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

Dear Francisco,

You asked whether James Likoudis was Eastern Catholic or Latin. I have met Mr. Likoudis and he is most definitely Latin. He was past head of Catholics United for the Faith. It would appear that in some ways he has tried to be more Latin than most Latins. I myself am Latin though I have attended a Melkite parish for the last year and am seriously considering changing canonically to the Eastern Church in the next year or two.

I do wish that Mr. Likoudis would get back in touch with his Eastern roots. I believe that he would then be in a position to help east and west to understand one another.

Yours in the Theotokos,

Terry

Dear Alex,

I appreciate your endurance during these exchanges. This forum is a great blessing and fine example of Christian tolerance, in the best sense of that word.

I'm not sure that John Chrysostom was referring specifically and only to the Wedding at Cana when he made his remarks. But I certainly agree that like 99% of all patristic commentary, technically they're just commentary (except for those writings that have been adopted into the canon). We often cite the fathers because who cares what A.J. Rubis thinks?

I've been waiting for eight years for someone to provide me with a regularly used liturgical text from the Eastern Orthodox Catholic tradition that refers to our Most Holy Lady as "anamartia." Do you know of one?

I repeat: if original sin passes mortality to us, and if one were sinless, why would one die?

In Christ,

Andrew

It is my opinion, Andrew, that if God could exempt the Blessed Virgin from the "stain" of Original Sin (from a Western point of view, of course) then he could certainly allow her to age and die, although she did not have Original Sin.

ChristTeen287

Dear Andrew,

You are a gentleman and a scholar!

From the RC point of view, of course, the idea that the Mother of God was born without Original Sin means that, ostensibly, she did not die and the doctrine of the Assumption defined by Pius XII left that whole issue open.

From our Eastern point of view, she had Original Sin - understood not as "stain" but as death as St Andrew of Crete discussed.

So although she was open to the effects of Adam's Sin which is what Original Sin is all about, as are we all, she was and is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit (St John of Kronstadt) from the moment of her Conception (and John the Baptist was also so sanctified, according to our liturgical tradition).

Her sanctification from her Conception, that preserved her in great holiness as the Mother of the Word Incarnate throughout her life, also mollified, for example, the pain of giving birth to OLGS Jesus Christ - as she felt no pain, but, again, as the liturgy sings, she felt those terrible pangs of pain standing underneath the Cross.

Death was not terrible for her either. She "fell asleep" and the Church calls it her "Dormition." See the sermon by St Gregory Palamas - I'm sure you know it off by heart.

In some Slavonic liturgical texts, I have come across the feast of the "Dormition of St Theodosius of the Kyivan Caves Lavra" as well.

Again, Original Sin is about the weakening of our nature and death, and has nothing whatever to do with "stain" - we of course stain our souls with sins throughout our lives.

But her sanctification and indwelling by the Spirit Whose Spouse she was and is led to her experiencing a painless birthgiving of our Saviour and a sweet, peaceful falling asleep at her Dormition, as well as the strength and succour of the Holy Spirit throughout her life, especially in her great sufferings at the time of the Crucifixion of her Son.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Are there any ancient eastern fathers making a distinction between "sin" and the "stain of sin?"

While asking that, I do agree that there is a difference between "a sinner" (verbal form) in the way that it is used in Psalms and other scripture and the state of "being in sin," or in other words, a victim or inheritor of original sin, and hence, death. Now I'm talking about Psalm 50/51, for example, "in sins did my mother conceive me." [the Hebrew here is plural].

I have never and would never refer to the Theotokos as "a sinner." "The sinner" is one who actively pursues sin, but all of us are "in sin." But my earlier contribution, in the "Alexis Toth" subforum, tried to convey that the word "sin" is so broad for us in the East [in word or in deed, in knowledge or in ignorance, whether manifest or unseen] that we do go so far as to accept personal responsibility/sin/penance for things that are not our personal fault (in the modern sense).

An example: If I were present at a place while a murder or serious crime took place, and even if I had no ability to react or prevent it, I would feel caught up in that sin "as men are caught up in an evil time as fish in a net," and feel the need to pray, fast, and repent prior to participating in anything sacred/sacramental. I don't know if this fits the definition for "stain."

Could it be that by using "stain," East and West are talking past each other once again?

Dear Andrew,

Why you are not a priest/professor of theology, I will never know!

Certainly, there is the aspect of "sin in our environment" and the way our own personal sins contribute to that burden and influence.

There is also the aspect of "sinfulness" or the tendency to sin that concupiscence in particular is the root cause of.

One of my little students in catechism class once asked whether it is proper to pray the Jesus Prayer with the ending "a sinner" after he has been to confession . . .

"As my sins are forgiven, Mr. Religia (my school nickname ), I shouldn't be telling a lie by continuing to call myself a sinner . . ."

And I think the answer to that profound question, and yours, lies in what we mean by "a sinner."

It seems to me that it means, first and foremost, the "state of sinfulness" and sinful rebellion of our nature that is fallen as a result of Original Sin.

We therefore ask God to have mercy on us sinners throughout our lives since we are calling His mercy on our sinful, sick spiritual state that becomes whole only after a lifetime of spiritual struggle when our lamps become filled up with the Oil of the Mercy of Christ.

Original Sin is, as I see it anyway, active in our sinfulness that is slowly supplanted by the transfiguring and divinizing Grace of God.

This process was advanced in the lives of the Theotokos, John the Baptist, John the Theologian and Nicholas of Myra - as indicated by our liturgical and deuterocanonical New Testament tradition.

