Good morning, friends. We are having one of the usual discussions on OBOB and someone came up with these points on which our doctrines differ. Is this true, or how would you define these? Apologies if you find it put in a way that is offensive to you - no use changing the wording, you can read up the original on OBOB anyway!
Welcome to TAW! I appreciate your coming to ask us as opposed to taking what you heard at face value. I will do my best to answer your questions.
There are at least 3 areas where they have departed from this:
Not quite sure what "this" is - perhaps some context? It may be the teachings of the RCC, in which case (shrug).
The Immaculate Conception - there is a variety of teaching in the EO now - anywhere from Mary was immaculate her entire life, to Mary was a sinner until sometime before the annunciation, to Mary was a sinner until the annunciation, to Mary was a sinner until the birth of Christ to Mary was never immaculate.
There is, has always been, and always will be ONE teaching of the Orthodox Church on Mary regarding her holiness: she is Ever Virgin, All Holy, and the Mother of God. Those are the three ways we venerate her at every liturgy. All holy - free from sin. We do NOT, however, affirm that she was free from sin
by necessity due to some unusual aspect of her birth (ie being born free from original sin).
Mary, had Christ not died on the cross and risen from the dead, would have died the same death as everyone else prior to Christ. We still affirm her bodily death as well (calling our feast "Dormition of the Theotokos" as opposed to "Assumption") though the bodily assumption of Mary is a permissable doctrine for an Orthodox Christian.
Mary NEEDED Christ to save her. To affirm the immaculate conception is to say that the cross was unncessary for her human condition - which is to say she was a totally different type of human than the rest of us. While God is certanily capable of that, it defeats much of her value to us - namely as the supreme example of a Christian life and the supreme hope of the fate of all Christians, the first of the Saints and the Queen of Heaven.
Additionally, if Mary had to be immaculate for Christ to be born free from original sin (an argument often forwarded by RCC apologists) then it would follow that her parents had to be born immaculately as well, and so on and so forth back to Adam and Eve, meaning original sin wouldn't have existed at all... It just doesn't make sense to us.
So we affirm that Mary, by the free will God gave her, in so much as it is possible for a human being (and to the furthest extent possible for a human being) remained voluntarily free from sin throughout her life. Thus she is called "All Holy."
This represents a marked change in the teaching of the EO regarding Mary and occured soon after the Reformatiuon and was in fact influenced by reformation theology.
Nope... bold faced untruth. I'd like to see the evidence that we believed Mary to be "born immaculately and free from the stain of original sin as Augustine viewed it" prior to the Reformation. Regardless - it has NEVER been proclaimed dogmatically, and isn't in the liturgies (nor in any liturgy I'm aware of). It isn't in our icons, and I've never read a church father who comments on it (though my comprehensiveness declines sharply after Constantine... I'm more familiar with 1st - 3rd centuries).
So, so far as I'm aware, this statement is simply false. We never believed in the immaculate conception as the RCC professes it. I'm not sure when it first showed up in the West, but I'd be curious.
Remarriage - though it is discouraged, they allow for remarriage even though it might result in condoning an adulterous relationship - they make no attempt at discerning if the previous marriage was sacramentally valid. It is considered a penitential marriage, rather than a sacramentally valid marriage that can never be put assunder.
This started in the middle of the 1st milleneium when the Orthodox Church turned their authority over the insitution of marriage to the Emperor. There was only one reason why someone could be remarried then and it was up to the Emperor to grant it. Then the next century saw the reasons evolve into 3, then 10 at the beginning of last century, and the last time I looked, it was about 20.
Christ Himself allows for divorce in Matthew. So we're starting off on decent ground here.
"Allows for" is also a limited term. We don't "condone" it and we don't "encourage it." We don't consider it to be moral or ethical to get a divorce, just like, in an ideal world, confession wouldn't exist because we wouldn't sin.
But the simple fact is that we live in a fallen world. There are marriages which ARE valid sacramentally, but fail because of the fallenness of human beings. That doesn't invalidate them sacramentally. Allowing a second, penitential marriage is
consistent with the principles of Christ's mercy even as confession and allowing apostates back into the Church is consistent with Christ's mercy.
Suffice it to say, we are consistent with the Apostolic Church in calling divorce and re-marriage immoral (hence the penitential character of a marriage service for a second marriage) and are consistent with those principles when, pastorally speaking, facing a real world situation of a failed marriage.
Contraception: This was a doctrine the EO stood firmly with us on until a few decades ago. At that point, it was firm EO teaching that artificial contraception was absolutely forbidden. Then things changed over the space of a decade, and now it is permitted with the permission of the priest.
Well, this one is undecided for a couple of key reasons. First, birth control in its contemporary form is extremely new, second, the pastoral concerns have changed. It isn't a decided issue. Some priests and bishops allow it, others do not. The monastics tend to be against it, but the parish priests more or less ok with it in limited forms and only on a temporary basis (that is, while a young couple gains financial stability and prepares a proper home in which to raise a child). Long term intentional childlessness (including "natural family planning") is considered self-centered and contrary to the purpose of marriage.
If it becomes a huge issue, it may take an ecumenical council to write canon law on the issue. I, for one, am not settled one way or the other. I think most of the Catholic arguments against it fail, but I do think there are arguments which can be made directly against ANY intentional childlessness in marriage, and I sympathize with the RCC position even as I disagree with it... It's a comlicated issue.
Give the EO some time and eventually, a clear direction will be reached. This is part of that whole "we make decisions in an unsystematic / organic way [bottom up] rather than the more organized [top down] model of the RCC." That has its benefits (stability of doctrine and practice, not systematizing the Holy Spirit, no infallibility claims systematic sense) and its drawbacks (takes a lot longer, less understandable to outsiders, etc).
We trust the Holy Spirit to guide His Church.
unquote
Thanks in advance! I am praying to the Holy Spirit that we do not get into a fight about this. I for one, and many others on OBOB, would love to come to a good understanding of these points, one that sheds a positive light on you (but not a negative one on us either, please. Remember, it's our Holy Week this week!)
[/QUOTE]
God be with you! Have a blessed Easter/Pascha/Resurrection!!
In Christ,
Macarius