and color many more. It also leads to a lock-down mentality where historical deviations from current Orthodox teaching on, say, the Immaculate Conception or Papal Primacy are ignored or papered over at all expenses. I find it frustrating and unhealthy.

I don't mean to sound dour. I know there are plenty of Orthodox who would not meet this stereotype, and I have even met a healthy number of them, but dialogue often seems to be an uphill battle.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else.

I have purposely remained as ignorant as possible about some negative events in history (yes, nearly all relating to the Catholic Church) because in the grand scheme of things, I don't see past mistakes in behavior as relevant today and wished not to become prejudiced or jaded. And the idea of resenting Catholicism for Christianizibg the west without Orthodoxy never entered my mind. Perhaps some might be upset on those kinds of grounds, but I tend to doubt it - I started to say that I've never heard of it but I have heard comment a couple of times regarding things stolen from Constantinople that Rome retains. Be that as it may, I really, really doubt there is any widespread animosity on these counts.

Papal supremacy isn't something we resent. It's something we regard as an invention, and a change regarding the true honor of Rome, which was a place of honor and had some procedural rights and responsibilities. But we just do not see overarching authority of Rome in the Scriptures, the early workings of the Church, the Ecumenical Councils, etc. There is at least one early Pope of Rome who spoke out against it in harsher terms than I care to repeat. We don't resent it. We just cannot accept a change in Church governance.

It seems that for Orthodox the question is not whether the Virgin was Immaculate but rather when the Virgin was Immaculate. For example, consider a 2004 interview with Patriarch Bartholomew I:

Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. 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.​

So according to Bartholomew, Mary was just as immaculate at Jesus' conception as Catholics believe she was from the moment of her conception. This would presumably pose the same problem to Orthodox that you pose to Catholics.

Im not going to be the best person to explain this, but I think the way to understand is to ask WHY the Virgin Mary needs to be immaculate *from her conception* in order to be the bearer of Christ?

It is in the nuances of the doctrine of Original Sin that I think that becomes apparent.

The issue for Catholics is that it is needful for the Theotokos to be preserved from ORIGINAL SIN, correct? And what one "inherits" along with that?

We don't see the effects of sin on mankind in the fall in quite the same way, I think.

If the Theotokos was purified by/at/before the conception of Christ, this is not the same as saying that she must not inherit the human condition as part of her birth.

Also, she needed a Savior as much as any of us, and she was still subject to death, as all humankind are.

If I were to flip the question, do you think Catholics would willingly accept the Orthodox position, as a step toward reunification? (I'm not asking in a mean or sarcastic way, I am genuinely curious if you think the details as taught by the Catholic Church matter to that degree?)

 

[All4Christ]

Honestly, the difference boils down to our beliefs on Original sin. The Immaculate Conception is based on the Western view of Original sin, and thus is unnecessary in the Eastern view, removes the belief that Mary was just like you and me, and is potentially misleading. Study the Eastern and Eastern Fathers opinions on Original sin, and you may understand the conflict.

This is from the CCC

The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

A hard battle. . .

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails "captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil".298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.

408 The consequences of original sin and of all men's personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John's expression, "the sin of the world".300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men's sins.301

409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"302 makes man's life a battle:



The whole of man's history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God's grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.303

There are multiple portions of this quote with which we Orthodox cannot agree. If we agreed with this, then perhaps the Immaculate conception would be necessary. However, as I said, it is unnecessary in the Eastern view, removes the belief that Mary was just like you and me (which is part of our soteriology), and is potentially misleading.

That said, I would request that you don't tell us what we believe and what our Church teaches. It is frustrating when people tell us our Church believes something different than what our Church teaches and has always taught. Even if you believe we are wrong, respect that we aren't ignorant on the history of our faith and the current beliefs of our faith.

 

[tz620q]

Honestly, the difference boils down to our beliefs on Original sin. The Immaculate Conception is based on the Western view of Original sin, and thus is unnecessary in the Eastern view, removes the belief that Mary was just like you and me, and is potentially misleading. Study the Eastern and Eastern Fathers opinions on Original sin, and you may understand the conflict.

This is from the CCC



There are multiple portions of this quote with which we Orthodox cannot agree. If we agreed with this, then perhaps the Immaculate conception would be necessary. However, as I said, it is unnecessary in the Eastern view, removes the belief that Mary was just like you and me (which is part of our soteriology), and is potentially misleading.

