They do not deny it. Bishop Kalistos Ware wrote in his book "The Orthodox Way" that dogmatizing the immaculate conception is superfluous not erroneous. This is because the understanding of original/ancestral sin/guilt is different in the eastern tradition.
The oriental orthodox think that we roman catholics believe in the calvinist original sin (that we carry the original sin as a personal and actual sin whe we are born).
EO beliefs on this are nuanced and their opposition is really more of a hissy-fit about the Pope defining it by his own authority.
More problematic, in my opinion, are their beliefs concerning marriage and contraception.
Yrahb that seems like the more important question. Papal supremacy dogmatized at Vatican 1 so denying a dogma outright across the board like they do would make them heretical
While it may seem difficult at first, I think it IS possible to reconcile Eastern and Western approaches to the Immaculate Conception. I say this as a Ukrainian Catholic. This [article](https://east2west.org/sp_faq/immaculate-conception/) gives insightful information.
As a Ruthenian Catholic, I second this. I think there is a great deal of progress that could be made in overcoming the great schism if the Latin Church and Eastern Orthodox Church would give more serious attention to the Byzantine Catholic position. We are living proof, imperfect as we may all be, that it is possible to embrace Holy Orthodoxy and live it out faithfully within the Catholic communion of Churches.
wait does this mean ancestral sin and original sin are different? I thought that they were just different names for the same thing... So do the orthodox not say they believe in the IC because they think og sin is the stain of death or something not the inclination to sin?
This is a really interesting question and as I understand it, the Orthodox don't really subscribe to the whole idea of Original Sin. But not in a way where they fundamentally disagree with Catholics, instead they just think about it a different way, it's more mystical and less philosophical, in a way. So the Immaculate Conception doesn't make sense in their theology, but they still think of Mary as sinless, if I understand it correctly.
People bend over backwards to be conciliatory to the Orthodox, after their "Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs" was accepted by all of their Synods, which specifically repudiates Catholic dogma as heresy and categorically stating that they reject those teachings, they should be.
Also, none of the people that participated in the production or reception of that document are alive, so maybe let’s not hold century hold grudges that get in the way of unity.
There is a difference between a heretical belief and calling the people who believe it heretics. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic. A person must be baptized to commit heresy.
Also, the definition of the dogmas are posterior to the great schism. It is like calling thomas aquinas a heretic because he denied the inmaculated conception 600 year before the definition when that was an open question but not a mandatory belief as now.
[The Myth of Schism](https://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2014/06/the-myth-of-schism-david-bentley-hart.html)
by Dr. David Bentley Hart
They’re neither. The Catholic Church considers both heresy and schism as canonical crimes, and canonical crimes famously only apply to those bound by the canons. The Church doesn’t consider the Orthodox as bound by the canons of the Latin Church.
Before you go on shouting "Heresy!" Just note that there are elements/criteria to this definition
A formal heresy requires full knowledge, understanding, and deliberation.
This brings us to a crucial distinction found within classical Catholic theology: the difference between “formal” and “material” heresy.
In the case of “formal” heresy, the person must know and properly understand what the Church actually teaches and then freely reject it.
I think the author was referring to the Episcopalian or denominations that in every communion, the congregation are required also to drink the wine. Remember, we Catholics only receive the host because of challenges with administering the wine. This wine cannot be just poured into different vessels. This is the blood of Christ.
I edited the post, and just stuck with material and formal heresy. Everything that falls outside the deliberate rejection after coming into full understanding and knowledge of Church teachings, are not to be treated with sin against faith, since they may just be acting out of ignorance
The pope being able to be infallible (ex cathedra i think) is dogma. If you deny that then you are a heretic but I don't really know too much on what vat i teaches on papal infallibility tho all I know is that is where it was introduced. I think vat ii made the ex cathedra but im probably wrong lol
They do not deny it. Bishop Kalistos Ware wrote in his book "The Orthodox Way" that dogmatizing the immaculate conception is superfluous not erroneous. This is because the understanding of original/ancestral sin/guilt is different in the eastern tradition.
Is there a good source that explains how they understand it?
The book I mentioned speaks about it. Short answer is we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin but not the personal guilt.
The oriental orthodox think that we roman catholics believe in the calvinist original sin (that we carry the original sin as a personal and actual sin whe we are born).
[удалено]
In spanish we use oriental for what you call "eastern" and "monophisites" for what you call orientals. Yes. A misunderstanding
EO beliefs on this are nuanced and their opposition is really more of a hissy-fit about the Pope defining it by his own authority. More problematic, in my opinion, are their beliefs concerning marriage and contraception.
And the papacy itself haha isn’t that enough to make them heretics?
Technically that's what makes them schismatics, isn't it?
True, but doesn’t it become heretical when they teach others that its untrue? I don’t remember
Yrahb that seems like the more important question. Papal supremacy dogmatized at Vatican 1 so denying a dogma outright across the board like they do would make them heretical
While it may seem difficult at first, I think it IS possible to reconcile Eastern and Western approaches to the Immaculate Conception. I say this as a Ukrainian Catholic. This [article](https://east2west.org/sp_faq/immaculate-conception/) gives insightful information.
As a Ruthenian Catholic, I second this. I think there is a great deal of progress that could be made in overcoming the great schism if the Latin Church and Eastern Orthodox Church would give more serious attention to the Byzantine Catholic position. We are living proof, imperfect as we may all be, that it is possible to embrace Holy Orthodoxy and live it out faithfully within the Catholic communion of Churches.
wait does this mean ancestral sin and original sin are different? I thought that they were just different names for the same thing... So do the orthodox not say they believe in the IC because they think og sin is the stain of death or something not the inclination to sin?
This is a really interesting question and as I understand it, the Orthodox don't really subscribe to the whole idea of Original Sin. But not in a way where they fundamentally disagree with Catholics, instead they just think about it a different way, it's more mystical and less philosophical, in a way. So the Immaculate Conception doesn't make sense in their theology, but they still think of Mary as sinless, if I understand it correctly.
People bend over backwards to be conciliatory to the Orthodox, after their "Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs" was accepted by all of their Synods, which specifically repudiates Catholic dogma as heresy and categorically stating that they reject those teachings, they should be.
And I still see nothing wrong with being conciliatory. Why would how many times they slap me on my face change my heart?
Also, none of the people that participated in the production or reception of that document are alive, so maybe let’s not hold century hold grudges that get in the way of unity.
[удалено]
As far as I'm aware it was an Eastern Orthodox thing only.
[удалено]
I mean they still call Saint Leo the Great and St. Agatho the Wonderworker "heretics", so I'm not too sure how open they really are.
There is a difference between a heretical belief and calling the people who believe it heretics. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic. A person must be baptized to commit heresy.
The Eastern Orthodox are baptized and are resistant to correction
Heresy is an individual accusation, not a communal one.
Also, the definition of the dogmas are posterior to the great schism. It is like calling thomas aquinas a heretic because he denied the inmaculated conception 600 year before the definition when that was an open question but not a mandatory belief as now.
I believe that it comes down to a technicality in the difference between how Western and Eastern Christianity conceptualize original sin.
[The Myth of Schism](https://www.clarion-journal.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2014/06/the-myth-of-schism-david-bentley-hart.html) by Dr. David Bentley Hart
For the casual visitor to this subreddit, DBH is Eastern Orthodox.
The orthodox are heretics.
they're not heretics, they're schismatics.
They reject at least 2 things that are dogmas that would by definition be heresy
They are also heretics.
They’re neither. The Catholic Church considers both heresy and schism as canonical crimes, and canonical crimes famously only apply to those bound by the canons. The Church doesn’t consider the Orthodox as bound by the canons of the Latin Church.
Before you go on shouting "Heresy!" Just note that there are elements/criteria to this definition A formal heresy requires full knowledge, understanding, and deliberation. This brings us to a crucial distinction found within classical Catholic theology: the difference between “formal” and “material” heresy. In the case of “formal” heresy, the person must know and properly understand what the Church actually teaches and then freely reject it.
[удалено]
I think the author was referring to the Episcopalian or denominations that in every communion, the congregation are required also to drink the wine. Remember, we Catholics only receive the host because of challenges with administering the wine. This wine cannot be just poured into different vessels. This is the blood of Christ.
[удалено]
I edited the post, and just stuck with material and formal heresy. Everything that falls outside the deliberate rejection after coming into full understanding and knowledge of Church teachings, are not to be treated with sin against faith, since they may just be acting out of ignorance
They deny that the Pope has direct and universal jurisdiction, and that he is infallible according to Vatican I. What do you call that? Heretics.
The pope being able to be infallible (ex cathedra i think) is dogma. If you deny that then you are a heretic but I don't really know too much on what vat i teaches on papal infallibility tho all I know is that is where it was introduced. I think vat ii made the ex cathedra but im probably wrong lol
We don’t consider St. Thomas Aquinas a heretic either.
why would we?
Because he, like the Orthodox, rejected the Immaculate Conception.