www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What is the difference between East/West understanding of...

Dear Elijahmarie and everyone else,

I believe that when the Church says that Mary was always a virgin, it means that she never had intercourse, either before marriage, during marriage or after marriage, as well as having remained pure in all her thoughts and actions throughout her life. Basically, she did not succomb to human pleasure and weaknesses in any form, because of the physical and spiritual purity required of her in order to give birth to the Son of God. I don't know what the physical part of a human body has to do with it, and why it should even be considered, unless it's to conform to societal norms that exist outside the Church.

If a body part of hers should not have remained intact during the birth of Jesus, would it lessen the acceptance of her eternal virginity in all her actions and thoughts. By that I mean her purity in everything, for to be otherwise, she would not have been able to contain our Lord, which is in Himself all purity.

That we should consider a physical aspect of Mary's as being of importance surprises me. That anyone would concern themselves with bodily parts and it's disturbance during the birth process, in order to accept the birth of Christ as the Son of God, can only be a reaction, as well as a reflection of our own sinful natures.

God Bless,

Zenovia

In order to understand the true position of Mary in the Orthodox faith, I have taken the following quotes from the book by Metro. Nafpaktos Hirotheos, 'Saint Gregory Palamas As A Hagiorite':

Gregory Palamas says that Mary:

"...alone is the borderline between created and uncreated nature"

"...standing between God and the whole human race, she made God a son of man, and men sons of God. She alone showed herself to be supranaturally the mother of God by nature and through her ineffable childbirth became queen of every earthly and heavenly creature."

"...the common reconciliation of the whole race of men"

"Now in her time and through her the renewal of the world was made manifest and through her heaven opened its gates again for us, not in order to send a violent and terrible and devastating deluge with a violent blast, but the dew of the Spirit, the sweetness shared by our souls, the great and unapproachable light, which passes understanding."

"For she performmed a miracle of miracles on earth and a public benefit greater than any in history..."

"...the fullness of divinity bodily by reason of her extreme purity"

"For you are also a place of all the graces, and a fullness of every sort of goodness, and a spiritual catalogue of every virtue and kindness, as the only one of all who was found worthy of all the gifts of the Spirit, or rather as the only one who, surpirsingly, accepted into your womb the one who contains the treasuries of all these things, and you became his surprising dwelling place,..."

"...being the divine abode of all together and each separately of the things that are fine and good. She alone of the people from the beginning did not seem to be lacking in anything at all, but she far surpassed all in every way, as much as heaven differs from earth..."

"The eternal holy of holies entered into the temporary holy of holies;"

"...how much more the remembrance of the holy of holies through which all the holiness comes to the saints'

"...in order that as in charge of the office where holiness is given, she may convey gifts of holiness to all without exception, without leaving anyome without a share, even of the hidden things of the universe, that is to say of those inaccessible things"

"...alone is the boundary between created and uncreated nature, and therefore no one can come to God without her and through the mediation which has come from her; and none of the gifts from God could have been given to angels and men except though her"

"So also it is unfeasible to gaze towards God and proceed from him towards anything unless it is through this Godbearing and truly god enlightened lamp, the ever Virgin"

'...and so also in the coming unending age every advance in divine illumination and every revelation of the most divine mysteries and every idea of spiritual gifts is impossible to contain without her. She having first received the fullness of that which fills the universe, made it containable to all, bestowing on each according to the ability and measure of his purity"

"...both treasury and office for granting the wealth of the divinity"

"All who partake of God partake through her, and all who know God will recognise her as a place of the infinite, and all who praise God will praise her with God."

"...in you the spirit is illuminated by the indwelling of the Spirit of God, because you became a keeper and place of graces, not in order to possess them in yourself, but to fill the universe with grace. For the treasure of the inexhaustible treasures is the manager of the distribution. What could your wealth do if entirely shut up, since it does not decrease? So transmit it richly to us, O Mistress, even if we cannot contain it, make us more spacious and thus add to it, for only you have not received by measure, since all things have been given into your hands."

God Bless to All,

Zenovia

Thank you, Zenovia, for the illuminating glimpse into Saint Gregory Palamas' understanding of the Mother of God.

