www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Patriarch Bartholomew on the "Immaculate Conception"

http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=6794

30 DAYS Q: The Catholic Church this year celebrates the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. How does the Eastern Christian and Byzantine Tradition celebrate the Conception of Mary and her full and immaculate holiness?

Bartholomew A: The Catholic Church found that it needed to institute a new dogma for Christendom about one thousand and eight hundred years after the appearance of the Christianity, because it had accepted a perception of original sin � a mistaken one for us Orthodox � according to which original sin passes on a moral stain or a legal responsibility to the descendants of Adam, instead of that recognized as correct by the Orthodox faith � according to which the sin transmitted through inheritance the corruption, caused by the separation of mankind from the uncreated grace of God, which makes him live spiritually and in the flesh. Mankind shaped in the image of God, with the possibility and destiny of being like to God, by freely choosing love towards Him and obedience to his commandments, can even after the fall of Adam and Eve become friend of God according to intention; then God sanctifies them, as he sanctified many of the progenitors before Christ, even if the accomplishment of their ransom from corruption, that is their salvation, was achieved after the incarnation of Christ and through Him.

In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin, but loved God above of all things and obeyed his commandments, and thus was sanctified by God through Jesus Christ who incarnated himself of her. She obeyed Him like one of the faithful, and addressed herself to Him with a Mother�s trust. Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.

Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain.

As already said, original sin weighs on the descendants of Adam and of Eve as corruption, and not as legal responsibility or moral stain. The sin brought hereditary corruption and not a hereditary legal responsibility or a hereditary moral stain. In consequence the All-holy participated in the hereditary corruption, like all mankind, but with her love for God and her purity � understood as an imperturbable and unhesitating dedication of her love to God alone � she succeeded, through the grace of God, in sanctifying herself in Christ and making herself worthy of becoming the house of God, as God wants all us human beings to become. Therefore we in the Orthodox Church honor the All-holy Mother of God above all the saints, albeit we don�t accept the new dogma of her Immaculate Conception. The non-acceptance of this dogma in no way diminishes our love and veneration of the All-holy Mother of God.

-----------------------

I'm not quite sure what he means by the idea that "original sin passes on a moral stain or a legal responsibility to the descendants of Adam" according to the Catholic teaching. I've never seen anything thatimplies a personal, moral responsibility for the fall of Adam on the part of each individual.

Does anyone know what he is referring to?

Gordo

The fifth session of Trent said the following regarding Original Sin

If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.


The full text is here [history.hanover.edu] .

The Baltimore Catechism says this regarding Original Sin:

Question 47:
What is the sin called which we inherit from our first parents?
Answer:
The sin which we inherit from our first parents is called original sin.

Question 48:
Why is this sin called original?
Answer:
This sin is called original because it comes down to us from our first parents, and we are brought into the world with its guilt on our soul.

The full text is here [searchgodsword.org] .

Those both seem to state a level of personal responsibility and guilt.

Certainly there must be a stain present in the Catholic view of Original Sin. The Immaculate Conception would not make sense otherwise. So the effects of the Fall are not just a privation of justice (an absence), but a presence in the form of concuspience.

Andrew

As vauable a resource as it is, I would hardly regard the Baltimore Catechism as authoritative in matters of Catholic doctrine!

Here is the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) on the matter. I think it certainly comes closer to Bartholomew on the matter:

The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

and on the Immaculate Conception:

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:


The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

I cited it simply to show the idea of personal responsibility did exist, even if it is no longer emphasized.

Regarding Original Sin, the current CCC does drop references to guilt as well as Adam incurring the wrath and indignation of God. All of those however are present in the formulations of Trent, and would have to be understood as being beind what went in to the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 19th century.

The CCC entries on both Original Sin and the IC do make clear that Original Sin is not just an absence, it is the presence of something as well. There is a stain there that is present in each person from their birth.

Andrew

This is a common misunderstanding of the use of the term "guilt" in a Scholastic sense. The Scholastic meaning is from an earlier time and a different framework, and doesn't imply any legal obligation. The use of the term guilt comes from St. Augustine who said "Concupiscence is the guilt of original sin". This simply means that the guilt, or result, of the original sin is the moral corruption of humanity, not any kind of legal obligation on the part of descendants of the sinner. I myself, and most other educated Latins I know, are often very confused when we hear Easterns speak of our Latin belief in original sin as some kind of legal obligation.

As to why it was dogmatized, it has little to do with a mistaken understanding in the Western Church, but rather to confront the heresies presented by Protestants, heresies unknown in the East to my knowledge.

