Marian Dogmas

No.

D) The Theotokos (Mary) -
Orthodox venerate Her as the Mother of God and the ever-virgin; two dogmas proclaimed before the schism. Orthodox do not follow the other 3 dogmas proclaimed after 787, which are: the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and Mother of the Church.

E) The Immaculate Conception -
This is a result of the flawed teaching of Original Sin. Catholics believe Mary to have been born protected by God from the soul stain of "Original Sin," a fairly new Catholic belief. The Immaculate Conception of Mary was declared Dogma by Pope Pius IX outside of the jurisdiction of an Ecumenical Council and therefore is not recognized as such by Orthodoxy.

First of the three post-schism Marian Dogmas proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church outside of valid Ecumenical Council, using invocation of Papal Infallibility. (See: A.)

F) The Assumption -
Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe that the Theotokos (meaning: Mother of God) was lifted, or "assumed" into Heaven after Her dormition. (falling asleep, or "death.")

However, the Assumption was officially declared Dogma of the Roman Catholic Church by Pope Benedict XIV. This means that Roman Catholics must hold this doctrine as being necessary for salvation. Pope Pius XII decreed in Munificentissimus Deus that: "...anyone who should deny or willfully call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen completely from the Divine and Catholic faith." This is an example of an invocation of Papal Infallibility. (See: A.)

Orthodox Christians fast for 14 days in celebration of the Dormition of the Theotokos, wherein after Her death and burial, She was assumed to Heaven in both body and spirit. Despite the great importance of this feast, the Assumption is not considered Dogma in the Orthodox Church. The dogmatization of the Dormition was formalized in a Roman Catholic Ecumenical Council, post schism, therefore not recognized as legitimate by the Orthodox Church.

Second of the three post-schism Marian Dogmas proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church outside of valid Ecumenical Council, using invocation of Papal Infallibility. (See: A.)

G) The Mother of the Church -
A fifth Dogma regarding the Theotokos, proclaimed by Pope Paul VI at the Second Vatican Council. Last of the three post-schism Marian Dogmas proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church outside of valid Ecumenical Council, using invocation of Papal Infallibility. (See: A.)

H) The Co-redeemer or Co-Redemptrix, The Mediatrix, or Mediator of all graces, The Advocate for the people of God, Intercessor, Helper, Benefactress -
These will possibly become the fourth, fifth, and sixth post-schism Marian Dogmas proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church outside of valid Ecumenical Council, using invocation of Papal Infallibility. (See: A.)

Furthermore, we reject the idea of a "co-redeemer."

Bulldog said:

Other than the perpetual virginity of Mary, do Orthodox believe in any of the other Marian dogmas which Catholics have defined? (Immaculate conception, Bodily Assumption, Queen of Heaven, Co-Mediatrex)

Click to expand...

We have one dogma concerning the Blessed Virgin: she is properly called 'Theotokos' - Mother of God. Remember, this is actually a Christological statement.

While we are not required to believe in Mary's Perpetual Virginity, Sinless Life, and Bodily Assumption, I know of no Orthodox who disputes them.

We do not believe in the Immaculate Conception in the Catholic sense. We believe that all people are conceived without guilt of sin. Mary's conception was no different from yours or mine. The doctrine of the IC is meaningless to us since we do not believe in Original Sin.

We do not ascribe the title 'Co-Mediatrix' to Mary. The concept is simply foreign to us. We do not believe that Christ's suffering was payment of a debt for us. Thus, we have no basis for discussing the role of Mary's suffering. We do acknowledge (and thank her for) her willingly coorperatation with God to bring the Incarnation of the Word into this world.

We do believe that Mary was bodily assumed into heave by Christ. (Again, this teaching has more to do with Christ than Mary.) Unlike the Catholic doctrine, we explicitly declare her dormition.

Hi, Philip.

Just to clarify this:

Philip said:

The doctrine of the IC is meaningless to us since we do not believe in Original Sin.

Click to expand...

We do, in fact, believe in Original (or Ancestral) Sin [*]. What we do not ascribe to is the RC doctrine that we've inherited Adam's guilty.

* The Orthodox Church teaches that we've inherited the consequences of Adam's sin, that is, we die, we get sick, and so on but not the guilty - this is the Ancestral/Original Sin according to Orthodox teachings.