That said, I would request that you don't tell us what we believe and what our Church teaches. It is frustrating when people tell us our Church believes something different than what our Church teaches and has always taught. Even if you believe we are wrong, respect that we aren't ignorant on the history of our faith and the current beliefs of our faith.

I will not try to tell you what you believe; but if I asked you for a detailed explanation of the Orthodox position on Original Sin would I be able to find it as easily as you just found the section in the CCC. When I have asked about this in the past, the dialogue doesn't progress much farther than "We don't believe in original sin.", before I start pointing out that the Catholic position of Adam being changed from his original pristine sinlessness by sin that warped the very nature of humanity. It is this fallen human nature that is transmitted, not the guilt of Adam's sin. I have found many Orthodox believers who express this in the exact same words. So it is difficult for me to grasp the true differences that you refer to.

The whole section on Mary not being fully human because she was born immaculately seems to ignore that God originally created humans in just such a pristine state. So Christ could become human from a sinless mother and still assume humanity. As far as Christ not being able to assume our sin unless he somehow was born with the stain of Adam's sin, that seems to be a self-refuting argument from the Orthodox prospective. Christ seemed perfectly able to assume all of our sins without himself actually sinning, so I see no need for him to be born into a fallen human nature. Once we have accepted that Christ was from birth a restored human without Adam's warped nature, we can actually debate the merit of the Immaculate Conception as being necessary to accomplish this or merely a worthy belief of God's prevenient grace. Or maybe there is a position that I have not seen or a difference that I can learn about. Please respond with your thoughts on this.

 

[Thursday]

I'm Orthodox, so this isn't an attack on the veneration of Mary because we also venerate her and love her. She is the most perfect Saint. However we don't see her as Divine.


I notice this Catholic tendency to map the Divine qualities of our Lord onto the Theotokos (literally: God-bearer, what we call Mary) and turn her into a Divine being herself when she was in fact completely human just like me. This is most apparent in the Catholic practice of choosing a body part of hers such as her heart and venerating that specifically. If she was a great woman, but simply woman (human) how could her heart be Divine and sacred? Why is her "sacred heart" venerated?


Also, can a Catholic explain to me the logic of viewing Mary as coredemptrix? I read on a Catholic blog that her tears when she went to Christ on the cross mingled with Christ's blood and thus became as much part of our salvation as his blood did. I regard the notion that Mary having a hand in our actual salvation (not Mary interceding on our behalf and asking God to save us, but being able to save us herded) as heresy since it turns her into a God or demigod like figure.


Again, we LOVE Mary and we love the saints. We venerate them and we pray for their intercession on our behalf, but the saints (Theotokos included) were human and can not save us.


I'm very interested in hearing a Catholic expand upon this.

I only remember "Sacred Heart" as a reference to Jesus.

Do you have an example of the use of this term for Mary?

 

[tz620q]

I only remember "Sacred Heart" as a reference to Jesus.

Do you have an example of the use of this term for Mary?

Well, we don't make it easy. In the U.S., you can find several Catholic Churches called Sacred Heart of Mary, as well as a religious order. This seems to have led many to confuse the term Immaculate Heart and Sacred Heart. Officially, you are right. Only Immaculate Heart of Mary is recognized as an official title.

 

[All4Christ]

I will not try to tell you what you believe; but if I asked you for a detailed explanation of the Orthodox position on Original Sin would I be able to find it as easily as you just found the section in the CCC. When I have asked about this in the past, the dialogue doesn't progress much farther than "We don't believe in original sin.", before I start pointing out that the Catholic position of Adam being changed from his original pristine sinlessness by sin that warped the very nature of humanity. It is this fallen human nature that is transmitted, not the guilt of Adam's sin. I have found many Orthodox believers who express this in the exact same words. So it is difficult for me to grasp the true differences that you refer to.

The whole section on Mary not being fully human because she was born immaculately seems to ignore that God originally created humans in just such a pristine state. So Christ could become human from a sinless mother and still assume humanity. As far as Christ not being able to assume our sin unless he somehow was born with the stain of Adam's sin, that seems to be a self-refuting argument from the Orthodox prospective. Christ seemed perfectly able to assume all of our sins without himself actually sinning, so I see no need for him to be born into a fallen human nature. Once we have accepted that Christ was from birth a restored human without Adam's warped nature, we can actually debate the merit of the Immaculate Conception as being necessary to accomplish this or merely a worthy belief of God's prevenient grace. Or maybe there is a position that I have not seen or a difference that I can learn about. Please respond with your thoughts on this.