Protestants like Lutherans and Calvinists were basically Augustinians cranked up to eleven. They believed so strongly in the corruption of humanity by virtue of the sin of Adam that they saw baptism as merely "covering" the corruption rather than cleansing it, if baptism was even regarded at all. The problems with this view are many, but it became a Christological issue when these Protestants began to attack the sanctity of Mary, and attack they did. The Catholic Church could point out rightly, as the Orthodox, that humans can "become God", or be divinized, but that didn't fly with the Protestants in question because they held to the "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Again, the Church could let their non-sense slide somewhat until they began to tear down the Virgin Mother, saying she was just as dirty as the rest of the world. The Church saw that this could only lead to a diminishing view of Christ, as He was indeed truly man, and true men inherit the "guilt" of original sin from their parents.

Augustine himself got around this by saying that original sin was transmitted by sexual reproduction, not necessarily simply being the child of those with original sin, but the Protestants rejected that Augustinian justification. Indeed, there is nothing in Scripture that necessitates sexual reproduction being the means of passing it on.

The Church is now in a tight spot, because it COULD use the hammer of Baptism to show that this "guilt" can be remitted (as per Council of Trent), but then you're left with the trouble of showing that Mary was Baptised before she conceived Christ; not a simple task.

So the Church addresses this pseudo-Augustinian problem using Augustinian language, which had largely been replaced by Scholastic language at that point (incidently, Thomas Aquinas denied the need for an Immaculate Conception as well). Mary was preserved from original sin by a special act of God that is similar to, but not the same as, Baptism. For this to satisfy the Protestant objection, this must be present at the very conception of Mary, as anything later would simply be a "covering up" of her inherent filthyness, making her a "snow-covered dung heap".

Both East and West have always agreed that Mary must have been free from corruption when she conceived Christ, and both believed that how and when this occured was really immaterial. The specific problem posed by these particular Protestants was becoming a Christological one, however, and required a very fine-tuned proclaimation. Rather than making a statement about the conceived state of everyone else, it is merely addressing the specific issue of Mary according to the logic of the pseudo-Augustinian Calvinists, Lutherans, and their ilk. It does not seek to dogmatize the Augustinian formulation, which was not and is not the popular formula in the Western Church, but rather to address a specific "glitch" in the computations of certain Augustinians by directly intervening in the thought process.

The Immaculate Conception is a uniquely Western formulation for a uniquely Western problem (Calvinism/Lutheranism), and doesn't even apply as stated to the bulk of Western Catholic thought, which is often far more heavily influenced by Thomism than Augustinianism.

It's an odd solution, but an absolutely necessary one given the "Protestant Problem" and the heresies they espouse, which are often very subtle twistings of very orthodox formulations.

God bless!

Rilian: In all fairness, Bartholomew also speaks of it as a stain that is purified, or cleaned away:

The issue doesn't seem to be whether it's something gained, or something lost, as it can be explained both ways in both the East and West, but rather whether or not it is some kind of legal obligation or inherited shame, which is not what the West has ever held, and is a misunderstanding by the East in general.

God bless!

I would disagree with the statement that this was a view the West never held. It�s pretty clearly present to me in the dogmatic decrees of Trent for instance, which assigns not just the effects of the Fall to Adam's descendents but a share in the guilt.

Regardless, a difference is still there. What his All-Holiness is saying is the Immaculate Conception still mistakenly posits a stain on all humans from their conception which the Theotokos was saved from. He�s saying in Orthodoxy theology there is no such belief, and that is why in his words �Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit�. Therein lies the difference and it is important. The definitions are not complimentary, though they may share some similarities.

Andrew

Again you are reading into the word guilt something that is not actually there. The guilt is the effect of Adam's sin, as stated by Augustine. Namely, our guilt is that we are damaged goods, so to speak. Nothing in the Canons of Trent indicate otherwise, other than the use of the word guilt, which is already defined differently than a legal obligation. The Council of Trent must be read in light of Scholastic terminology, which is easily found in the Summa Theologica, which itself denies the necessity of the Immaculate Conception.

The confusion in English seems to stem from the fact that guilt actually just means "crime" or "sin", such that Original Sin could also be rendered Original Guilt. I'm not sure what the actual Latin used was, and it would be interesting to see, but the point is that guilt has a breadth of meaning that seems to be lost on some Easterners. When Scripture says "in whom all have sinned", the Old English could render it "in whom all are guilty". That's just the synonym of the word sin.

