www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Orthodox & the Immaculate Conception

Dear Theophilos,

You misunderstood my meaning, Sir!

The Immaculate Conception, as a Latin doctrine, was formulated to EXEMPT the Mother of God from the Augustinian "stain of Original Sin."

Today, RC theologians (and Meyendorff agrees - he makes mention of this in several of his books) say that IF one accepts that Original Sin is not a stain, but the inherited CONSEQUENCES of the sin of Adam, then the Immaculate Conception (of the Latin Church) CAN MEAN that the Mother of God was sanctified by the Spirit RATHER than prevented from acquiring that stain.

That's all I said and I'm following Meyendorff's commentary on the IC here.

The FACT that the Orthodox Church liturgically celebrates the Conception of St Anne, which is the Conception of the Mother of God, as it does that of John the Baptist, means that the Mother of God was sanctified by the Spirit from the very beginning of her existence.

ONLY the feast of Saints can be celebrated.

The liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church also celebrates St Nicholas as having been sanctified in the womb of his mother, and both his parents are honoured as saints as well.

St John the Theologian is similarly honoured, but his dormition is more highly honoured.

There is no question that the IC is totally unnecessary for the East.

As Kallistos Ware said, IF the Orthodox Church believed in the "stain" of Original Sin, then it is conceivable it too would have looked to a doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to exempt the Mother of God, the Mother of the Word Incarnate, from it.

The Most Holy Mother of God never had any stain of sin on her soul for the sake of and in dependence on the Grace of Her Son and God.

For anyone to suggest otherwise is really a blasphemy and, excuse me, I don't even want to discuss it or even think of about it. If anyone wants to think the Mother of God had even the shadow of sin on her soul, then go away and keep your views to yourself for the sake of Our Lord Jesus Christ Who took flesh from His Mother.

I, for one, refuse to have anything to do with such. If I were Orthodox, and I certainly don't have a problem becoming Orthodox, I would still say that - absolutely.

MOST HOLY MOTHER OF GOD, SAVE US!

Alex

"The Most Holy Mother of God never had any stain of sin on her soul for the sake of and in dependence on the Grace of Her Son and God.

For anyone to suggest otherwise is really a blasphemy and, excuse me, I don't even want to discuss it or even think of about it."

Wasn't Jesus the only one born as a man in all things but sin? Just wondering.

The interest in Mary's person (and the Western over-infatuation with sex and the sexual act in their sexual ethics) allows us to commit the same distraction from soteriology. We immerse ourselves into an Ontological Mariology as we did with Christology after Arius. Arius confused the natural orthodox subordination of the Son to the Father in soteriology and applied it to the Son's relationship to the Father ontologically (read: within the Godhead). The natural reaction to this was a paradigm shift in Christology, where we debated the next few councils over Christ's personhood. We forgot that "Jesus saves" for one of "Jesus is ..." We went from the experience of God's energies (the deroulment of salvation history) to the microscopic concerns of God's essence (God stuck on a petri-dish; "More alcohol and formaldehyde, please!").

Are we doing the same over Mary? We focus on Mary's sexuality and stainless steel soul, yet fail to appreciate how this particular person played an important role in salvation (soteriology). Mary, as in our icons of her, points to Christ (soteriology); unlike Western statues that depict her pointing to herself (ontology).

Before any discussion proceeds on Mary, one should ask if the discussion is concerned only with her person (Mary-in-herself) or with her participation/role in salvation (Mary-for-others).

Is it time for another paradigm shift in Christology and Mariology? Is a Son of Man Christology possible? Is a St. Anne's Conception theology possible?

Dear Cantor Joe,

The fact you are even talking to me at all makes me feel purified in soul!

You are absolutely right in your analysis between Eastern and Western emphases in Marian devotion.

The Eastern icons always depict the Theotokos in relation to her Son, whether holding Him in her arms, or praying to Him with uplifted arms, or else being held by Him in His arms at her Dormition etc.

All holiness and goodness derive from and depend on that of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ - Amen!

He is also the Source for the holiness and purity of His Mother - who is so holy in relation to her role in salvation history.

Our liturgical tradition does celebrate the sanctification in the wombs of their mothers of two people, the Theotokos and St John the Baptist - never objects of dogma, but accepted and assumed nevertheless.

Again, we can and do affirm that the Theotokos HAD Original Sin - she did die, after all.

Since Original Sin has nothing to do with "stains of sin," to say she had Original Sin does not imply anything in this regard.