Will do, but it will need to be after work Thanks for letting me explain (to the best of my ability)

 

[All4Christ]

I will not try to tell you what you believe; but if I asked you for a detailed explanation of the Orthodox position on Original Sin would I be able to find it as easily as you just found the section in the CCC. When I have asked about this in the past, the dialogue doesn't progress much farther than "We don't believe in original sin.", before I start pointing out that the Catholic position of Adam being changed from his original pristine sinlessness by sin that warped the very nature of humanity. It is this fallen human nature that is transmitted, not the guilt of Adam's sin. I have found many Orthodox believers who express this in the exact same words. So it is difficult for me to grasp the true differences that you refer to.

The whole section on Mary not being fully human because she was born immaculately seems to ignore that God originally created humans in just such a pristine state. So Christ could become human from a sinless mother and still assume humanity. As far as Christ not being able to assume our sin unless he somehow was born with the stain of Adam's sin, that seems to be a self-refuting argument from the Orthodox prospective. Christ seemed perfectly able to assume all of our sins without himself actually sinning, so I see no need for him to be born into a fallen human nature. Once we have accepted that Christ was from birth a restored human without Adam's warped nature, we can actually debate the merit of the Immaculate Conception as being necessary to accomplish this or merely a worthy belief of God's prevenient grace. Or maybe there is a position that I have not seen or a difference that I can learn about. Please respond with your thoughts on this.

If you'd be so king, could you answer a few questions (that I may post through the day) so I can accurately write my comparison?

Would you agree that we all inherent hereditary guilt of Adam's sin? I know that you have a difference between personal guilt and hereditary guilt, but I believe you do believe in hereditary guilt.

That said, do you agree with St Augustine's statement below?

Nothing remains but to conclude that in the first man all are understood to have sinned, because all were in him when he sinned; whereby sin is brought in with birth and not removed save by the new birth... it is manifest that in Adam all sinned, so to speak, en masse. By that sin we became a corrupt mass.
- St Augustine

And also the statement below from Pope Paul the VI:

We believe that in Adam all have sinned, which means that the original offence committed by him caused human nature, common to all men, to fall to a state in which it bears the consequences of that offence, and which is not the state in which it was at first in our first parents, established as they were in holiness and justice, and in which man knew neither evil nor death.
It is human nature so fallen, stripped of the grace that clothed it, injured in its own natural powers and subjected to the dominion of death, that is transmitted to all men, and it is in this sense that every man is born in sin.
We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature 'not by imitation, but by propagation' and that it is thus 'proper to everyone.'
We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ, by the sacrifice of the cross, redeemed us from original sin and all the personal sins committed by each one of us, so that, in accordance with the word of the Apostle, 'where sin abounded, grace did more abound.'
Pope Paul VI 1968

 

[zoidar]

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds that the choice to sin was taken away from her...she could not sin.

Orthodoxy holds that she could have sinned, but did not sin.

As much as i respect the Catholic chruch and the Orthodox church, I have never understood how to come to the conclusion that Mary never sinned. I respect the belief, but what is there in the bible that points to this?

(Maybe I should start a new thread for this...)

 

[zippy2006]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else.

I have purposely remained as ignorant as possible about some negative events in history (yes, nearly all relating to the Catholic Church) because in the grand scheme of things, I don't see past mistakes in behavior as relevant today and wished not to become prejudiced or jaded. And the idea of resenting Catholicism for Christianizibg the west without Orthodoxy never entered my mind. Perhaps some might be upset on those kinds of grounds, but I tend to doubt it - I started to say that I've never heard of it but I have heard comment a couple of times regarding things stolen from Constantinople that Rome retains. Be that as it may, I really, really doubt there is any widespread animosity on these counts.

Papal supremacy isn't something we resent. It's something we regard as an invention, and a change regarding the true honor of Rome, which was a place of honor and had some procedural rights and responsibilities. But we just do not see overarching authority of Rome in the Scriptures, the early workings of the Church, the Ecumenical Councils, etc. There is at least one early Pope of Rome who spoke out against it in harsher terms than I care to repeat. We don't resent it. We just cannot accept a change in Church governance.

Okay, thanks for your perspective.

Im not going to be the best person to explain this, but I think the way to understand is to ask WHY the Virgin Mary needs to be immaculate *from her conception* in order to be the bearer of Christ?

