www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Immaculate Conception

A beautiful theological explanation of the Immaculate Conception written by Abbot Joseph of Mt. Tabor Monastery (Holy Transfiguration) in Redwood Valley, CA. A blessed celebration of the Immaculate Conception to all!
Monk Silouan, Mary's monk

Friday, December 08, 2006
Panaghia

We�re celebrating a beautiful and rich feast today, but one that, alas, is also somewhat controversial. The mystery of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God is rejected by most Protestants, though it�s not my purpose to get into apologetics here (but if you want to, check this out). The title �Immaculate Conception,� and some of the underlying reasons for the use of that title, are unacceptable to many Orthodox as well, and we�ll take a brief look at that issue in a moment. The best thing to do, as far as I�m concerned, is to simply celebrate with love the all-holy Mother of God in this mystery of her conception in the womb of St Anne.

It is appropriate that this feast occurs during Advent, for it is part of the preparation for the coming of the Savior. This is really the very beginning in a concrete way�that is, not merely of prophecies of the coming of the Messiah, but the beginning of their actual fulfillment. For �she who is to give birth,� as the prophet Micah refers to her, has just been conceived. There�s no turning back now, if we can speak like that, of the plan of God for the incarnation of his Son, because his mother has just been created.

The Church�s reflection on this mystery, though formulated in different ways at different times and places, has always found something unique in Mary, the one chosen to be the Mother of the Son of God, the one who would be called �blessed among women,� �full of grace,� the one upon whom the Holy Spirit would come, overshadowing her with the power of the Most High God. In our liturgy we repeatedly affirm that she is ever-blessed and completely sinless. Perhaps the best way to sum up this mystery is to simply call her, as Eastern Christians often do, the Panaghia, the all-holy woman.

If we all believe she is the Panaghia, why would some Eastern Christians object to the title �Immaculate Conception�? It�s a complicated issue, but to generalize it we can say that it has to do with how original sin is understood. For to say Mary was immaculately conceived is to say she was conceived without original sin. It is difficult to get a clear consensus from the Fathers of the Church, because at that time there was no specifically eastern or western approach to this mystery, mainly because the issue of Our Lady�s conception rarely came up, and if it did it was in the context of some other issue or treatise.

The Orthodox tradition was clarified in a rather polemical way after the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. Basically, the difference is this: the western tradition views original sin as sin�not actual, personal sin, yet sin that nonetheless imputes a form of guilt to the newly conceived. We must be cleansed of this inherited guilt through baptism. Our Lady, unlike the rest of us, was conceived without this inherited guilt, through the foreseen grace of the death and resurrection of Christ, for the purpose of creating a completely pure �vessel� for the incarnation of the divine Savior.

The eastern fathers generally viewed original sin not so much as inherited guilt, but the inheritance of a sin-inclined, mortal, and corruptible human nature. They didn�t stress the guilt, the �stain� of sin of which the Immaculate One (im-macula, without stain or blemish) was preserved from. Since she was conceived in the usual way (though in an extraordinary manner from a barren and aged couple), she was considered to be a child of Adam and Eve like the rest of us, though uniquely chosen and sanctified by God for the mission of her giving birth to the Savior (there�s at least as much emphasis in this feast on the joy of her parents as on Mary�s own holiness, so it�s not primarily about her �privileges�).

The point is, from this perspective, if there is not a �stain� of guilt to inherit in the first place, why call her the one without stain of original sin? It�s a logical question, given the accepted premise. But perhaps it does not do justice to the uniqueness of the person of Mary and God�s intervention on her behalf.

If the Eastern Churches call her holy and all-pure and �spotless� (identical in meaning to �immaculate,� but the word is studiously avoided), for the feast of her Entrance into the Temple (when she was but three years old), and if in the same feast it is said, �Before your conception, O pure Virgin, you were consecrated to God�� must we not see here some special divine intervention that makes her more than a mere child of Adam, even if the most highly favored? Even if there is a difference of theological opinion concerning the precise nature and meaning of original sin, can we not still agree that Mary is unique among all people as the all-holy and divinely-chosen dwelling place of the Son of God, and that no sin, in whatever form, ever marred her perfect holiness?

Our Lady has been called, in the tradition of both East and West, the New Eve, for her Yes to God cancelled Eve�s primordial No. But since the first Eve was originally created without sin, must we conclude that the New Eve bore the legacy of the fallen Eve? Or was she rather, as the personal �locus� of God�s unprecedented intervention in human history�the Incarnation of the Son�a new creature, the first-fruit of the Redemption, where the Son of Most High was wholly pleased to dwell? The Eastern fathers have affirmed that she gave birth without pain, which means that she alone was free from the curse laid upon Eve and her descendants. This unique birthgiving also testifies to Mary's perpetual virginity. The fathers say that at his birth, Christ passed through her virginal womb as light passes through glass, without breaking it.

