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

Hi, y'all. In James Likoudis's The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy, he claims that Orthodox rejection of the doctrine of Original Sin -- as well as Orthodox rejection of the Immaculate Conception -- are relatively recent developments (polemical developments, contra Rome). Re the Immaculate Conception, he notes: "There are undeniable affirmations of the doctrine in the writings of Greek and Russian theologians right into the 19th century. In the great Academy of Kiev established by Peter Mohila (from the 17th c. to the early 18th c.) to preserve the purity of Orthodoxy from Western errors, the Russian Orthodox rectors and professors of the Academy clearly professed the Mother of God's exemption from original sin. In White Russia writers firmly professed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. There even existed Confraternities in honor of the Immaculate Conception. In consecrating themselves to the Mother of God, members of the Immaculate Conception of Polotsk professed, 'I promise to honor, all the days of my life, your immaculate and most pure conception.'..." (There are a bunch more examples, but my typing fingers are really tired, so will have to save 'em for another time.

This confirms what I keep feeling: that there's less dividing us than some folks want to concede. I think the differences are exaggerated, often for polemical reasons.

Any thoughts?

ZT

Yes, Zoe. Often there is too much polemics and pride on both sides of the divide. HIs Grace, Bishop Kallistos mentions many instances of this in his book "The Orthodox Church"

As far as the Immaculate Conception, the Orthodox feel it is unnecessary to define this and that it tends to place the Theotokos outside of the human race by a dispensation. Both Churches proclaim that the Theotokos did not personally sin. To me, it is the greater honor, to Our Lady that she could have sinned but did not because of her deep following of God's will.

Peace,
Brian

The problem in James Likoudis is that he doesn't research properly what he writes. (He's even attacked beliefs held by Eastern Catholics before in his zeal to attack [oh, sorry, "ecumenically dialogue with"] his perceived opponent.) What he is doing here with the concept of an "immaculate conception" is akin to the way some Protestant take the Patristic view that "God became man that man might become god" out of context. "You see!" some Protestants argue, "those corrupt early Church Fathers thought we become Gods!" This, of course, is absurd and a total misunderstanding of what was being said. Language can often be misleading if you are unaware of the content that fills the language, and the presuppositions that lie under the usage of the word. This is the situation with what Likoudis talks about, and it's an unfortunately not-so-uncommon mistake. No Orthodox theologian, knowing the apocryphal (though legit) traditions regarding Mary would question that her birth was "special" and filled with grace. Many writers and hymnographers, indeed, have said many wonderful things about the Theotokos, including high language regarding the her birth (which was itself a miracle, according to Church tradition).

Let me give just one more example of how this language thing can cause confusion, especially for those outside a certain tradition (or who have left said tradition and are looking to pick at it). In the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, we hear "Holy things are for the holy". A moment later, we hear "ONE is holy, Jesus Christ..." So wait, how can we partake of the eucharist when it is clearly said (in the liturgy and in tradition) that only ONE is holy? The answer is that our "holiness" has a different content and dynamic than God's "holiness". As with the word "god" (divine), we can use the word "holy" in a number of different ways, and with a number of different meanings. Likoudis' whole argument is based on the false assumption that immaculate (or whatever similar words he finds) have the same content for Orthodox Christians that he and the Catholics have when they use the same word(s). In the case of words like "immaculate," this isn't the case.

I really don't mean to be posting, but I was lurking today and did want to quickly leave a few notes. May the Lord guide you!

PS. Just one more note, regarding what is said further (expanding on the language). Once a false or distorted belief has been accepted, it can easily be expanded upon and seemingly fit with the false/distorted belief. So someone might say "but Likoudis examines in a bit more depth, he doesn't just use quotes with the word 'immaculte'." This doesn't really prove anything though: Likoudis will go about a process of convincing someone that "immaculate" in the Orthodox documents in question means the same thing as Catholics mean by the word, and so he basically tells people what to see in the passage. This is not totally unlike Southern Baptist Ministers who claim that there are secret messages in rock records (via backmasking). First they make their claim, and then while playing the records "point out" the messages. Sure enough, where there had once been chaos, people all of a sudden think they can hear the messages. This happens often in religious circles, with people being led around by their teachers. Don't believe me? Just look at Protestant Seminaries who DO teach courses on the Fathers, but who keep most of their students. They read the fathers through a lens that makes the Fathers seem non-Catholic/Orthodox, and don't read things within the context of the whole mind of the Church. In the same way, Catholics often view the Fathers through the lens of modern Catholic theology (whether Aquinas or Vatican 1 or whatever else). I'm not saying that we Orthodox are unaffected by this, I think we all need to be careful with anachronisms.