In XC,
Rick

*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Rick of Wessex again.*
Curses, foiled again!
Thanks for beating me to the punch. I think that sometimes we Orthodox are in such a rush to distinguish and distance ourselves from Roman Catholicism, that we forget what we DO believe.
Bulldog, though it doesn't clearly articulate Orthodox belief, a good book on this sublect is Mary Through the Centuries by Jarislov Pelikan. I just finished it a while back and found it most enlightening.
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.

Sorry to intrude, but I have made it my mission here to point out this error whenever I see it here. We Catholics do not believe we share in the guilt of Adam's Sin.

...Original sin is called 'sin' only in an analogical sense: it is a sin 'contracted' and not 'committed' - a state and not an act."

Although it is proper to each individual,[Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513.] 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."

Click to expand...

God Bless,

Neal

* The Orthodox Church teaches that we've inherited the consequences of Adam's sin, that is, we die, we get sick, and so on but not the guilty - this is the Ancestral/Original Sin according to Orthodox teachings.

Click to expand...

Do the Orthodox believe that Christ, though born into the original state of holiness, still suffered from the consequences of Adam's Sin?

God Bless,

Neal

isshinwhat said:

Do the Orthodox believe that Christ, though born into the original state of holiness, still suffered from the consequences of Adam's Sin?

Click to expand...

My answer is certainly not authoritative, but I will hazard to say 'yes'. As evidence, I offer the fact that He did die and will quote (from memory) St Gregory: "That which is not assumed is not heal."

isshinwhat said:

Sorry to intrude, but I have made it my mission here to point out this error whenever I see it here. We Catholics do not believe we share in the guilt of Adam's Sin.

Click to expand...

You do believe that we are condemned by it, no?

I believe that because of Adam we have lost our original state of holiness and are in need of spiritual rebirth through Baptism at the moment of our birth.

God Bless,

Neal

isshinwhat said:

[/font][/size]

Do the Orthodox believe that Christ, though born into the original state of holiness, still suffered from the consequences of Adam's Sin?

Click to expand...

In a way, yes... Christ suffered from the same temptations we all face... the difference between Him and us is that He did not give into those temptations.

Do the Orthodox believe that Christ, though born into the original state of holiness, still suffered from the consequences of Adam's Sin?

Click to expand...

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a major reason for the Incarnation? He took on our nature, as it was (and is), so that we could share in His nature.

Moses

But though Christ suffered from the temporal afflictions related to the Fall, He did not suffer from concupiscence, is that correct?

Neal

isshinwhat said:

But though Christ suffered from the temporal afflictions related to the Fall, He did not suffer from concupiscence, is that correct?

Neal

Click to expand...

Christ had a human will and a divine will. He was perfect Man and perfect God. He felt hunger and fear, to the point of sweating blood. He assumed our human nature so that he could cleanse it and make it whole.

Glory to Thee O Christ, Glory to Thee.

Glory to Thy Holy Condescension, O Christ, Glory to Thee!

That would mean He did not suffer from concupiscence, right?

isshinwhat said:

That would mean He did not suffer from concupiscence, right?

Click to expand...

I don't know - what about fear to the point of sweating blood - wouldn't modern day psychiatry call that a disorder -- of course, they probably would classify Him a megalomaniac also. Did you ever watch Oh God and Oh God 2? Those were really great in dinging the field of psychology/psychiatry.

Do you believe the desire to sin came from within Christ's human soul, or do you think He suffered from only external temptations?

God Bless,

Neal

isshinwhat,

isshinwhat said:

That would mean He did not suffer from concupiscence, right?

Click to expand...

From the NIV:

Hebrews 4:15 said:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin.

Click to expand...

I believe this is the answer to your question.

Rick

PS: I don't know why, but the Bible feature couldn't find this verse.

That would mean He did not suffer from concupiscence, right?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're getting at because I'm not familiar with Latin Theology. St Paul says that Christ was tempted in all ways yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15) So if Latin Theology suggest that He was somehow not tempted by certain things, that seems to be a denial of His full humanity.

Please forgive me if I've misrepresented Church teaching.

Moses

MosestheBlack said:

I'm not sure what you're getting at because I'm not familiar with Latin Theology. St Paul says that Christ was tempted in all ways yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15) So if Latin Theology suggest that He was somehow not tempted by certain things, that seems to be a denial of His full humanity.

Please forgive me if I've misrepresented Church teaching.

Moses

Click to expand...

Christ was tempted by the devil (outside force).