The term �Immaculate Conception� may be unacceptable to some Easterners (perhaps, after years of polemics, as much emotionally as theologically so). But if, on the other hand, the usual name for this feast in the East�the Conception of St Anne�seems inadequate to the greatness of this mystery, perhaps we all ought to rename it the feast of the Conception of the Panaghia, the all-holy woman, and leave it at that. It preserves the meaning without tying it to one particular formulation of it. This mystery, like all divine mysteries, is far too profound to be adequately described in human formulations anyway, so once we have a basic understanding of the essentials�what is necessary for true faith unto salvation�perhaps we could decide to forego all bitter polemics and the invocation of our favorite fathers to defend our point of view. Is it argument that is supposed to result from this divine gift or rather celebration?

Let us, then, celebrate the all-holy Mother of God in the mystery of her conception in the womb of St Anne for our salvation! We celebrate her, not primarily because of the wonders the Almighty has worked in her�though this is cause enough for rejoicing�but especially because, as we sing in the proper hymn for her nativity: �from you rose the Sun of Justice, Christ our God, who cancelled the curse and replaced it with his blessing, confounding death and giving us eternal life.�

So, as we continue with this feast of the Conception of the Panaghia, let us conclude with a prayer that all the Apostolic Churches can agree upon, one that we pray often in our liturgies: "Remembering our all-holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious Lady, the Mother of God and Ever-virgin Mary, with all the saints let us commend ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God."

For an Orthodox point of view, here is a quote from Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople from an interview in "30 Days" found here:


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

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 I: 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.

Pope John Paul II explains the Catholic understanding of original sin:

The following links to Fr. Meyendorff's book entitled, "Byzantine Theology," help to explain why Eastern Orthodox Christians reject the Western Augustinian theory of the Immaculate Conception:

The New Eve [holytrinitymission.org]

The Theotokos [holytrinitymission.org]

I think the reason the Orthodox rejected the very belief that Mary is Immaculate is because the Pope of Rome proclaimed it. I really think it's so silly to reject it that way.

The reason, I believe, the Pope proclaimed it because at the time there were sprouting of various heresies saying that Mary is not without sin (that she committed some minor sins, etc.). He had to put a stop to that. And with the fact nothing has been formally discussed about Mary's Immaculateness in previous ecumenical councils, so why not the Pope proclaim something that's ALREADY been taught and believed in over 1,900 years?

Mary's immaculateness is NOT new at all. The pope merely repeated the elements of faith with a seal.

From my understanding, the Roman Church's view on Original Sin is not Sin per se (or inherited sin per se), but more rather so an inclination to sin (because of our fallen nature), death in our souls (that's why G-d said that one must be baptised to be saved...to be filled with light/life of G-d before one enters Heaven) and finally our true fallen nature with so many flaws leading up to physical death. That is what I think Original Sin is meant by that...the effects of our human nature's fallen nature caused by Adam rather than Sin per se.

So, really, it's a matter of semantics. Is the glass half empty? Or is it half full? Who is correct?

So, again, I think it's silly for the Orthodox to reject many centuries old of faith in Mary's immaculateness simply because some Pope of Rome said it. I think that is a sinful pride here.

In fact, it's the Eastern Churches that laid out the solid foundation on "Mariology" before everyone else.

By the way, I want to add something about St. John the Forerunner (St. John the Baptist), he was without sin the moment he stirred in Elizabeth's womb when she met with Mary. So, that is cool.

Don't you think that Mary, who is most worthy by G-d to bear Him in her womb, to be worthy to be without stain in longer period of time in Anne's womb than John's time in Elizabeth's womb?

Thank you.

SPDundas,

From the Patriarch of Constantinople's comments listed above, you can see that it is not specifically defined by the early Church exactly how Mary became immaculate and all-holy. My understanding is that some of the Church fathers did hold that Mary had committed some actual sin, but was cleansed and sanctified over time. The only thing that I know of as being firm and settled is that she was sanctified to be the temple of the Word and that her "Yes" to God undid the "No" of Eve.

I've always found it puzzling that in a number of liturgies and services we proclaim Christ as the "Only sinless one" and we say that there is only one who is without sin. If we say that the Mother of God is without-stain, or to be more accurate, gave birth to the Word without stain, are we saying that she was completely and absolutely free from all sin from the moment of conception until her natural death? I don't know the answer to this.