The Orthodox liturgical tradition sees her sanctification as a dynamic process, beginning with her Conception in the womb of St Anne, solidifying at the Annunciation and then glorifying at Pentecost - culminating in her Dormition and being taken, body and soul, into heaven.

Our liturgical tradition, which you rightly and consistently indicate as our great standard of faith, celebrates her bringing forth Christ at His Nativity without pain - although she suffered greatly at His crucifixion.

She is the bridge between the Old and New Testaments, the Ark of the New Covenant which is Christ and the medium by which the Word became incarnate and came to us.

As at Cana in Galilee, she continually tells us to "Do all He asks."

As the Mother of the Body of Christ, she is our Mother whose prayers and protective intercessions nourish us and bring us into closer and more intimate communion with OLGS Jesus Christ.

She is the first model and exemplar of what living in Christ is all about and she is the first to have reached the fullness of what the Salvation of Christ is intended to do for all of us.

God bless you, Cantor Joseph, through the intercession of the Most Holy, Most Pure, Most Blessed and our Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary!

Alex

Did Jesus have original sin in the Eastern view? Since it's not really sin in the East and just mortality and Jesus was fully human wouldn't he have to have had original sin to have died? Thanks.

Adam

Dear Friends,

I agree with one point of Zoe's post. The East and West are closer than many want to admit. Yet I very much agree with Seeker of God and the others who abhor the treatment of such subjects by Latin Church apologists.

So on one hand I think the Orthodox who insist on vast differences are wrong and at the same time I think the Latins who try to force their theology down the throats of Easterners are equally wrong. And I think the two are DIRECTLY related.

Roman Catholics need to stop this practice. They need to quit attempting to force their developed doctrines on the East who simply never developed them that way. The Latins have been trying this for over a millenia now with very little success (as far as Church unity goes). This in turn has brought forth the repulsion of the East to the point of even denying the limited (yet substantial) agreement on these points we really do have.

No Eastern Church teaches the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. James Loukadis and co. need to just accept and confess this. Then, if this ever happened, the East would begin to look at ways their authentic teaching is in some accord with Latin teaching regarding the Asdvadzadzeen (Arm. = God-bearer). When the Latins have showed this kind of respect, the East has most times responded.

I have to say that I think it is one of the most arrogant things to take qoutes and liturgical prayers of a given Church and then interpret them for that Church and then dictate to that Church what is their faith. This is a tremendous arrogance and it profits nothing. This is exactly what Loukadis and RC Apologists do all the time.

I say, if you want to know the faith of the Orthodox, then just ask them, not Latin Church Apologists. And, don't dictate to the Orthodox what they "really believe." His Holiness Pope John Paul II, with all of his Primacy and honor does not even have the audacity to do this! Rather, here is his attitude regarding the Tradition of the East:

"Pondering over the questions, aspirations and experiences I have mentioned, my thoughts turn to the Christian heritage of the East. I do not
intend to describe that heritage or to interpret it: I listen to the churches of the East, which I know are living interpreters of the treasure of
tradition they preserve. In contemplating it, before my eyes appear elements of great significance for a fuller and more thorough understanding of the Christian experience." (Orientale Lumen, #5)

I think this is the attitude Loukadis (and others like him) need to take. I know, because I used to practice the same thing they do. I did this until one day I woke up and began to read the Latin Church's own documents on ecumenism with the East.

In juxtaposition to James Loukadis writings, I think this is a much more sain "Catholic" approach to the issue, given by Anthony Dragani on the EWTN forum:

Immaculate Conception:

Concerning the Eastern Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception, I will offer a very brief summary of the issue. First, the theological seeds of the Immaculate Conception originated in the East, and were later spread to the West. Since the earliest centuries the Eastern Churches have celebrated "St. Anne's Conception of the Theotokos," on December 9. Only later was this feast transplanted to the West, where it is celebrated on December 8.

In the Eastern Catholic Churches we have maintained much of the theological heritage of the Eastern Church Fathers. We try to be very Patristic in our theology, and generally model our theological approach after the great Eastern Fathers. In the West theology has developed somewhat differently. Beginning in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a whole new style of theology developed, known as Scholasticism. Scholasticism utilized a great deal of philosophical terminology from the writings of Aristotle. It essentially created a whole new way to approach theological questions, and answered them with very specific philosophical terminology. Scholasticism was the dominant theological system in the Western Church until the beginning of the 20th century.

In 1854 Pope Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Being a good Western theologian, he used a great deal of scholastic terminology in the definition. Here it is, with the specifically scholastic terms emphasized by me:

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the MERITS of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every STAIN of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful."

