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

Bless me a sinner, Father Serafim,

Yes, thank you for bringing up that quote.

While I realize the Orthodox were rejecting the IC doctrine, I think the language that was chosen, as you've presented, is truly unfortunate.

For it suggests the Orthodox themselves didn't really understand: a) what the Immaculate Conception doctrine is all about because b) they really hadn't come to terms with the Patristic vs. the Augustinian notions of Original Sin.

And it would not have been the first time in history that this happened.

Those Orthodox who entertained, as you say, private opinions about the IC, were, as Meyendorff stated, individuals who understood and accepted the Augustinian view of the "stain of Original Sin."

While they were certainly entitled to hold both as personal opinions, neither reflected true Orthodox patristic teaching.

That is why the language you quote is simply so unfortunate as it leaves one with the impression that Original Sin is about "stain" rather than about its effects e.g. death etc.

Schmemann and others did talk about the tremendous Latinization of Orthodox theology in Europe.

That quote is truly an example of just that.

Happily, you don't subscribe to it, as your previous post on the Most Holy Theotokos so articulately confirms!

Kissing your right hand, I again ask for your blessing,

Alex

Dear Alex,

With all due respect, I think you are perhaps missing my whole point. Or rather, Mr. Likoudis's point, which I subscribe to.

It is this: The view that the East has never accepted the Immaculate Conception is simply false. It is historical revisionism inspired by anti-Catholic polemics.

We are the immediate heirs of more recent history, and this can obscure for us the testimony of earlier history. IOW, we are all pretty shortsighted historically. We lack an accurate longer view. We're so immersed in our own context that we have a hard time seeing beyond it. This can be dangerous, as it (paradoxically) makes us a bit gullible. So, then, we encounter the polemicists' historical revisionism, and we eat it right up. Perhaps we haven't been inoculated against propaganda by a solid grounding in more accurate, scholarly history. (I am not saying this is the case in your case, o learned one, but it is a danger for all of us. Especially for me -- which is why I want to know what the early Eastern Fathers really said, not just what I think they said or what someone tells me they said. )

There is apparently a more recent Orthodox tradition (polemically inspired, IMHO) that vehemently rejects the Immaculate Conception. But, according to Likoudis, the earlier Eastern tradition did not reject this doctrine: He quotes Eastern Fathers, saints, and theologians who clearly express belief in the Theotokos's Immaculate Conception.

However, if one has been steeped to the eyeballs in claims that "the East does not accept this," then one may not be aware of this earlier tradition...or particularly open to it. Know what I mean?

As I took pains to state earlier, Catholics do not hold to the strict Augustinian notion of Original Sin. Our doctrine of Original Sin is perhaps closer to the East's than some Easterners (and some Catholics) would concede. So,IMHO, this is a non-issue. It certainly should not prevent acceptance of the IC.

As far as Eastern Catholics go: Pace Francisco, I certainly do NOT believe that Latinizations should be imposed on Eastern Catholics or that Eastern Catholics are inferior to Latins or any such nonsense. I have never said anything of the sort.

But I do believe that Eastern Catholics are Catholics, members of a universal Church, not just a geographically localized one. And this means that Catholic dogmas pertain as much to the East as to the West. The Immaculate Conception was not formally defined for the West only. It is a dogma of the Universal Church. And last time I checked, "universal" included the East.

Blessings,

ZT

So "the West is the land of evil" isn't offensive? :rolleyes:

Nonetheless, I beg pardon for having offended you!

Dear Francisco:

The title of this forum is "East and West." Not "East versus West." Jesus died for the world. Not for just one chunk of it. As the old Protestant hymn puts it, "In Christ there is no East or West." I think, therefore, that we should perhaps put aside our tendencies to counterpose East to West and instead look honestly at the evidence for an earlier Eastern tradition upholding the Immaculate Conception. That's all I'm saying.

As for Lourdes: Of course I realize that private revelation is not de fide. No Catholic must accept any private revelation, not matter how solidly approved it may be.

However, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea to accept the best attested ones, like Lourdes and Fatima. You're not obligated to. But why not? Why not give credence to Lourdes, which has been verified by countless miracles? The evidence is overwhelming...some of the cures have been spectacular, and in many cases, they're documented by before-and-after biopsies, x-rays & so forth. I invite you to examine the evidence, much of which is reported on-line. I think you'll find it's a mighty strong case. And oh, did I happen to mention St. Bernadette's incorrupt body? :p You can see it for yourself at Nevers, France. Her life of quite extraordinary sanctity capped off by incorruption -- this in itself is compelling testimony that she was neither a liar nor a lunatic but an authentic visionary.