With all that is so often said about Saints Gregory Palamas and Thomas Aquinas being polar opposites (or at least Thomism and Palamism are so construed), it is beautiful to see their complete harmony with respect to Our Lady. They embrace one another as they embrace her.

+ + +

Our brother Thomas, one of the greatest lights of the Dominican Order, was profoundly devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary. His little known Marian thought has been gathered in a volume entitled Meditations by the Dominican, Fr. Mezard, O. P.1 These selections, "taken verbatum from Aquinas" Fr. Mezard tells us, were culled from the Summa,as well as from his Commentaries on the Hail Mary and the Gospel of St. John. They are arranged in the form of short readings to accompany the feasts and seasons of the liturgical year.

In the Marian prayer of St. Thomas, which is always God-centered and in relation to Christ, we find an emphasis on petition, as well as emphases on contemplation, and even mysticism. This brief paper will reflect these emphases in the light of Mary , mediatrix of grace, a title and function of Our Lady of current interest in the Church. It is a title and function which St. Thomas made his own and integrated into his life of prayer and study. St. Thomas taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary "must be shown every honor , preached and praised, and invoked by us in our every need."2

According to our Angelic Doctor, the Blessed Virgin Mary "was so full of grace that it overflows on to all mankind" and suffices for the salvation of the world.3 "It is necessary ", he says, "that whosoever desires to obtain favors with God, should approach this mediatrix, approach her with a most devout heart because, since she is the Queen of Mercy, possessing everything in the kingdom of God's justice, she cannot refuse your petition."4 Making the thought of St. Bernard his own, St. Thomas reflects that no refusal can exist in the presence of the exceeding charity of her pierced and immaculate heart together with the pierced side and wounds of her Son. For St. Thomas, Mary is the throne of grace of whom "the Apostle speaking to the Hebrews said, 'let us go with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid' " (Heb 4: 16).5

In the mystery of the Incarnation the Lord himself entered " into the womb of the Blessed Virgin, for she was the wonderful temple of God. ...[and now] every creature, yes even every malefactor who runs to it with his whole heart, will be saved and every prayer poured forth in it will be heard."6 Whatever our difficulty , Thomas counsels us to pray to Mary, "for in every danger you can obtain salvation from this glorious Virgin [and] in every work of virtue you can have Mary as your helper [for] she truly says of herself, 'I am the Mother of fair love, and of fear , and of knowledge, and of holy hope, in me is all grace of the way; in me is all hope of life and of virtue" (Ecclus 24:24).7

St. Thomas, like the Fathers of the Church, saw numerous typologies of Mary in the Old Testament. Contemplating the text, "There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of this root" (Is 11: 1), St. Thomas saw Mary as the root wielding the true rod of saving grace. In another text, "Lift up the rod, and stretch forth thy hands over the sea, and divide it; so that thy children may go through the midst of the sea on dry ground" (Ez 14:16), St. Thomas says that it is Mary who has divided the sea for us, that is the world, so that we might pass safely through it." She "has brought to us the water of grace from the rock, Christ, so that we may drink freely of this life-saving water."8

The figure of Judith was for St. Thomas a type of Mary who in bringing forth Christ restored God's people "to their original innocence" and that what was said of Judith, "Thou art the glory of Jerusalem, thou art the honor of our people," really refers to Mary.9

Esther is another Marian typology. "The truth corresponding to [the] figure of Esther" is the story of Mary's role in our redemption. "Through queen Esther, that is, through the Blessed Virgin the sentence of damnation passed against us was revoked; namely through her intercession, through the extension of the King's golden sceptre to Mary and through her kiss on the top of that sceptre we are saved from hell and damnation. ...Queen Esther, that is the Blessed Virgin, pleased the eyes of the King in helping to redeem the human race and she found favor in his presence, not only for herself, but for all mankind."10

In the contemplation of St. Thomas the virginal body of Mary, as well as her soul, overflowed with grace. "The soul of the Blessed Virgin was so full of grace that it overflowed into her flesh thus fitting it for the conception of God's Son."11 Her immaculate heart, her feelings, mind and will were all involved in the conception and care of her Son, just as it is in helping each of us conceive and bring forth Christ in our soul.