Was Eve outside the human race, then?

After all, she, too, was created sinless?

And the early eastern Fathers called Mary the New Eve.

Mr. Likoudis's point is that Eastern Orthodox themselves firmly adhered to the Immaculate Conceotion -- [i[until[/i] 1854, when (for polemical reasons) they began to disavow their own theological heritage!

He gives copious examples of this. I've cited only a few.

(I disagree strongly with Seeker of God's post, but I've no time or engery to go into that now. )

Blessings,

ZT

ZoeTheodora:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Could you kindly provide any patristic defenses of the Immaculate Conception upon which Likoudis' work might rely? I don't mean to denigrate later Greek and Russian thinkers, but the Russians in particular have not always been fully attuned to the consensus patrum on many issues, particularly the Orthodox understanding of human nature and sin.

As I understand it, the Orthodox Church has never accepted the idea that the Theotokos could have been born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam because � according to the theological anthropology that is rooted in Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers � no human being is born with inherited guilt. Like us, however, the Theotokos did inherit the mortality that plagues all of mankind because of the Fall.

On patristic grounds, there is no need to do what Latin theologians have done through Ineffabilis Deus. There is no reason to invent a theory to support the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. There is no need to teach that, on account of "the merits of Christ," the Holy Spirit was able to prevent her from inheriting the guilt of Adam.

In Christ,
Theophilos

I must agree with Seeker. I too have read some of Likoudis' work and find it to be lacking in real objective substance. It seems to me to simply be someone who disagrees with Eastern theology stating his opinions.

Dmitri

Dear Dmitri:

I'm not up on my logical fallacies, but I think this may be what as known as "poisoning the well." :p

With all due respect, I don't think your basic take on Likoudis's books -- or Seeker's basic take -- is particularly relevant to the present discussion. Please, if you will, put aside your feelings about Likoudis's books overall and address the arguments I've presented on their own merits, irrespective of their provenance. If you want to critique Likoudis in general...well, that's another discussion, I think, and hence it would warrant another thread.

Blessings,

ZT

Sure. It's past midnight now and I'm brain-deasd, but in fact there are patristic citations aplenty from both East and West. I think that is Mr. Likoudis's whole point -- i.e., that in rejecting the Immaculate Conception, the Orthodox are rejecting their own theological heritage. He contends that modern polemicists ("modern" in the sense of post-1854) have rewritten Eastern history to some extent, ignoring or glossing over the many patristic testimonies to the Immaculate Conception in order to socre polemical points against Rome. I think the facts bear him out on this. I will be happy to provide some evidence for my contention, God being my helper.

Mr. Likoudis addresses this argument, too. He shows (convincingly I think) that many Orthodox misunderstand the catholic concept of Original Sin. Many assume that we Catholics have adopted the Augustinian view wholesale -- complete with St. Augustine's view that Original Sin (tied up with concupiscence) is transmitted through the sexual act. But this is not the Catholic view at all. And, Mr. likoudis shows, the authentic Catholic view of Original Sin is identical with the historic (patristic) Eastern view.

Again, says Likoudis, in overreacting against "Original Sin,"
the East is rejecting large chunks of its own theological patrimony -- for, according to Likoudis, it certainly can be shown that Eastern Fathers, from early on, accepted the idea of Original Sin (which is indeed inherited although not transmissible via the sexual act in the strict Augustinian sense). I'm kind of out of my depth here, to put it mildly, so I'll have to do some research and get back to you urther on this. But the main point is that East and West are NOT so far apart on this issue as certain polemicists would have us think. I feel there is a tendency in some quarters to exaggerate the difefrences between our theologies far too much, for polemical purposes. And of course, these exaggerated contrasts are always drawn to the disadvantaeg of the Catholic view, which is invariably portrayed as less authentically traditional or patristic. (There's never any proof furnished for this claim, of course...it is always sheer airy assertion. But hey, details, details. :p )

The mortality, yes. Just not the sin.