You are a theologian - and I am a simple layman!

Alex

Hello:

Would it be unacceptable for the Eastern tradition to say that in the case of the Mother of God this process was not only advanced, but actualy fulfilled from the moment of her conception?

As far as I'm concerned, that would be totally equivalent to the IC doctrine as defined by the RCC.

Shalom,
Memo.

I listened to an interview with Mr Likoudis through EWTN and as you said, he is definately Latin. He said he converted because of the wonderful experiences he had in Catholic schools (he was very interested in Catholic schools) and also because he read about Catholicism, and thought that the Catholic Church was the true Church (this is what is said in the interview).
In addition to the apologetics books, he wrote one defending the Novus Ordo Mass.

...in other words Mr. Likoudis consider that the Byzantine liturgical and theological tradition should drive our Orthodox brothers to acept the Catholic dogmas of Papal Infability and Inmaculate Conception but he does not consider the Byzantine liturgical and theological tradition good enough for him...Well I think that what Mr. Likoudis means is that if our Orthodox brothers want to be faithful to their theological and liturgical tradition they should become Catholics and embrace the Latin rite...as he did.

Dear Memo,

Ah, you've hit on yet another difference between East and West here!

While there is no question that the Mother of God had no shadow of sin on her soul and that she was and is "Most Holy" and "All Holy," the Eastern Church sees Theosis as an ongoing, dynamic process that continues EVEN after death in heaven!

In the liturgy of St John Chrysostom and St Basil the Great, the Mother of God is not only invoked but also PRAYED FOR (following the Eucharistic Canon).

When we offer the liturgy in her honour and in honour of the Saints, this brings them joy in heaven as it helps intensify their "degree of glory" (sorry but Latinisms die hard with some people ) and intense union with God.

The Eastern Church also celebrates her being filled by the Holy Spirit at her Annunciation and at Pentecost as well.

When it comes to the Holy Spirit, one can simply never have enough of Him!

Alex

Dear Andrew,

The Greek translation for “sinless” is “anamartitos” (sincerely I have never heart the word “anamartia”) and in the Byzantine liturgical tradition is only used when talking about our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ. In the prayer for the departed the Church says “no one is sinless but you, only you are beyond sin and your justice is for ever” and in one of the troparia for the departed we sing “ nobody is sinless but you the strong”. When talking about the Most Holy Mother of God the Church uses the words “Akhrantos” “Pamakhrantos” “Amiantos” “Panamomitos” “Panamomos” that mean “pure” “most pure” “immaculate” “most immaculate” but the word “Anamartitos”, as you rightly said, is never used when talking about the Theotokos. I can see that you are very interested in Greek and I appreciate your interest very much. I hope that you will not get any offence if I correct your Greek from time to time (my Greek is not perfect but it is certainly much better than my poor English).

Yours in Christ,
Frank

Dear Francisco,

You are to be truly congratulated!

We of the East thought that the "Franks" forgot to speak Greek centuries ago!

If you were around in Constantinople in 1054, we'd probably still be one Church!

God bless,

Alex

Dear Alex,

Do not forget that we Spanish are not "Franks" (the word "Frank" is used to name the German tribes that settled in France or the citizens of the Holy German-Roman Empire) (heaven forbid!). We are Spanish, Hispani, Iberians, Celtiberians, Visigoths or whatever you want but we feel “Romans” rather than “Franks”. By the way there were Spanish fighting with Holy Emperor Constintine XI in Constantinople 1453 (Juan de Toledo was one of them). There were also Spanish in Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade but they were Catalonians (during the catalonian domination of Athens they made the Chuch of the virgin in the Parthenon a Latin Cathedral!!!). Catalonia in much nearer to the "Franks" than the rest of Spain)

Yours in Christ,
Frank (from "Francisco" not from “Frank”)

Dear Francisco,

Yes, I was thinking more along the lines of your shortened name, "Frank."

I prefer "Celtiberian" myself!

I understand that the Celtic language of Galiz can be studied in Spanish universities - good for you!

The Scots King Macbeth travelled to Rome, as I understand, and visited the people of Celtiberia on the way.

Did you know Macbeth was venerated as a local saint in Scotland? Some English Orthodox calendars still list his name under August 15th!

Thank you for your kind wishes in the Prayer thread.

Your friend in "Canuckistan"

Alex

Dear Fellow Contributors:

Alex has pointed us back in the direction that I think helps most:

That moving away from sin (missing the mark) and moving toward communion with God (hitting the mark) is always a process for everyone. Surely, any person may have a moment/moments of critical choice when they must choose to repent and get back on the path to salvation. But that it is an ongoing process shows clearly in Paul's letters wherein he almost always uses the present progressive tense: "for those who are being saved."

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals so often want to wrap it all up and declare that "on March 14th, 1978, I was saved!" I agree that they may have started the process on that date, but they can always fall always again. We are free.

That the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary and John the Forerunner are far, far advanced in this process (starting at their conceptions) only further reminds us why we persistently venerate them: Because we can also increase in sanctification. That the Theotokos is the most sanctified is implied in scripture. [John was the greatest born of a woman, but the first in the kingdom is greater than he.]

(Note that a passive verb form or adjectival form of holy is used to show that sanctity was placed upon her and other saints whereas only Christ, of himself, "is" holy: "One is holy, one is Lord, ICXC,.../eis Agios, eis Kirios...")

All of this, the ability to move in the same direction, toward the same sanctification that we attribute to the Theotokos, allowed Fr. Schmemann to say that, for us, Mary is not the great exception, but the great example!

In Christ.