Mary not only brings Christ to us, she brings us to Christ. St. Thomas, in interpreting the mystical meaning of the wedding of Cana considers that Mary is present in the mystical marriage of the soul with God and that it is she who "arranges the marriage, because through her intercession, the soul is joined to Christ through grace."12 St. Thomas points out that it was the fiat of Mary which allowed the spiritual marriage between the Son of God and human nature to take place. In the plan of God, Mary's "yes" stood for the "yes" of all God's people thereby making it possible for every person to pronounce his or her own fiat and attain intimate union with the divine nature.13 St. Thomas calls Mary mediatrix and consolatrix14 and in his prayer he entrusts his entire person to the intimacy of her pure, grace-filled and loving heart.

According to St. Thomas the prayer of petition is an affair of the practical reason. The Saints, above all, are conscious of their spiritual poverty and need of help on their reditus back to God. St. Thomas wrote a prayer to the most Blessed Virgin Mary expressing his own need for help and dependence upon her as his mediatrix. From this prayer, several pages in length, I quote a few brief excerpts:

"0 most blessed and sweet Virgin Mary,

Mother of God, filled with all tenderness,
Daughter of the most high King,
Lady of the Angels,
Mother of all the faithful,

On this day and all the days of my life,

I entrust to your merciful heart my body and my soul,
all my acts, thoughts, choices,
desires, words, deeds,
my entire life and death,

So that, with your assistance,

all may be ordered to the good
according to the will of your beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. ...

From your beloved Son. ..

request for me the grace to resist firmly
the temptations of the world, the flesh and the devil. ..

My most holy Lady,

I also beseech you to obtain for me

true obedience and true humility of heart

So that I may recognize myself truly

as a sinner--wretched and weak--

and powerless,

without the grace and help of my Creator
and without your holy prayers. ..

Obtain for me as well,

O most sweet Lady,

true charity with which

from the depths of my heart

I may love your most holy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
and, after Him,

love you above all other things. ..

Grant, O Queen of Heaven,

that ever in my heart

I may have fear and love alike

for your most sweet Son. ..

I pray also that, at the end of my life,

you,

Mother without compare,
Gate of Heaven and Advocate of sinners. ..
will protect me with your great piety and mercy. ..

and obtain for me, through the blessed and glorious Passion of your Son

and through your own intercession,

received in hope,

the forgiveness of all my sins.

When I die in your love and His love,

may you direct me

into the way of salvation and blessedness.

Amen. "

Dear Zenovia,

Believe me, I was as surprised as anyone when I discovered, from Orthodox monks and priests, that Orthodoxy shared the same tradition concerning the birth of Jesus that is found in the Latin rite. It is not just something that came about in the modern era but is an ancient teaching in the Church. Perhaps the Fathers were not so burdened by some of our mores and ways of not mentioning things. It all seems to be part of the wonderment of her beauty and purity.

I don't often find lay Orthodox talking about it but when I mention it to monastics?...wow!...the eyes light up and the voice warms and am assured that it is all part of the Orthodox tradition concerning the Theotokos.

Mary

Thank you. I am aware of the departure of 1054.

"even our dear separated brethren" offends my sensibilities.

Dr. Alex is correct, the CATHOLIC East does not accept any idea of original "stain" either.

Although if stated in an Eastern manner, such as "Mary is given by God an 'original grace'..." it would be more acceptable.

Dear folks,

The fact of the matter is that the language of stain and blemish is as old as the patristic fathers. This is not idle speculation. The texts are unambiguous and the language of stain and blemish are used in direct connection to Adam's sin or the ancestral sin.

In both the east and the west, regardless of the common expression, the "stain" of original sin is the loss of original justice and the darkening of the will, so yes, the Immaculate Conception, could easily be said to have been brought into being in the state of original justice.

Also has anyone checked out Bishop Hilarion's catechetical discussion on the heritability of original sin in what is referred to as the "Russian Catechism" on-line. It's a synopsis of his book on the faith.

Why this "discussion" continues apace on-line, with the readily available on-line resources, Orthodox and Catholic, is more than I can figure out.

There is no conflict except for expression and even then the "expressions" that seem to cause such difficulty are those used by more than one or two of the holy fathers.

Mary

Dear KatholikosMercy,

I'm sorry you took offence at my post. My reference to "dear separated brethren" was deliberately flippant and aimed towards the Protestants. In addition, it is a term my bishop uses regularly in sermons. If you are ever up here, don't attend a Liturgy where he is concelebrating!