Actually, it doesn't. It doesn't speak about the nature of other people's conceptions at all, only of Mary's. Interestingly, if people are NOT born in some kind of sin, then Easterns should be reciting the Nicene Creed at all, because it states that there is one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. If sin is not inherited from the parents at birth, then why are infants Baptised in the East? It is the very issue of infant Baptism and the Creed which led to this development of thought in the West.

Essentially, to deny that Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins is to deny the Creed, or to waste it on an infant who has no sin. Both Catholics and Orthodox agree on this, the peculiarity of the Immaculate Conception comes only from a misunderstanding by Protestants, not a misunderstanding on the part of the Catholic Church.

God bless!

Andrew and Ghosty:

Thanks for your informative discussion!

And welcome to the Forum, friendly "Ghost," whoever your are!

Amado

However you want to define guilt, it is a stain transferred and present in Adam�s descendents. It is also not just the effects of the Fall as you say. Trent says this:

If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema

It is specifically about other people�s conceptions, because the dogma says hers was not like theirs. They are born with the stain she is not.

Infants are baptized to bring them in to the full community of faith. They are born without personal sin. We recite in the creed that we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. The hold of sin on us, i.e. death, is principally what is broken by coming in to the life of the church.

Infants are then chrismated and communed immediately after baptism. Were the church to believe they possessed personal sin, they would have to first confess before communing like anyone who has attained the age of accountability.

We don�t �waste� baptism on infants, though we don�t subscribe to the view of Original Sin the western church does.

I think you are quite mistaken.

Andrew

Ghosty,

I don't wish to jump back into the whole "fray" here about the meaning of guilt and so on, but I will mention only one thing.

You say: As Andrew notes, the phrasing is "for the remission of sins." But even so, that's not necessarily the issue. Theodoret of Cyrus writes: "If the only meaning of baptism were the remission of sins, why would we baptize the newborn children who have not yet tasted of sin? But the mystery [of baptism] is not limited to this; it is a promise of greater and more perfect gifts. In it are the promises of future delights; it is a type of the future resurrection, a communion with the master's passion, a participation in His resurrection, a mantle of salvation, a tunic of gladness, a garment of light, or, rather, it is light itself." In other words, infants are baptized so that they may become part of the communion of the Church, so that they may receive further Mysteries and the fullness of the Holy Spirit, so that they may be filled with grace and given a new and immortal life, etc. Along with what Theodoret says, it's also important to note that none of this involves the denial that baptism remits sin when sin is present; of course it does. And of course the Creed which professes as much was written a time when the majority of people being baptized were adult converts who had committed numerous sins and of course needed this remission. (And even so, as Andrew also noted, it also remits the hold of death even over infants.)

Also, while I don't want to elaborate on this next point (for now) unless you ask me to, you also might be interested to know that, in the Greek, the phrase eph ho in the Scripture which you cite (and which you interpret as "in whom," as in "in whom [i.e., Adam] all have sinned") is traditionally understood by the Greek Fathers as referring not to Adam but to death, so that the passage actually reads in the Greek: "because of which [i.e., because of death], all have sinned." That's going to have some implications for the way sin is understood, of course.

God bless,
Jason

Jason:

You posted:

. . . the passage actually reads in the Greek: "because of which [i.e., because of death], all have sinned."

Perhaps you'd indulge me a bit and explain the sense of this in English. Turning it around, are you're saying that death causes us to sin? That seems to be what the grammar you're suggesting says. Would you be kind enough to clarify this?

Thanks.

In Christ,

BOB

But that is precisely how it is described by the Patriarch in this very thread:

Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.

This statement makes it clear that original sin is indeed something handed on, a blemish, a stain, a corruption. This is a "something"; one is not blemished by something that does not exist. Notice that the Patriarch's statements do not call into question the fact that every man inherits a taint from his parents, only that Mary was not uniquely preserved from this blemish at conception, but rather sanctified later. No matter how you cut it, the Patriarch himself is refering to something passed down to all people, whether it be death specifically, or a more nebulous "guilt" that encompasses many things including death. Is not death a "stain transferred and present in Adam's descendants"? Is it not a blemish on our original divine image?

It doesn't say hers was not like theirs, at least not in a way that rules on what theirs actually entails. It doesn't speak about the way sin is transmitted to others at all. It doesn't say "to Mary, this, to everyone else, that", it simply says that Mary was, and is, special among the people of God, and that it is fitting that she be incorrupt. Due to the nature of the people being debated, this incorruptibility had to be recognized from the first instant of life, as I've explained above. This is not because of our heresy or poor thinking, but theirs. It's almost as if Easterns who question this dogma think we made it up in a vacuum; believe it or not, serious heresy does pop up in the West from time to time as well

The East is just fortunate that it's never had to deal with pernicious heresies of Protestantism, espescially Calvinism, Sola Scriptura, and Sola Fide. Remember, this didn't come about because we were sitting around contemplating our navels, thinking about a new way to honor Mary.