I do think that the teaching of the Immaculate Conception also takes away from the synergistic aspect of salvation. The notion is that it would be necessary for the Mother of God to receive some priviledge of supernatural grace in order to able to say "Yes". In the eastern Church, we say that her "Yes" was her merit and that she merited sanctification. But, I think that is because we are explicitly semi-Pelagian (to use a Western term). Peace in Christ,

Joe

Let us settle this thread with contemplation of something both East and West can agree on:

(C) 2006 Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

The Conception by St. Anna of the Most Holy Theotokos

December 9

Apolytikion in the Fourth Tone
Against all hope, the bonds of barrenness are loosed today. For, God has
hearkened unto Joachim and Anna clearly promising that they would bear a godly
maiden. He who commanded the angel to cry out to her, "Hail, full of grace, the
Lord is with you," will be born of her, the infinite One Himself, becoming man.
Kontakion in the Fourth Tone
Today the world rejoices in the conception of Anna, wrought by God. For she
bore the One who beyond comprehension conceived the Logos.
Reading:

According to the ancient tradition of the Church, since Saint Anna, the
Ancestor of God, was barren, she and her husband Joachim remained without
children until old age. Therefore, sorrowing over their childlessness, they
besought God with a promise that, if He were to grant them the fruit of the
womb, they would offer their offspring to Him as a gift. And God, hearkening to
their supplication, informed them through an Angel concerning the birth of the
Virgin. And thus, through God's promise, Anna conceived according to the laws
of nature, and was deemed worthy to become the mother of the Mother of our Lord
(see also Sept. 8).



GOSPEL READING

The Conception by St. Anna of the Most Holy Theotokos

The Reading is from Luke 8:16-21

The Lord said, "No one after lighting a lamp covers it with a vessel, or puts
it under a bed, but puts it on a stand, that those who enter may see the light.
For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that
shall not be known and come to light. Take heed then how you hear; for to him
who has will more be given, and from him who has not, even what he thinks that
he has will be taken away."

Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for
the crowd. And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing
outside, desiring to see you." But he said to them, "My mother and my brothers
are those who hear the word of God and do it."





Reading courtesy of Holy Transfiguration Monastery
Apolytikion courtesy of Narthex Press
Kontakion courtesy of Narthex Press
Icon courtesy of St. Isaac's Skete

(C) 2006 Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Alice is quite correct - I would suggest a careful reading of the services for the Entrance of the Theotokos as well.

Fr Serge

You wrote:

"So, again, I think it's silly for the Orthodox to reject many centuries old of faith in Mary's immaculateness simply because some Pope of Rome said it. I think that is a sinful pride here."

What a disingenuously Roman thing to say.

I'm not a Roman Catholic, mind you.

"I'm not a Roman Catholic, mind you."

I didn't say you were; I said your comment was.

The Orthodox reject the theory of the immaculate conception because it was formulated along Augustinian lines (i.e., original sin is held to be a stain of guilt or moral imperfection particular to each human being born after Adam's fall), and not simply because it was defined unilaterally by Pope Pius IX in 1854. In other words, the Orthodox rejection of the Western position is based upon the fact that the two Churches have different views of the nature of the ancestral sin and its consequences. In Orthodox theology the ancestral sin of Adam introduces corruption and mortality into the human race, and this is what is inherited by all human beings, including the Holy Theotokos. In other words, the Holy Theotokos is born subject to the ancestral sin, because she is a mortal human being (i.e., she is subject to death). Moreover, holiness is not something passively received, because holiness (i.e., theosis) requires the activity of the human will in synergy with the uncreated energy of God. Clearly, the two traditions understand the nature of man after the fall differently, and this is what accounts for the rejection of the Augustinian theory of the immaculate conception.

God bless,
Todd

I didn't think the Orthodox rejected it. I thought they celebrated it with every child's birth!

In that light, it is the West which rejects this celebration for every other person.

Wondering,

The Orthodox reject the Augustinian notion of "original sin," and as a consequence of that, they reject the Western theory of the immaculate conception of the Theotokos.

Now of course, since no one is born sinful, I suppose it can be said that everyone is "immaculately conceived," that is, if you were to try and blend Augustinian notions with those of the Eastern Fathers.

Personally, I think it is better to simply say that all human beings -- because of the ancestral sin of Adam -- are born mortal.

God bless,
Todd

It's important to note that the Immaculate Conception is not merely a theory, but a dogma of the entire Church: