www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Dormition/Assumption

Dear Friends,

I believe it was Reader Andrew who affirmed that the view that the body of the Mother of God "rotted in the earth" etc. is acceptable to Orthodox Christianity - and if it is, what would this mean to relations with Catholicism?

I would like to present my own view on this . . .

IF this is the case, and I've spoken with a number of Orthodox priests over the last week on this matter who affirm to me that it is NOT, but IF it is, then I think the Catholic Church would be more than correct in demanding that Orthodoxy "smarten up" and accept the bodily assumption into heaven as part of Tradition (even if it refuses the RC definition per se).

If Orthodoxy is truly serious about maintaining two, diametrically opposed viewpoints on such an important matter as the Mother of God the Word Incarnate, then, and I say this in all sincerity, Orthodoxy suffers the tinge of heresy.

And what part does light have with darkness?

Most Holy Mother of God save us!

Alex

LatinTrad said it well, that until an ecumenical council tells the east that it (the assumption) is a dogma, the multiplicity of teachings may indeed endure. We are still a conciliar church.

I'm comfortable with that.

I spoke with one of the leaders (from the Orthodox side) of the Orthodox/Catholic dialogues not too long ago. He agreed with my position, that Orthodoxy allows for a multiplicity of teachings and seemed to also be comfortable with that.

In Christ,
Andrew

I just wanted to add that the Orthodox don't have a "development of doctrine" approach. What we declare now to be true has always been true. So, if we in the conciliar Church (OC) adopt an "assumption" doctrine at the next ecumenical council, it will mean all of the fathers who have taught differently or accepted anything "less" were in egregious error on a matter critical to our faith as Christians.

Old Epipannios would be stuck with a black mark as some kind of ignorant fool.

In Christ,
Andrew

Brother Andrew,

This reminds me of Orthodox Fr. Thomas Hopko's statement that all the Father's made some errors. It would be a very naive idea to believe that all the Fathers taught exactly the same teachings in exactly the same fulness. As he said, some Fathers were more Orthodox than others. This does not make any of them "ignorant fools," just human. But, I know that you know all this already.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. D.G.

That's what the semi-Arians said about "homoousios"; that's what the Monophysites said at Chalcedon.

Sorry ,
LatinTrad

Dear Ghazar,

I don't think that Fr. Hopko meant that the fathers were in error on dogmata, but rather on the "orthodoxy" of their opinions, but not their dogmata

Can we name a father that we venerate as a dogmatist who taught or accepted dogmas contrary to the faith?

I apologize for my strong language ("ignorant fool") but what else would one call an heresy hunter such as Epiphanios, and an apparantly good one in my estimate, who was willing to accept conflicting dogmata (i.e. heretical views) regarding the Dormition of the All-Pure Theotokos?

Thus my whole point that these varied teachings on the Dormition did not and do not reach to the level of dogma, but are simply opinions.

In Christ,
Andrew

St. Nektarios on Holy Tradition:

TRADITION

Sacred TRADITION is the very CHURCH; without the Sacred TRADITION the CHURCH does not exist. Those who deny the Sacred TRADITON deny the Church and the preaching of the Apostles.

Before the writing of the Holy Scriptures, that is, of the sacred texts of the Gospels, the Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles, and before they were spread to the churches of the world, the CHURCH was based on Sacred Tradition....The holy texts are in relation to Sacred Tradition what the part is to the whole.

The CHURCH Fathers regard Sacred Tradition as the safe guide in the interpretation of Holy Scripture and absolutely necessary for understanding the truths contained in the Holy Scripture. The CHURCH received many traditions from the Apostles... The constitution of the church services, especially of the Divine Liturgy, the holy Mysteria themselves and the manner of performing them, certain prayers and other institutions of the Church go back to the Sacred Tradition of the Apostles.

In their conferences, the Holy Synods draw not only from Holy Scriptures, but also from Sacred Tradition as from a pure fount. Thus, the Seventh Ecumenical Synod says in the 8th Decree: "If one violates any part of the CHURCH Tradition, either written or unwritten, let him be anathema."

Dear Alice,

Thanks for posting St. Nektarios opinion on "Tradition." I agree with it wholeheartedly!