There are two terms used in the definition that are completely foreign to Eastern Christian theology: "merits" and "stain." Both of these terms are of very late origin, and came to mean very specific things in the scholastic system. But to us Eastern Christians, who still use only the theological expressions of the Church Fathers, these terms are completely alien. So is this a problem, or isn't it?

I don't believe that this a problem at all. If something is written in a language that you can't understand, you simply TRANSLATE it! With some very basic knowledge of scholastic theological terminology, what Pope Pius IX is saying becomes very obvious: From the very first momemnt of her existence, Mary was miraculously preserved from all sin. We Easterns would go even a step further: she wasn't just preserved from sin, but was graced with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Also, the definition speaks of Mary being "free from every stain of original sin." In the East we have always spoken of Mary's perfect holiness. The language "free from every stain of original sin" is really a somewhat negative formulation in comparison. In fact, this definition speaks of Mary as being "absent of something (the stain of sin)," while we would prefer to speak of her as being "full of something (the Holy Spirit)." In this regard I think that the Eastern approach makes a marvelous contribution to the understanding of this dogma. So does Pope John Paul II:

"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)

So, the Holy Father agrees that the Eastern understanding of the Immaculate Conception actually helps to elucidate the meaning behind the definition.

God Bless, Anthony

COPYRIGHT 2002

Amin, Amin, Amin.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Zoe,

I think that if we are discussing Likoudis' poor researching and being overly biased in his books, that calling him on it in a thread about one of his books is very on topic. Likoudis was a marginal Greek Orthodox not knowing what his Church taught well before converting. Since then he has seen well to disparage the east often. Thus he is not a reliable writer and his track record would tend to show that his writings muct be taken with a huge grain of salt when discussing the east. God Bless!

In Christ,
-Nik!

It is valid, in light the "track record" of Likoudis, to read him with skepticism. It is simply fallacious, however, to argue against a particular assertion on the basis of other errors.

Dear Friends,

When all is said and done, both East and West agree on the total holiness of the Most Holy Mother of God the Word Incarnate.

It is just that the West gets involved in a few more dogmatic knee-bends involving Original Sin before it got around to that conclusion . . .

The West, for me, reminds me of a man lying in a hospital with tonsilitis.

He tells the doctors his tonsils are bothering him and the doctors know they have to come out.

Then the doctors tell the nurses to take the man's shoes off.

"But you just have to go in through my mouth to take my tonsils out," the man cried.

"Oh yeah?" said the doctors. "Well, here we do it the hard way. . ."

Alex

Hello:

I believe that, precisely because the East has always proclaimed the perfect holiness of the Mother of God, it is a great mercy that the dogmatic definition from Pope Pius IX used terms more familiar for us Western brutes.

It is a motive of great sadness that such definition has sent some Eastern Christians looking for sin where there is none, trying to argue against a dogma that is firmly believed and proclaimed by the Eastern Tradition: The "All-Holiness" of the Mother of God.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Friends in Christ,

The All holiness of the Theotokos is in question!

In the west there has always been a preoccupation with abstract speculation about what has been revealed to the Church of Christ. In the 19th century, Pius IX declared the IC to be dogma and then later declared himself to be infallible, thus giving himself the power to change the teaching of the universal church. We in the Orthodox Church don't accept this. This is a Catholic problem not ours So we don't have to defend our traditional position in regards to this novelty of the IC. But we do need to defend the virtuous nature of the Theotokos!

The patristic witness speaks only of the exalted sanctity of the Theotokos and of Her immaculateness and gives Her various names which define Her purity and spiritual might; but nowhere is there any word of Her IC. Which church fathers declared that God in a miraculous fashion purified the Virgin Mary while yet in the womb? Read your own Latin Theologian - Bernard of Clairvaux! She was rather victorious over temptations and was saved by Her Divine Son. The IC leads to the Catholic view that "Mary is an associate with our Redeemer as Co-Redemptress".

St Epiphanius writes: "Mary is not God and did not receive a body from heaven, but from the joining of man and woman; and according to the promise, like Isaac, She was prepared to take part in the Divine Economy. But on the other hand, let none dare foolishly to offend the Holy Virgin".

The IC for us Orthodox, instead of being an exaltation of the Virgin Mary, is infact a belittlement of Her victory over human nature. And to those modern Orthodox scholars who follow the heretical teaching of Bulgakov, She is not the fourth person of the Holy Trinity!

Yours in Christ,
Fr Serafim

Holy Protection of the Theotokos Orthodox Church
Seattle, Washington SSR.

Dear Memo,

Well, I don't think that the East has ever denied the all-holiness and sinlessness of the Mother of God.