Sigh. This truly sounds as if it's come right out of the polemicists' playbook. But perhaps you could furnish a shred of substantiation that the "theory" of the Immaculate Conception was "invented" (presumably in 1854)? Perhaps you could prove to me that there's no Biblical or patristic basis for the Imamculate Conception? Perhaps, in short, you could do more than merely assert?

Thanks in advance, my brother!

Blessings,

ZT

"O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!"

My dear ZoeTheodora,

After reading some of the articles of Mr. Likoudis in this website (http://www.expage.com/page/jlikoudis/) I must say that I do completely agree with Dmitri's, Seeker of God's and Theofilos's considerations about the work of Mr. Likoudis. You say "Mr. Likoudis's point is that Eastern Orthodox themselves firmly adhered to the Immaculate Conception until 1854, when (for polemical reasons) they began to disavow their own theological heritage!" and that "in rejecting the Immaculate Conception, the Orthodox are rejecting their own theological heritage". Well my question is if both Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholics (i. e. the whole universal Church) did firmly believe in the Inmaculate Conception of Our Lady and in the Infability of the Pope of Rome why did they not solemnly proclaim these dogmas as expression of the common faith of the Catholic Church in some of the seven first Ecumenical Council? Have you ever thought that probably that was not the common faith of the whole Church? Have you ever thought that this is probably the reason why these dogmas were not proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church till the 19th century and were rejected by the Orthodox Church? I find quite insulting to say that our Orthodox Christian brothers are traitors to their “own theological heritage” just because they refuse to accept 19th century Catholic dogmas and that they rejected them just for “polemical reasons”. I believe that our Orthodox brothers did refuse these dogmas because they believed that they were contrary or unnecessary from the point of view of the Easter Theological tradition and that their love for the Tradition and not only “polemical reasons” drove them to reject them. I suppose that our Moslem brothers could say same about the Christians i. e. “ that Christians themselves firmly adhered to the truth till they refused the preaching of the prophet Mohamed and began to disavow their own theological heritage” and that “in rejecting the Islam, Christians are rejecting their own theological heritage”. Oh, please! I firmly believe that both Catholic and Orthodox believe that any kind of sin was strange to Our Lady the Most Holy Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary. I also consider that both Orthodox and Catholics believe in the infability of the Church of Christ and in the primacy of the bishop of Rome as the “first among many brothers”. I also hope that our two Churches will be able with the help of God to find the suitable way to express our common faith, a way that would be acceptable from the point of view of both the Eastern and Western theological traditions but I can not accept offensive affirmations like those of Mr. Likoudis. If someone accept the opinions of Mr. Likounis then the theological dialogue with the Orthodox Church have no meaning for him/her and the Ecumenical movement is nothing but an attempt to drive our separated Christians brother “back” to the obedience to the pope. That is not the kind of Ecumenism I believe in. Dear ZoeTheodora do you believe that the writings of our father Saint Gregory the Theologian speak in favor of the Catholic dogma of Inmaculate Conception (I am not saying that his writings are against) ?

Yours in Christ,
Francisco

Dear Friends in Christ,

Just a few thoughts on this subject.

In "The Orthodox Way," Archbishop Kallistos Ware states clearly that the Immaculate Conception CAN be believed in as a personal opinion by Orthodox.

He himself says that if Orthodoxy understood Original Sin in the Augustinian way, he could see Orthodoxy developing an expression like the Immaculate Conception to underline that the Mother of God never had any stain of sin on her soul.

The CCC states the Orthodox view of Original Sin - the RC Church never defined Augustinianism's Original Sin as a normative doctrine, although it was widely accepted in previous centuries in the West.