For a helpful definition and explanation of the differences between "Tradition" and "traditions," I recommend the Rev. Thomas Fitzgerald's excellent descriptions on the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America www.goarch.org [goarch.org]

I think that you will find that the bodily assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos is most definitely not a part of our "Tradition" but certainly a part of our "traditions."

In Christ,
Andrew

Maybe we should look at the belief of the Assumption in a light eschatology. The fulfillment of all things where Christ is all in all.
Bretheren the Assumption of Mary body and soul into heaven is not just a feast of "Mary" (though it certainly is that) but a celebration of "redeemed humanity' that is , you and me.
"But God who is rich in mercy out of the great love with which he loved us,even when we were dead in our trespasses (although Mary was sinless) made us alive with Christ by grace you have been saved, and "raised" us up with him, and made us sit with himin the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the coming ages he might show the immesurable riches of his grace and kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."
Eph 2:6-7)
Surely Mary the model of all Christains and the first one to believe already shares in that fullness of life. The glorious exaltation of Mary should not be seen as a mere "dogmatic" fact but as intrinsically bound up with God's revelation in Christ; it tells us something about Christ's divinizing (theosis) work and the effect of that work upon the human body, firstly Mary as the model christian and then us her children.
Is she not the "woman" representing the new Israel, the Church, who is caught up into heaven and is clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars upon her head?
Where she has gone we hope to follow.

Stephanos I
Through the prayers of the Mother of God O Savior save our souls.

Dear Stephanos,

With all due respect, please consider the following in relation to your post:

There is not a single scriptural, canonical, or liturgical reference to anyone but Christ as "sinless" (anamartitos). The scriptural reference that you sighted is one more example reminding us that "All have fallen short..."

Consider our Lord and Saviour as the only model. The Most Blessed Theotokos is our best example of how one pursues that model. If the Theotokos is the model, is ICXC "also" the model?

There is no "new Israel." Look for it scripturally, liturgically, and canonically, (even patristically) and all that one will find is that the Church is "Israel." We are the same old Israel that we were, now open to the Gentiles and having seen the Messaih, ICXC, God himself. In short, the Church starts with Abraham.

For convenience sake only, we often refer to NT Church and OT Church.

Please consider these points.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Andrew,
You should study the Fathers more in depth for there is certainly reference to her being "sinless" as Orthodox theology upholds.
Just to quote one for exaple. "You alone and your mother are more lovely than all the others: there is no stain in you and no sin in your mother".
(St Ephrem.)
My time is limited this morning but i will get back to this question later.

Blessed Nativity of the Most Holy, Pure, Immaculate Mother of God.

Stephanos I

Dear Stephanos,

Blessed Nativity Feast to you also! I was not able to attend today (I'm new calendar) as it fell during the work day, but I was blessed to be able to attend the Dormition Feast!

I don't doubt that some fathers used the word "sinless" when writing their opinions regarding the All-Pure Theotokos. My point was that there is no scriptural, canonical, or liturgical support for it. So, it remains their opinion, and a respected one, but not a dogmatic teaching.

I wouldn't reprimand someone for using that term in connection with the Theotokos, but I also would seek an appropriate opportunity to present other, traditional and equally-valid Orthodox teachings.

In Christ,
Andrew

The sinlessness of the Virgin Mary is implied in Luke 1:28 Hail full of grace((chaire kecharitomen, o kurios meta sou) and the vulgate text ( Ave gratia plena Dominus tecum). The greek text is mistranslated by the protestant reformers as "rejoice O highly favored one".

And I would suggest that some Orthodox might add some comments on whether the sinlessness of Mary is just a mere theological opinion or an accepted doctrine of the Orthodox Church. To my knowledge it is a matter of faith.

As to Orthodox liturgical references I am not that well versed in them but I am sure that they exist.

Agustine (albeit a Western Theologian) has this to say in his treatise "De Natura et gratia"
"We must except the holy Vrigin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from him we know what abundance of grace overcoming sin in every particular was conferred o her who had the merit to conceive and bear him who undoubtedly had no sin."

"Our malady arose through the corrupted spirit of a woman; from the incorrupted flesh of a woman came salvation."