It's funny, BTW, that you should object, "A person is not a conception." That is just what Dean Peyremale said to Bernadette when she told him, "'I am the Immaculate Conception.' The Lady has just said these words to me." Bernadette herself had no idea what the words meant -- she was illiterate and rather stunningly ignorant. As Fr. Peyremale realized, she couldn't possibly have made this phrase up! Yes, it sounded strange, a person calling herself a Conception. But, he realized, who was he to tell Heaven how it should express heavenly things? The very strangeness and unexpectedness of the phrase indicated that it came from God, not from man. (God can be really weird sometimes. Just ask the OT prophets. :p )

Later, saints and mystics like St. Maximilian Kolbe meditated on the Lady's words -- "I am the Imamculate Conception" -- and began to plumb their depths. Our Lady is so pure, so all-holy, by God's Grace, that she is the Immaculate Conception.... It's as if her whole being is defined by that original gratuitous gift she received at the first moment of her existence.

It's 2 a.m. here. I'm brain-dead. More later...and sorry, again, for offendingyou.

Blessings,

ZT

LOL! I have Orthodox cyber-pals who'll readily believe in scores of Orthodox weeping icons (which I accept, too, BTW), but they're darned if they're gonna buy Lourdes and Fatima, despite the fact that both Lourdes and Fatima were investigated far more exhaustively than all the weeping icons put together and cubed. :p

But oh well.... :rolleyes:

BTW, of course doctrines are not built on visions. But authentic visions can corroborate and reinforce doctrines. The message of Lourdes -- when Our Lady said, "I am the Immaculate Conception" -- corroborates and reinforces the ancient Catholic belief in Our Lady's unalloyed purity from the first moment of her existence. The Lourdes apparition isn't dogma, but the belief it underscores is.

Blessings,

ZT

From the Catholic point of view what is to be considered dogma regarding the Theotokos' Conception is not a particular theology of Original Sin but her holiness from the first moment of her existence. Implicit in the definition is a Western view of Original Sin when it refers to "all stain of original sin." Such does not canonize that Western view of Original Sin, however. The object of the definition is the Theotokos herself and not how we are to understand Original Sin.

The definition should be understood by its intent: that there was never a moment when the Theotokos was out of God's favor or in sin. Viewed from this perspective, it is possible to understand the phrase "all stain of original
sin" from an Eastern context. All it would mean is that the Theotokos had a special holiness and was not in sin from the first moment of her
existence--a holiness that distinguishes her from the rest of humankind.

Some might object saying that there was no real difference between the Theotokos and us in this regard even going so far as to say that `we're all
immaculately conceived.' If there was no real difference how are we to account for the Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos by St Anne? What
would be the point of the liturgical praises to the Theotokos in this Feast? Is it only a commemoration that St Anne was freed from childlessness (much like Sarah conceiving Isaac or the circumstances surrounding the birth of
John the Forerunner)? If so, then how to explain these excerpts from the Feast (comments and texts from Theotokos: Mary, Mother of Our Lord God
and Saviour Jesus Christ by Archbishop Joseph Raya--a book well worth obtaining!)

Archbishop Raya comments:

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

DTB:

Thanks for your posting. The English rendering of the Troparion that I came across is more pointed:

Today the bonds of barrenness are loosed; for God listened to Joachim and Anna. He promised them � although it was beyond hope that they should bear a divine child. From this child was born incarnate the Infinite God, Who told the Angel to cry to her: Rejoice, full of grace; the Lord is with thee.

The phrase "bear a divine child" more directly suggests the bearing of an already-divinized child. Does anyone have the Greek?

The book by Archbishop Raya is, I think, the best presentation on the Theotokos from an Eastern perspective I've come across. The section on the Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos by St Anne and its link to the Western Feast of the Immaculate Conception is very well done, IMO. More information on the book can be found at:

http://www.madonnahouse.org/publications/raya/raya.htm

Theotokos: Mary, Mother of Our Lord God and Saviour, Jesus Christ

by Archbishop Joseph Raya--a priest and bishop of the Melkite Catholic Church, and Former Archbishop of Akka, Haifa, Nazareth and all Galilee.