But couldn't the same question be posed to Bartholomew? Why did she have to be immaculate from Jesus' conception?

It is in the nuances of the doctrine of Original Sin that I think that becomes apparent.

The issue for Catholics is that it is needful for the Theotokos to be preserved from ORIGINAL SIN, correct? And what one "inherits" along with that?

We don't see the effects of sin on mankind in the fall in quite the same way, I think.

I'm not convinced it was strictly necessary. I think the teaching comes from common liturgical practice and faith of the Church. Presumably it was fittingness, not necessity. Ludwig Ott, after giving the history of the dogma, says:

Reason bases the dogma on the Scholastic axiom, which is already found in the writings of Eadmer; Potmt, decuit, ergo fecit (God could do it, He ought to do it, therefore He did it). This, it is true, gives no certainty, but still, it rationally establishes for the dogma a high degree of probability.​

If the Theotokos was purified by/at/before the conception of Christ, this is not the same as saying that she must not inherit the human condition as part of her birth.

Then why must she be purified at Christ's conception?

Also, she needed a Savior as much as any of us, and she was still subject to death, as all humankind are.

The Catholic doctrine is that she was preserved from Original Sin by Christ's merit.

If I were to flip the question, do you think Catholics would willingly accept the Orthodox position, as a step toward reunification? (I'm not asking in a mean or sarcastic way, I am genuinely curious if you think the details as taught by the Catholic Church matter to that degree?)

Part of the problem here, as noted earlier, is that the Catholic Church has a well-defined, dogmatic position on the matter while the Orthodox Church apparently does not. Even Patriarch Bartholomew's modifier "necessarily" is perhaps instructive.

I'm not really qualified to answer your question, but I can offer something. After the infallible decree on the Immaculate Conception it is not possible for Catholics to accept a different position, but prior to such a decree there was no official teaching and other opinions were allowed.

 

[zippy2006]

There are multiple portions of this quote with which we Orthodox cannot agree.

Such as...? An Orthodox priest here argues that there is no significant difference. It seems that, in general, Orthodox mistakenly claim that Augustine's view of hereditary guilt is part of Church teaching.

 

[tz620q]

If you'd be so king, could you answer a few questions (that I may post through the day) so I can accurately write my comparison?

Would you agree that we all inherent hereditary guilt of Adam's sin? I know that you have a difference between personal guilt and hereditary guilt, but I believe you do believe in hereditary guilt.

That said, do you agree with St Augustine's statement below?



And also the statement below from Pope Paul the VI:

I think if we understand that to St. Augustine when he says, "all were in him when he sinned", he was pointing to the sinful sexual act (concupiscence) as being the means of propagation of the original sin to the offspring. Then we have to ask ourselves if he meant this to mean that humans were propagated sinfully and being created in sin were therefore sinful or if he meant that the sexual act propagated Adam's fallen nature to his offspring. It seems obvious that Pope Paul VI views it as the second method. I think it is unfortunate that the term, "stain of Adam's sin" is often used without defining that this is not a transmission of original guilt, but that the stain refers to the stain on human nature from it's original pristine state to the fallen state, which we all inherit. We would say that the stain resulted in a loss of original justice and a darkening of the intellect and a weakening of the will. This is what is passed on.

I drudged up a link to a previous thread about Original vs Ancestral Sin that answers a lot of questions about the views of the different Christian groups. I think inherited or hereditary guilt is used more in Reformed Protestant theology than Catholic theology. When used by Catholic's, it is usually defined as contained within the inheritance of a fallen nature. In the previous thread, it seems that the Orthodox position is more towards that humans are born pristine and warped by the fallen nature of the world, than the Catholic position that we are born with a fallen nature and that that is the cause of the fallen world. You might call this intrinsic evil versus extrinsic evil. I can see theological pitfalls in both approaches. Maybe we can clear new ground in this thread by concentrating on nature versus nurture for evil in men.

 

[fide]

I'm Orthodox, so this isn't an attack on the veneration of Mary because we also venerate her and love her. She is the most perfect Saint. However we don't see her as Divine.


I notice this Catholic tendency to map the Divine qualities of our Lord onto the Theotokos (literally: God-bearer, what we call Mary) and turn her into a Divine being herself when she was in fact completely human just like me. This is most apparent in the Catholic practice of choosing a body part of hers such as her heart and venerating that specifically. If she was a great woman, but simply woman (human) how could her heart be Divine and sacred? Why is her "sacred heart" venerated?