The Original Sin debate has nothing whatever to do with 1054 and at no time has the theology of St Augustine in this area ever been infallibly proclaimed by Rome as binding on all Catholics.

So I don't understand the context of your response. If you are completely turned off by me, I would be pleased to revisit that issue and will try to be on better behaviour.

Alex

Dear Mary,

Yes, this Forum has resolved the great theological divides between East and West a number of times in the past - if only the theologians and hierarchs would register here and receive enlightenment!

I agree that the "stain of Original Sin" has been made into something of a football and taken out of the context in which the Latin Church understands it. It is ultimately a bad theological expression for what it purports to convey and gives the wrong impression from the get-go.

However, the distinction between East and West, which isn't insurmountable, although it has been seen that way in the past, is not so much in terms of "inherited guilt" but in terms of the different ways in which East and West understand the impact of Original Sin on our nature.

There can be no doubt that the Augustinian view holds a greater negative impact of Original Sin on our nature than the Eastern Cappadocian view and the argument has been based along those lines, rather than on the inherited guilt proposition (if indeed it ever was one from the POV of the Latin Church).

There is a further complication when we consider that the East will NEVER say that the Mother of God was conceived "free of Original Sin." And yet the East believes she was conceived in total holiness and grew in holiness all her life, being especially overshadowed by the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation and her Dormition to give but two examples, and indeed continues to grow in holiness even in Heaven today.

The East cannot affirm that the Mother of God was conceived out of the natural order (i.e. without Original Sin) since she is the bridge between the Old and New Testaments. As one Who is All-Holy, the effects of Original Sin, namely, concupiscence, darkening of the mind and weakening of the will, are vastly mitigated by the great Grace in which she has always participated in. She felt no pain, for instance, in giving birth to Christ. Her pain was deferred until the Cross. Her death was a light falling asleep and she was taken bodily to Heaven by Her Son who kept all dangers in this life and in the next away from His Mother.

But, in the end, she did experience death, the ultimate impact of Original Sin. And therefore she could NOT be said to have been conceived without Original Sin. That does not mean she was ever without Grace or that she somehow had some sort of participation in rebellion against God through any kind of sin - not at all!

Therein lies the difference between East and West on Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception.

IF the the pith and substance of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is to underscore that the Mother of God had no "stain of sin" of any kind on her soul, then the East is in full agreement.

IF it means that she is outside the descent from Adam, then the East sees that as an impossibility and also entirely unnecessary.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, as phrased, is both ambiguous and tends toward the impression that the West believes that the guilt of Adam is inherited by us through generation and not only the impact of that guilt on our nature.

Those are still unanswered questions that even the Catholic Catechism does not really put to rest, unfortunately.

There is still need for theological exchange and clarity here before both sides can be reassured that they believe as one.

Alex

I just want to add that there are no Dogmatic teachings in Holy Orthodoxy regarding the point at which the blessed Virgin Mary became sanctified to bear God the Word. I have read statements from individual Orthodox hierarchs and theologians affirming that Mary was purified from any sin at the Annunciation and I have heard that the Virgin Mary was purified in the womb and that she was conceived in purity. It is also not dogma, though it is pious belief, that the Virgin Mary never committed any sin ever at any point of her life. By the way, St. Thomas Aquinas, who holds that the Virgin Mary was actually sinless, held that the Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin and then purified in the womb. He, along with St. Bonaventure, St. Bernard of Clairveaux, and some others, rejected the idea of the Immaculate Conception.

Personally, I tend toward the view that I've seen articulated in various catechetical works by Greek Orthodox: The Blessed Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived, but conceived just as we all are. The miracle was in St. Anne being made to conceive when she was barren. The blessed Virgin Mary was holy, but may have had minor faults. But, she was likely purified of all faults and sins at the Annunciation when she received her vocation to the Mother of God.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Yes, but if we look at the liturgical prayers for the Conception of St Anne, we see that the Theotokos is invoked as a full Saint etc. Other than John the Baptist, who was likewise sanctified from the womb, no other Saint is honoured at his or her Conception. To do so would be to tacitly affirm their sanctity at that time of their lives.