The Immaculate Conception then is really not about the Mother of God being conceived without any stain of sin, but about her being sanctified from her Conception in the womb of St Anne.

As Cantor Joe Thur would say, we need to look to the liturgical tradition of our Church.

And our Church commemorates the feast of the Conception of St Anne - and this means, according to the actual liturgical prayers themselves, that the Spirit sanctified and made holy the Mother of God from the first moment of her Conception.

Our Church says the same thing about John the Baptist, since his Conception is also celebrated - only the feast of Saints may be liturgically honoured.

But the fact remains that there have been Orthodox teachers and saints who understood the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin, accepted it and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

(Although not proclaimed until the 19th century, the Immaculate Conception was popular for centuries before. In Spain itself, this doctrine was proclaimed as normative for the Church throughout the Spanish Kingdom and Empire in the 16th century).

St Gennadios Scholarios, St Peter Mohyla and St Dmitri of Rostov (some say St Gregory Palamas himself, judging by his sermon on the Dormition) believed in the Immaculate Conception.

There were Orthodox brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception in the Kyivan Orthodox Church that wore the IC Medal and took the bloody vow - to die rather than deny the doctrine.

There are miraculous pictures of the Immaculate Conception accepted as miraculous icons of the Orthodox Church as Prof. Poselianin states (e.g. the Immaculate Mother or Our Lady of Grace) and as the OCA website re: the feast of the Conception of St Anne confirms as well.

As for Patristic backing, if one accepted the Augustinian view of Original Sin, and there were Orthodox teachers who did that in history, then it is more a matter of "appropriateness" that determines the veracity of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception rather than anything else.

Just some thoughts . . .

Alex

Dear Friends in Christ,

The doctrine of the immaculate conception appeared in the 9th century, its chief exponent being Radbertus and later Duns Scotus. Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux decisively censored it. The Dominicans preached against while the Franciscans promoted it. For Orthodox this doctrine was and is irrelevant, since we don't inherit original guilt. To suggest that the Most Holy Theotokos needed a special dispensation is to undermine her virtuous nature. The renowned ascetic Catherine of Sienna affirmed that the Virgin Mary was born with original sin. St Epiphanius condemns those who demean the Virgin as well as those who glorify her beyond what is proper. Our Orthodox understanding of this can be summed up in the words of St Ambrose of Milan: "Of all those born of women, there is not a single one who is perfectly holy, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, Who in a special new way of immaculate birthgiving, did not experience earthly taint". (Commentary on Luke, Chap 2). There is no scriptural foundation for this strange doctrine: "One that hath been in all points tempted like as we are; yet without sin (Heb 4: 15).

Yours in Christ,
Fr Serafim

Dear Alex,

I think that the point here is not the dogma of Inmaculate Conception (we had got the oportunity of discussing about mariological subjets in this forum before as you will remember) but the atemp of some Roman Catholic polemists (probably Mr. Likoudis belongs to this group)to develope a "Patrologia Greace secundum Latinos" (the atemp to reduce the Greek patristic theological tradition to the Latin theological categories according to the theory of the "praestantia ritus latini" or if you prefer the Latin interpretation and in some cases misinterpretation of Greek theology) or even worse a "Patrologia Graeca in Graecos" (to use the Latin interpretation or in some cases misinterpretation of the Greek patristic theological tradition for polemical purposes against our Orthodox brothers). The Scholastic movement during the Middle Ages tried to make the Philosofy a servant of the Western Theology (Philosophia ancilla Theologiae) some Roman Catholic polemists try to do the same with the Eastern Theology! If I would be Orthodox (I am not) that would not be particularly difficult for me to find in the patristic theological tradition of the Latin Church arguments against the Filoque, the Inmaculate Conception and the Infability of the pope. I think that Christians (and specially the Catholics)must apreciate the rich theological heritage of both the Eastern and the Western Ctholic Church because of its value and not just for polemical reasons. The II Vatican Council told us to rediscover and apreciate the rich theological tradition of the Eastern Church as part of the theological heritage of the Universal Church. The study of the Eastern theological tradition by the Catholics (specially Western Catholics)will drive us to discover not only the things we have in common with our Orthodox brothers but also those things that separe us. The purpose of the Ecumenical movement from my point of view is not to impose the catholic dogmas or the Latin theological tradition to our separated brothers but to search toguether the truth and to find a common expression of that truth that will enable us to take part in the "common chalice". I wrote in my last post that I believed that according to the theological tradition of the eastern Chuch any kind of sin was strange to the Mother of God but I would never say that the inmaculate conception was part of the common faith of the Eastern church. So that we are called to find the way to express our common faith in the Most Holy Mother of God without imposing to our Orthodox brothers the theological concepts developed by the Latin theological tradition. Both Catholic and Orthodox are expected to express their common faith and to proclaim it to the world without imposing the theological concepts or categories of the one Church to the other. For example, saint gregory the Theologian says that Mary was purified form any kin of sin in the moment of the Anunciation/incarnation (I am sorry that I can not provide you with the text in this very moment) Can the opinion of Saint Gregory be used against the Catholic dogma of the Inmaculate Conception? Is Gregory the Theologian against Inmaculate Conception? Probably not but the truth is that Inmaculate Conception (according to the theological categories and concepts developed by the Latin Church) is something "strange" to the Mariology of saint Gregory the Theologian ( If I am wrong please tell me).

