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

Dr. Eric,

As a Byzantine Catholic I believe that the Holy Theotokos lived a life of perfect synergistic cooperation with the uncreated enhypostatic energy that was given to her by the three persons of the Holy Trinity. Thus, I hold that she was (and is) indeed sinless, in spite of the fact that there are some Fathers (e.g., St. John Chrysostom) who say that she committed minor sins.

Moreover, I honor the Holy Theotokos as the mother and protector of all Christians, who lived an exemplary life, and who alone, by the grace of God, "stands at the border between created and uncreated nature," and that "no one can come to God unless he is truly illumined by her, [because she is] the true lamp of divine radiance." [St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 37: On the Dormition, no. 15]

God bless,
Todd

It would seem that East and West agree on the what just not on the how as far as the Holy Theotokos is concerned.

Thank you Todd, for the explanation.

I think the knee jerk reaction for Latin Catholics when they hear that the East rejects the Immaculate Conception is that they think that you think that she was just like everybody else. Which would be Protestant "Mariology" (is there such a thing?)

You wrote to Todd:

"Is it not far better (and far more accurate) to say that within Orthodoxy, the Catholic position, while not held to be dogmatic, is regarded in the very least as theologumena?"

Theologoumenna are pious, harmless beliefs to which Orthodoxy has no objection, which may be in fact correct but about which Orthodoxy has not spoken definitively. The classic example is the Latin dogma of the Assumption. But I must say that while the Immaculate Conception has never been declared by a competent council to be heretical (at least to my knowledge), it is nevertheless a doctrine which simply has no place in Orthodoxy for the very reasons which Todd has outlined and thus I sincerely doubt it could be listed among the theologoumenna. In fact, it has been argued that among those who are not fully aware of the teachings of The Fathers it may have a pernicious effect on our agreed upon Christology and a tendency to "elevate" Panagia ontologically to a status which makes her something other than human, some sort of goddess if you will. Popular misconceptions of the current term "Co-Redemptrix" are an example of this.

I am obviously sympathetic to your viewpoint, but it seems hard to disagree with the person who says the Latin dogma is really normative for anyone in communion with Rome (and I don't wish to tread on the turf of personal acceptance of the dogma). The UGCC cathedral here is called "Immaculate Conception". I looked on the web page of one of the local BCC churches (the one that does the Rosary before liturgy) and this week on Dec. 8th they celebrated the "Feast of the Immaculate Conception". That is unlike the Orthodox Calendar which celebrates the Conception of the Theotokos on Dec. 9th.

My BCC celebrated the Feast of the Conception by St Anna of the Most Holy Theotokos. There was no mention of an immaculate conception or of a holy day of obligation.

I wouldn't say Latin beliefs are "normative" to all BCs. Maybe just to ones at a church named "Immaculate Conception"?

I admit that examples of Latinization in the Eastern Catholic Churches are easy to find, but that is why I remain an ardent supporter of the process of de-Latinization (both liturgical and doctrinal).

God bless,
Todd

Todd:

I'm a bit, no, a lot, confused. As I understand it, your particular Byzantine Church is in communion with the Roman Church and your hierarchs with the Pope. Since the Pope has immediate universal jurisdiction and can infallibly proclaim dogma for all churches in communion with him, is it not therefore incumbent upon you to accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Is it your understanding (or the position of your particular church) that such dogmas are only binding on the Latin Church?

My understanding is that the Melkites have some grave and deep reservations about the extent of the Petrine Ministry when compared with the authority of the Patriarchs within their own churches. Does your church have the same reservations and how are those reservations played out?

On a closely related note, I am puzzled over something and I wonder if anyone has an answer to it.

In several liturgical services, we proclaim Christ as "the only sinless one." In our funeral liturgy, we say "there is not a man who does not sin, You alone are without sin..." Also, the epistle to the Romans have said that "All have sinned...."

Now, my understanding of the western doctrine of the IC is that the blessed Virgin Mary was redeemed from the moment of conception, hence she was still implicitly included in "All have sinned..." it is just that she receive the benefits of justifying and sanctifying grace at conception so that she was never touched by any actual sin (original or actual). Of course, in Orthodoxy, we do not have the same notion of original sin. So, if in fact, the blessed Virgin had no need to be preserved from "original sin" and if, in fact, she was actually sinless her whole entire life, then what do you make of those passages in our liturgy and in Scripture? Peace in Christ,

Joe

That's an excellent question. I suspect that you will find that Panagia's perpetual sinlessness, unlike her virginity, isn't a matter of dogma in Orthodoxy. While it is certainly something virtually all of us believe (like her bodily assumption after death), some Fathers speculated that she did commit minor sins. +John Chrysostomos is an example. If it were a matter of dogma, +John would be condemned as a heretic. Thus it is permissable to proclaim that Christ alone is sinless.

This is how it is explained: St. Paul was making a sweeping generalization in this example. Do babies sin? Do the mentally handicapped? Do those who are in comas from birth?

No one would say that the millions of babies out there are sinners, or that the millions of mentally handicapped persons are sinners. So when St. Paul said that all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God he was using general metaphor so to speak. Like if I said all Slavs like Pyrohy!

So far as I know, all Greeks like Pyrohy! I wouldn't know about Slavs, though.

Thus, as far as Eastern Christians are concerned, the ancestral sin of Adam causes mortality and corruption in his descendants, but not sin itself, because sin -- by definition -- requires a personal act of will, and so it follows that sin is not something that can be passed on from one man to another.

If this is true, then wouldn't it invalidate the idea of limbo? How can babies be held guilty and not allowed into Heaven if they have not exercised their wills?

If a baby is not a sinner by transmission of ancestral guilt, as Augustine taught, then there is no reason that the baby cannot be admitted to Heaven, right?

Brother Ed

Joe,

This is a great question - since one might also have to ask why "all" should not include our Lord Himself, since He assumed our nature.

The only answer I have is that "all" can be understood in one of two senses: a collective sense (group/people) and a distributive sense (individual).

The New Testament passage you are referring to is from Paul's letter to the Romans 3: 23:

.

This quotation comes from a passage where Paul is responding to the question of the (ceremonial) Law of Moses in relationship to Gentiles.

Are the Jews better than the Gentiles because of the Law of Moses? Paul untimately argues "no!" since the law actually reveals the true sinfulness of the Israelites (e.g. the sacrifice of bulls is a renunciation of their idolatry with the Golden Calf...it is a temporary custodian of God's people to wean them from their idolatrous addictions, and it did not represent God's perfect will for Israel since His aspirations were temporarily thwarted through the collective "fall" of Israel with the Golden Calf).

Right before v. 23, Paul cites Psalm 14:


Here we see the use of "all" primarily in the collective, not the distributive (individual) sense. The Psalmist, cited by Paul, is contrasting the unrighteous children of men from the righteous remnant of men found in Israel. He is not trying to say that all of humanity has sinned.

It is fitting that Paul would cite this passage since he is making an argument that authentic righteousness does not come from the Law of Moses - contrary to the opinion of the Jews of his age - but rather only through the righteousness of Christ. God has formed a NEW remnant within Israel - a righteous remnant made up of messianic Jews and Gentiles of the New Law of Christ the New Moses and it appears his intention is to contrast this new righteous remnant with the Old People of God who rejected Christ and still see themselves as under the law that does not save from sin, but only gives knowledge of sin.

Jesus is the embodiment of Righteous Israel, and all who are "in Christ" partake of this righteousness. This is the rationale for this passage:


and


So the bottom line is that Paul is treating that particular passage (which ironically contrasts the unrighteous Goyim from Israel) in a collective sense, as a contrast between two peoples - the People of the New Law and the People of the Old Law.

Just my two cents...

Gordo

The Eastern concept of sin is a bit different than that of the West. The Greek word for sin is "amartia" which really means "to miss the mark", the mark being Christ. Adam and Eve were in a state of potential theosis before the Fall, not theosis. Their created purpose, like ours, was to become, as +Athanasius the Great said in a comment which continually terrifies Protestants, "gods", to become "divinized". When both Eve and then Adam followed their own desire and did not conform themselves to God's command, they missed the mark and sin and its consequences entered creation. The Incarnation restored that potential to us. Christ, in His descent to the dead, destroyed the bonds of death, as the icon of the Anastasis shows. What this theology leads to is the concept that at the Final Judgment, as Alexander Kalomiros notes, we are not judged by how many good deeds we have done or for that matter by how much evil we have caused, but rather whether or not we show any similitude to Christ, the "Mark".


[/quote]
Orthodoxy has no concept like the medieval Latin Limbo.