The issue is more with Augustinian notions of Original Sin than the Virgin Mary, when one comes down to it.

Insofar as the Immaculate Conception was, as far as the East is concerned, a "forced" rationalization of the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary given Augustinianism, it is rejected.

And rightly so, I believe. Before it was proclaimed a dogma, RC's were allowed to believe that Mary had the "stain" of Original Sin on her soul.

That, for the East, would be intolerable.

In addition, the East would never proclaim such doctrines within the "public sphere" of the preaching of the Church.

They are already contained in the liturgical tradition and, as such, are believed.

The term "Mother of God" was defined by the Church as a touchstone of Orthodoxy for all Catholics.

It defines Orthodox teaching of the Person of Jesus Christ.

And it is also the fount of all possible honours for the Virgin Mary.

So the East would look at something like the Immaculate Conception and its statement that the Virgin Mary was preserved from the implied stain of Original Sin and say two things:

1) What heretic would ever believe the Mother of the Word Incarnate ever had a stain of sin on her soul? That is a slight against our Lord!!

and

2) Original Sin has to do with the consequences of Adam's real stain of sin - we don't inherit the stain but the death that it brought. Our Lady clearly died, as the liturgy celebrates for the feast of the Dormition and so, therefore, she had Original Sin, as ST Andrew of Crete reflected, but again this is not a "stain."

The RC Church, especially in the CCC, clearly appears to be moving Eastward in a reconsideration of Original Sin.

And if, as Meyendorff wrote, the RC's accept Original Sin as the majority of the Fathers and Orthodoxy accept it, then "Immaculate Conception" means that Our Lady was sanctified by the Spirit from the moment of Her Conception in the womb of St Anne.

Again, that feast was celebrated for centuries, and it would not be necessary to define what is already professed in our prayer.

Alex

The idea that a Pope has the power to change the teachings of the Univesal Church, is pretty much the opposite of the teaching of "infallibility".

PROVE IT.

This is sheer assertion. I am getting very weary of airy-fairy assertions.

Mr. Likoudis was far from a "marginal Greek Orthodox" before his conversion. He is far from a poor researcher now. You have not offeredmone shred of substantiation for your contentions. You have merely asserted. Again: that's not good enough.

But more to the point, I still maintain that this is indeed off-topic. Forget the provenance of the arguments, OK? Forget who said what. Just focus on the arguments themselves and engage them on their own merits. Answer the arguments, please, and leave personalities out of it. Thanks very much!

Blessings,

ZT

Let's leave papal infallibility for another thread, OK?

Re the Immaculate Conception: Why wasn't it defined during the first 7 ecumenical councils? Both St. Louis de Montfort and Ven. John Henry Newman, in their different ways, give the same response: The Christological doctrines had to get hammered out first before attention could turn to Our Lady.

No Catholic disputes that Jesus, the God-Man, is infinitely more important than Mary, a mere creature (albeit an exalted one). Our faith centers on Jesus, not Mary. That's why it is called Christianity, not Marianity. :p

In the early Christian centuries, it was necessary for Christians to resolve what they believed about the central tenets of Christian faith. And those central tenets involved Jesus.

Christological heresies were flourishing. (I will diplomatically refrain from mentioning what geographical area they were flourishing in. :lol:) And the ecumenical councils rightly focused on combating those deadly Christological heresies while (in the process) defining the great Christological dogmas.

Once proper Christology was established, more attention could be turned toward Mary....It just stands to reason. First things first. Basics first, crucial essentials first, and then the rest...

But y'know, it's not at all accurate to say that Catholics didn't start talking up the Immaculate Conception until the 19th century. The doctrine actually goes way back to the proto-evangelion, Genesis 3:15. And it was developed -- in "germ" form at least -- quite early on, mainly by Eastern Fathers in their discussions of Mary as the New Eve. No, they didn't use the (anachronistic) term "Immaculate Conception." But they were developing the concept.

Moreover, later Eastern Fathers were even more explicit in affirming the Theotokos's immaculateness from the moment of her conception. I believe an argument can be made that the East actually was readier to affirm Mary's total sinlessness from the git-go than the West was!

The post-1854 Orthodox disavowal of the IC contrasts markedly with earlier Orthodox affirmations of the IC. You may call my contention "insulting," but I think the historical record bears it out.

So once again, I would ask that we focus on the arguments (not on what we think about James Likoudis), focus on the historical record, and focus on the evidence (patristic and otherwise). Let's see where the evidence leads us, shall we? Just a thought!

ZT