So the hold of death is broken, but we still die? You'll have to explain that one a bit more to me. I'm quite familiar with the difference in how the Greek can be read to mean either "through death, sin entered the world" or "through sin, death entered the world", and it's my understanding that both are acceptable renderings. That makes things problematic in matters like these. What is the Eastern understanding of the reason we die after Baptism?

We do this in the Catholic Church as well. Even the Latins do not believe that infants carry any personal sin. Where are you getting the idea that we think otherwise? When have we ever stated as much? Show me where the Latin Church has ever officially taught that infants carry personal sin, or personal responsibility for sin. Again, this seems to go back to you misreading of the word guilt.

If I am, then the Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin under any definition. :p No one is describing personal guilt in a legal sense here, we are talking about Original Sin. You yourself have said that Baptism breaks the bonds of sin on us, whether infant or adult, and that is precisely the Latin understanding as well. Our understandings of Original Sin are not so far apart at all, miscommunication about the word "guilt" notwithstanding.

In fact, the only appreciable difference is that the West views death coming from sin, and the East views sin coming from death. The rest is a continued misrepresentation of the Latin use of the term guilt when describing Original Sin. I'm not saying responsibility doesn't lay on our shoulders for this, now and in the past, as we are at least equally responsible for this misunderstanding in our arrogance and impatience, wishing Easterners would "just get it already."

We have been talking past eachother for centuries, and now that things are being clarified there is little reason to go back to old misunderstandings and say "you used to say something different", when in fact it is more correct to say that "we used to hear something different." This goes for both sides of the divide.

As a final note, it's my understanding that the Immaculate Conception is viewed as superfluous at best by Eastern Catholics, a non-issue for those not accustomed to arguments with Calvinists. To that I, as a Latin, heartily agree! The fact remains, however, that the distinction is necessary within the context of Augustinian terminology, or else Protestants begin down a path of destroying the divinity of Christ, as some groups already have.

Ecce Jason: Thank you for your post! The statement by St. Cyril seems to reflect personal sin, unless St. Cyril denied any kind of "damage" being passed from Adam down to subsequent generations, which would go against Scripture. Latins agree with everything St. Cyril says in that passage, as Baptism is not just a cleansing, but an infusion of grace that opens up all graces of the Church. My point was simply that, whether the precise definition of Original Sin is different (or if it's more of a wording issue), both groups believe that it is present in all generations from Adam.

Thank you both for continuing this conversation in a kind manner. This is very informative for me. God bless!

Ghosty,

Two clarifications. You say: First, the statement was from Theodoret of Cyrus, not St. Cyril. But, that's okay.

Second, at least from the Eastern perspective, your statement that this "seems to reflect personal sin, unless [Theodoret] denied any kind of 'damage' being passed from Adam to subsequent generations" is a confusion. There is a distinction here between person and nature. The statement by Theodoret suggests the "damage" of sin according to nature, but does not suggest personal sin. Personal sins are those we actually commit, whereas the damage done to our nature by sin includes death and other such effects. I think you'd agree, but I just wanted to clarify that.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Bob,

Before listening to me, may I suggest perhaps trying to locate John Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology and reading the section on original sin therein? He explains this passage quite well, probably better than I can.

In fact, I'll quote him some first:

"There is also the consensus of the majority of Eastern Fathers, who interpret Romans 5:12 in close connection with 1 Corinthians 15:22 -- between Adam and his descendants there is a solidarity in death just as there is a solidarity in life between the risen Lord and the baptized.

"This interpretation comes, obviously, from the literal, grammatical meaning of Romans 5:12 . . . which is indeed the meaning which most Greek Fathers accepted: 'As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men; and because of death, all men have sinned . . . '" (Byzantine Theology, p. 144)

On this view, death (or death and the corruption that comes with it) is seen as a disease which enters the world and holds human nature captive ever since the sin of Adam, being passed on from him to his descendants. "Death" here is both physical and spiritual, and, as Meyendorff remarks, it is under the control of the one who is "the murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44), i.e., the devil. Under this control, humanity is plagued with a sickness -- the cure of which is provided by Christ and through the Mysteries (Sacraments) of the Church -- which urges us to sin and which, yes, makes personal sin inevitable.

At least, that's how I'm understanding Meyendorff and the Greek Fathers.

God bless,
Jason