In addition, both the Theotokos and St John the Baptist were conceived miraculously as you say.

The miracle was achieved by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit on both St Anne and St Elizabeth.

The Church sees in this miracle not only the physical miracle of conception, but also the holiness of the conceptions themselves.

The miracles only occurred due to the high roles that the Theotokos and the Forerunner played in salvation history. Their holiness is therefore related not to themselves, but to Christ and His Mission.

One problem when talking about Original Sin is that we need to remember that we are not talking about an actual sin and also, in Orthodoxy, of the dynamic Theosis that continues to be experienced even when we are in heaven.

The sanctification that the Mother of God received at the Annunciation was simply another step along the way of her Theosis, again in view of her receiving into her womb God the Word Incarnate (can we even fathom such a high Mystery!).

That the Mother of God worried about her Son, asked Him how He could have let her and St Joseph search for Him for three days in sorrow etc. are a "mother's faults" and Her Son, to be sure, loved His Mother ever the more for such "faults!"

She was the greatest of Saints and also still the Mother of Him Whom she held fast in her arms, watched Him begin to walk, consoled Him when He cried, and saw Him grow into Manhood.

These were no moral faults nor sins, but the suffering of a mother because of her love for her Son, a love that would see her standing beneath His Cross one day.

Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich's visions of Christ on Calvary relate that, at one point during that ordeal, the Mother of God whispers to Her Son on the Cross, "Please let me die with you!"

At that, Anne said she saw Jesus look at His Mother and turn away, refusing to grant her this request. It would be the only time ever that He would refuse her a request.

Alex

Quote

Yes, this Forum has resolved the great theological divides between East and West a number of times in the past - if only the theologians and hierarchs would register here and receive enlightenment!

Dear Alex,

You'll always say something to put a smile on my face and make my day. I just love you!

God Bless,

Zenovia

Ah I see, I am not protestant, I am Catholic. To avoid inflammation of divisions I avoid being deliberately flippant. I draw my understanding of Original sin from my own life experience as well as the great saints, fathers and doctors of the Church.

I truly believe it is better to have never sinned than to have learned the ramifications in chastisement for the temporal effect of those sins will remain. Just as the temporal effect of our fathers sins persist.

Ignorance can really be bliss and to reclaim innocence is much more difficult than mortifications to avoid said sin in the first place. Eden was lost forever at that failure.

Not all Eastern or Orthodox Churches believe what the Byzantine one does.

What I ascend to is:

CCC 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) and at the Council of Trent (1546).
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#406

This was what the whole church believed after 529 and should believe today. To believe otherwise is to be in protest to the revealed truths of the �Pillar and Foundation of all Truth�; 1Tim 3:15.

Which is why I continue to point to Bishop Hillarion's work, since it appears that there is more resolution than not at the moment.

I only offer what I have learned over the years. I see no reason to continue to cater to the popular wisdoms. I suppose this will be seen as more of my arrogance. So be it.




I disagree that there will be eternal separation here. There is strong resistance but the greatest paean to the idea that the Virgin was never ever touched by sin in any manner is in the small hymns of the feast of her entry into the Temple and also in the very clear teaching of the Damascene. I truly do not believe that the resistance of the east will last beyond renewed communion.



Since original sin is of a spiritual nature, the loss of original justice, is also a spiritual death.

Elijah presumably was born in original sin and did not die but was carried up. Christ presumably was not born in original sin but did die. So one need not be born outside of human nature to have a variety of human experience with life and with death.

There is more to this business of human nature and the consequences of the fall than meets the facile argument that one must be "stained" with original sin in order to be fully human, and that one must die to prove it.

At any rate there is more common ground than popular wisdom allows and I am content to say that whenever the opportunity arises.

Mary

Dear KatholikosMercy,

The link you provide above does indeed explain Original Sin in a way that would be entirely agreeable to the Eastern Churches.

Your dislike of my flippancy is duly noted! However, when I am flippant, I like to be "nicely flippant."

I often refer to my Protestant brothers and sisters in the way I have noted above.

At no time was I referring to you at all.

I am an Eastern Catholic striving to obtain an understanding of my Eastern theological and liturgical heritage.

If I have erred in any way, please let me know!

My wife does! (oops, there I go again . . . ;))

Alex