"By this defeat, the devil would be tormented over the thought of both sexes, male and female, because he had taken delight in the defection of them both. The freeing of both sexes wouldn not have been so servere a penalty for the devil unless we were also liberated by the agency of both sexes. The honor of the make sex comes from the body of Christ; the honor of the female sex is the mother of Christ. The grace of Jesus Christ had won over the cunning of the serpent."

This theme runs throughout the Apostolic Fathers and It has its orign in the New Testament writings of St John the Evangelist.
Compare the fall of humankind in Genesis with his account of the Crucifixion.
In both accounts there is a striking similarity fallen human kind ( Adam and Eve) stand underneath the tree. In the OT judgement is passed and its result of death and allienation from God, in the New Testatment there stands also a man and a woman (John the disciple whom Jesus loved and Mary his mother) the "symbol" of the new created order of grace.

O Blessed fault that has merited us so great a redeemer! O Blessed fault that has merited us so great a Mother.

And the idea of the New Israel is most certainly contained in Sacred Scripture, although it is not "explicitly" a term used as also in the case of the Trinity is is implicitly impled. Hebrews gives a wonderful account of the Old Israel according to the flesh (The Old Covenant People of God) and the New Israel according to the Spirit (The New Covenant People of God)
Hebrews 9

StephanosI

Andrew,

I thought it was your position that the liturgical texts did not really matter. The texts for the Dormition silence any view of a Father who may have held incomplete views...such as Epiphanius as the liturgical texts do not admit for the view that the body of the Theotokos could have rotted in the grave.

As to Mary being without actual sin. I think we should distinguish between the sinlessness of Christ and the Theotokos being without actual sin. There is a huge difference there. Yet, the liturgical texts do plainly stress the utter holiness of Mary. For example, today's texts for the Synaxis of Sts Joachim and Anna:

For some further texts from the Menaion on the Theotokos see:

http://hometown.aol.com/michaelrahoza/Theotokos.html

The emphasis in the liturgical texts on the holiness and purity of the Theotokos in her infancy and childhood is very clear.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Stephanos,

Thanks for the post, but the point remains that the use of "sinless" ("anamartitos") is reserved to one person only, ICXC, in scripture, canons, and liturgy. "Chaire kecharitomen" is certainly not the same terminology and meaning as "anamartitos." Were Mary "anamartitos," she would not have died.

I think that so much misunderstanding has been caused by people assuming that the "All-Pure," "Full of Grace," and "Immaculate" titles used in English (and which she so rightly deserves - "all generations will call me blessed") have been translated from the Greek word "anamrtitos." But this is not the case.

I don't know if you followed this thread from the start, but I posted several indications that major Orthodox theological institutions/professors/authors hold her "sinlessness" ("anamartitos") and her "assumption ("analipsis") to be opinions, well respected, but not dogma.

I say "well-respected opinion" since I would be in grave error to argue that belief in these opinions would somehow lead one away from the true faith. I might call them "diversions" from a faith centered on Christ, but only in the same way that the normal veneration of other saints is a "diversion." It may indeed enrich the faithful if it points him or her back to ICXC. Only if the faith becomes centered on the saint and not on ICXC does the diversion block one's faith.

So many times people will misunderstand that my or others' stated opinions in this vein are part of a campaign against the veneration of the Theotokos and the saints. But it is not. It is simply meant to remind that within Orthodoxy are many valid opinions on the content of this veneration.

It was an interesting corollary of Adam and Eve beneath the tree and Mary and John beneath the tree (the cross). Does this mean that we should consider John also to be sinless?

I'll have to remain in disagreement regarding the New Israel and the New Covenant. Indeed there is a "New Jerusalem" and a "new priesthood." But my understanding is that we (the gentiles) are the benefactors of the Abrahamic Covenant. At least, my Jewish Orthodox friends still know to remind us of that. Remember that we commit our departed "to rest in the bosom of Abraham...." But I'll put Hebrews 9 up in Greek because I believe that the word "covenant" in Hebrews 9:1 is an "add on" not in the original texts and misleads the English reader. It looks like the "first" and "second" are references to "testament" which is different from "covenant," but I'll look into it further.

Just some thoughts.

With love in Christ,
Andrew