Also, can a Catholic explain to me the logic of viewing Mary as coredemptrix? I read on a Catholic blog that her tears when she went to Christ on the cross mingled with Christ's blood and thus became as much part of our salvation as his blood did. I regard the notion that Mary having a hand in our actual salvation (not Mary interceding on our behalf and asking God to save us, but being able to save us herded) as heresy since it turns her into a God or demigod like figure.


Again, we LOVE Mary and we love the saints. We venerate them and we pray for their intercession on our behalf, but the saints (Theotokos included) were human and can not save us.


I'm very interested in hearing a Catholic expand upon this.

Mary is not "divine" - she is human. She is not eternal - she is a creature, created by God. She is without sin, by grace because of the merits of her divine Son - thus we honor and venerate her, and her "immaculate heart". Jesus is God, is worthy of adoration, along with His "Sacred Heart."

Mary cannot save us, but her prayers and intercessions are very powerful: she is the mother of God, and our own spiritual mother in Him.

I'd recommend reading Chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium (the Vatican II Constitution on the Church), which is focused on Mary. It can be found HERE.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I notice this Catholic tendency to map the Divine qualities of our Lord onto the Theotokos (literally: God-bearer, what we call Mary) and turn her into a Divine being herself when she was in fact completely human just like me.

First of all, the official teaching of the Catholic Church is that Mary IS just a regular human, who, by an act of grace at her birth, was born without the stain of sin. Nowhere in the official teachings does anyone state that she is divine.

Also, can a Catholic explain to me the logic of viewing Mary as coredemptrix? I read on a Catholic blog that her tears when she went to Christ on the cross mingled with Christ's blood and thus became as much part of our salvation as his blood did. I regard the notion that Mary having a hand in our actual salvation (not Mary interceding on our behalf and asking God to save us, but being able to save us herded) as heresy since it turns her into a God or demigod like figure.

Again, there is nowhere in any of the official teachings of the Catholic Church where she is referred to as co-redemptrix.

Now, having said that, you will find a lot of either un-cathechised or ignorant, or schismatic RC wannabees who do want her named co-redemptrix. She is not, nor will she ever be.

As far as praying to her immaculate heart, or Jesus' sacred heart, was Jesus cut into pieces before being nailed to the Cross? Was it just the heart of Mary that went through pregnancy, etc.? I do not believe that any body part should be prayed to, separate from the way we pray to the whole person.

I find it just as offensive when a Protestant "pleads the Blood." It wasn't just His blood that was crucified. It was his whole body.

 

[Monk Brendan]

"The Orthodox church does not accept the Catholic dogma of 1854 -- the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, in the sense that she was exempt at birth from original sin.

Nor do most Byzantine tradition Catholics. It is a dogma that we have not received in the Melkite Church

 

[zippy2006]

If I were to flip the question, do you think Catholics would willingly accept the Orthodox position, as a step toward reunification? (I'm not asking in a mean or sarcastic way, I am genuinely curious if you think the details as taught by the Catholic Church matter to that degree?)

Monk Brendan's posts brought me back to this. I decided to look and see what Eastern Catholics do to reconcile the Immaculate Conception with their beliefs. One of the better sources I discovered can be found here, and the compromise is very similar to the ideas of Fr. Kimel pointed out earlier.

According to the author, reconciliation on this point is not so difficult. The Eastern Catholic understanding of the dogma is that Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit from her very conception. The author quotes JPII:

“In fact, the negative formulation of the Marian privilege, which resulted from the earlier controversies about original sin that arose in the West, must always be complemented by the positive expression of Mary’s holiness more explicitly stressed in the Eastern tradition.” (Pope John Paul II, General Audience June 12, 1996)​

Incidentally, the same author points out the fact that the doctrine of original sin found in the East is not taken to be at variance with the West. Or, that is to say, it constitutes an acceptable difference of theological opinion.

P.S. The Orthodox acceptance of the Immaculate Conception strikes me as almost tautological. If someone doesn't believe in Original Sin, then it automatically follows that they believe Mary was free from it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Rather than quote, I am limited in time, so I will just generally make a few comments.

Again, I will say that I am not the most qualified person to address this, and I acknowledge that.