The blurb on the website gives this description of the book:

The Church's teaching about Mary. Scripture and tradition, the events of her life, her icons and feast days and Akathist hymn, and her role in our Christian life.150 pages, hardcover • $22.95 (U.S.) • $28.95 (Canadian)
Madonna House Publications • ISBN 0-921440-39-1

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

David:

Thank you for this! I will definitely obtain this book.

Your post above is beautiful and to the point, IMHO. The object of the dogma, as you correctly note, is not one particular understanding of Original Sin but rather the Theotokos herself. Thank you!

ZT

Hee-hee! I saw only one of your requests. I don't visit this forum very often.

I'm not avoiding your question. It's just that I'll have to type in all those quotes with my own 'iddle fingers, since I don't think they're all available on-line. So give me a day or two, and I'll be glad to oblige.

Blessings,

ZT

Some of the same ground was covered a few months on the Forum:

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000981;p=1

Not to discourage new insights or information. Those who are following the new discussion might want to read the earlier postings. There is also a section on page 2 (I believe) of that discussion that quotes another section of Archbishop Raya's book Theotokos which gives some more quotes on the subject.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Zoe-Theodora,

When I said that "In the liturgical language (both of the Eastern and the Catholic Church) the West is the Land of the Evil and the Error" I was triying to give you an example of this kind of stupid and easy jokes that all of us (both Westerns and Easterns) should avoid in this forum (unfortunately I did not make myself clear).

Dear Zoe-Theodora,

With all due respect, Servant of Christ, I think it is you who do not take my meaning.

Since I've never been to a seminary, you will have to suffer my layman's interpretation of this.

Say you and I meet and have a discussion over "spanakopita" (link with Likoudis ).

I have always believed something to be true and tell you so (Mary's total sinlessness and holiness).

You say that there was a time when your ancestors didn't feel compelled to believe it, but that you are now so compelled and so you do (proclamation of the Immaculate Conception in the 19th century).

Then you tell me that I should feel compelled to believe that too.

I then tell you that I have no need to feel compelled to believe it "now," since I have ALWAYS believed it quite voluntarily (constant teaching and liturgical celebration of the fact of Mary's total holiness in the Eastern Church for centuries).

Therefore, I end our talk by saying, "Welcome on board "kalo sarisote stoplia" in Greek - what took you and your ancestors so long?"

We then ideally toast our unity with some ouzo and shout "Elantheria athanatos!"

Yassous!

Alex

Dear Alex,

In Greece we say : "kalos orisate sto plio" ("Welcome to the ship"(?)), "Eleftheria i thanatos" ("Freedom or death") and "Yia sas" ("Hello", "Goodbye", "Health to you"), when talking to a lady or more than one person, or "Yia sou", when talking to a friend. But do not worry about these little mistakes I am sure that you will learn Greek very quickly!!! I am sure that you will find modern Greek much easier than Old Slavonic!!! Does anybody know if Mr. Likoudis is a member of any of the Byzantine Catholic jurisdictions in the USA (as he is expected to do according to the Canon Law being a Greek Orthodox who embraced Catholicism )or does he belong to the Latin Church? The answer to this question would bring a lot of light over the whole discussion and about Mr. Likoudis attitude towards the "true" theological tradition of the Orthodox Church. By the way I love "spanakopita".

Yours in Christ,
Francisco

Alex,

If you and your ancestors have believed this since the onset (which I believe y'all have) then why would one object to a dogmatic certification of what is believed? Eastern Catholics aren't required to accept this dogma from the Western point of view, but they are required to accept it from whichever point of view they choose. If you have belived it since the beginning, then it would seem that the Catholic Church should have declared this dogma much earlier, so as to confirm earlier what was already believed. Also, it isn't as if the West had rejected the idea of Mary's sinlessness before the dogmatic proclaimation; Western Catholics adhered to this belief as thoroughly as Easterners did. All the more reason to officially proclaim the obvious truth of Mary's sinlessness.

ChristTeen287

Dear Christteen287,

We are dealing here with the 'development of dogmas' which is peculiar to the Latin mind. I think this discussion emphasizes the difference between the western mind and the eastern mind. If you accept the western view of original sin then you have to formulate a dogma to accommodate the Theotokos's conception then you have logically to go on to formulate another dogma about her 'assumption' to heaven. I don't think it ends here, but I don't know what the 'development' will lead to logically. It won't lead to the meeting of the minds!

Yours in Christ,
Fr Serafim