Yours in Christ,
Francisco

Dear Francisco,

You raise a good point!

In fact, the Fathers saw more than one occasion in the life of the Virgin Mary when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, the Annunciation being one of them.

The fact is that the Eastern Church celebrates the Conception of St Anne as a feast day and this, in and of itself, means that the Mother of God was sanctified by the Holy Spirit in the womb of her mother, as is also the case with John the Baptist whose conception is also celebrated liturgically.

Our Lady was also present at Pentecost and was, of course, filled with the Spirit then as well.

Again, "Original Sin" is not a "stain" of any sin, but the consequences we all face as a result of the disobedience of Adam, including death etc.

St Andrew of Crete accepted that the Mother of God had Original Sin since the liturgy honours her death or Dormition.

If she died, then that was an indicator of Original Sin - but there is no question of the Augustinian theory of "stain" of sin here.

Orthodox Christians sometimes get bogged down in trying to critique the RC Immaculate Conception doctrine by somehow implying that the Mother of God had some sort of "stain" after all.

Unfortunately, Father Seraphim in his post above seems to have fallen into that trap - his conclusions are his own and do not reflect the Patristic tradition nor the true Orthodox view of the Mother of God contained in and expressed by the Orthodox Church's liturgy - which is our patrimony as well.

I say this not to offend the good Father.

But when one has the Mother of God and her total holiness (dependent of course on Her Son) on one side, and Father Seraphim on the other, I'll give you three guesses who I will be defending ;0).

Alex

ZoeTheodora:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I think, with respect to the "dogma" of the Immaculate Cocneption, that the onus is on those who would defend it as a dogma to provide the supporting patristic and scriptural evidence.

Alex:

You said: "The Immaculate Conception then is really not about the Mother of God being conceived without any stain of sin, but about her being sanctified from her Conception in the womb of St Anne."

Is this how the doctrine was formulated by Pope Pius IX in 1854? Was it not formulated based on an Augustinian understanding of original sin?

You also said: "Unfortunately, Father Seraphim in his post above seems to have fallen into that trap - his conclusions are his own and do not reflect the Patristic tradition nor the true Orthodox view of the Mother of God contained in and expressed by the Orthodox Church's liturgy - which is our patrimony as well."

This seems to beg the question. I agree that we need to look to the liturgy and the Fathers. Please explain where in the liturgy or the patristic corpus would we find this dogma?

In Christ,
Theophilos

I think all of us can agree that the MOst Holy Theotokos was personally sinless, Immaculate Conception or not.

Let us honor her and end some of the point scoring on both sides!!!!

Peace,
Brian

Steadfast protectress of Christians,

Constant advocate before the creator:

Do not despise the cry of us sinners,

But in your goodness come speedily to help us who call on you in

faith.

Hasten to hear our petition and to intercede for us, O Theotokos,

For you always protect those who honor you.