I do think the nature of man differs between Catholics and Orthodox. We see the image of God being - somewhat obscured in a newly born infant. So I think pristine is too strong a word. But at the same time, we see the world as very much affected by sin - not only Adam's sin, but all sin committed by all persons through time. It is the environment into which the child is born that is largely responsible for his eventual sin, but yes, he will sin.

Again though, it's important to understand how we view sin. The sin that effects the world is really the evil aspect. But a broad definition if sin is simply "missing the mark" ... not "breaking a law". Breaking a law would certainly BE missing the mark, and is sin, no doubt. But one can also sin in much subtler ways.

I have heard sin was supposedly transmitted through sexual reproduction, or through the seed of man, and I have heard that teaching applied to both Catholics and some Protestants (more Catholics in the first case, and Protestants in the second). I don't know if that is accurate. But I'm pretty sure Orthodoxy would not agree in either case.

As far as the need for the Theotokos to be pure - I really would like to double-check this - but I am under the impression that the concern is not so much that she would otherwise transmit sin to Christ. Rather, she was to be the bearer of God Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ - the Holy One - within her very body for nine months. We read that "our God is a consuming fire" ... I think it was necessary for the Virgin Mary's own sake that she have a degree of purity while carrying Christ God within her womb - otherwise, she might well deserve to be consumed. There are hymns that liken the Virgin to the burning bush of Moses ... a physical earthly thing that was touched by the Holy, and not burned up.


And as to the fact that the catechism is well-laid out and explains everything, yes it is. I do see that, generally speaking, as a strength of the Catholics. However, there are ALSO things which we have not had fully explained to us, and to go beyond what we simply know as a Mystery (such as the Eucharist) and attempt to explain in detail things the Apostles did not hand down to us ... is not regarded by Orthodoxy as a strength, or even wise. I don't mean to be insulting. I was told that the Catholics faced certain pressures from outside (the Regormation, I presume?) that pressed them to more fully define some things than Orthodoxy has ever found it necessary to do. And that may be so. All of this is not my concern or place to judge or criticize. But it is not an automatic strength from the point of view of Orthodoxy. In short - I think the organization is good. But going beyond and over-explaining is not, in our point of view. (We DO have catechisms, btw, but not in the same format. I think St. Cyril of Jerusalem's might be recognized to some degree by Catholics? Not sure.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

P.S. The Orthodox acceptance of the Immaculate Conception strikes me as almost tautological. If someone doesn't believe in Original Sin, then it automatically follows that they believe Mary was free from it.

If you could mean - "there is no such thing as Original Sin, so the Virgin Mary (and the rest of humanity) is free from it" ...

Well, not quite. We speak of Ancestral Sin, as a better modifier for our views, and it also distinguishes it from Original Sin.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

As much as i respect the Catholic chruch and the Orthodox church, I have never understood how to come to the conclusion that Mary never sinned. I respect the belief, but what is there in the bible that points to this?

(Maybe I should start a new thread for this...)

Dear Zoidar,
It's not so much directed at Mary but rather on how Jesus human nature is not affected by original sin. In the western Christian tradition, human nature is sinful (from Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.). Jesus received his human nature from Mary. If Jesus was truly human, but that nature was not affected by sin, then how did that happen? If, as in Hebrews, Jesus was made like us, what does that mean for our human nature? I hope that explains why this question regarding Mary's state is important.

 

[tz620q]

Rather than quote, I am limited in time, so I will just generally make a few comments.

Again, I will say that I am not the most qualified person to address this, and I acknowledge that.

I do think the nature of man differs between Catholics and Orthodox. We see the image of God being - somewhat obscured in a newly born infant. So I think pristine is too strong a word. But at the same time, we see the world as very much affected by sin - not only Adam's sin, but all sin committed by all persons through time. It is the environment into which the child is born that is largely responsible for his eventual sin, but yes, he will sin.

Again though, it's important to understand how we view sin. The sin that effects the world is really the evil aspect. But a broad definition if sin is simply "missing the mark" ... not "breaking a law". Breaking a law would certainly BE missing the mark, and is sin, no doubt. But one can also sin in much subtler ways.

I was recently studying the Book of James and came across this, which seems to lay out a moral equation:

James 1:12-15
"Blessed is anyone who endures temptation. Such a one has stood the test and will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. No one, when tempted, should say, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one. But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death."

This seems to say that one's own desire precedes sin, which leads to death. This is what Catholics call concupiscence, which is a natural inclination to sin. A good definition can be found in the CCC.
1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."