www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church

Dear Father Deacon Richard,

Except that only the feast of those who are Saints are celebrated - meaning that if the Conception of the Theotokos or of the Forerunner are celebrated (and they are) then this means that the Theotokos or the Forerunner are Saints at that moment in their lives (ie. at their Conception). No other Saints' conceptions are celebrated, even though on August 11th there is the Eastern feast of the Nativity of St Nicholas of Myra. The belief was and is that he was born already sanctified - which means he was sanctified at some point while in the womb of his mother, according to tradition as well, at his conception. The exalted holiness of ST John the Theologian whose "falling asleep" and translation, body and soul, into heaven the Church celebrates also implies, as I believe it does, that he was conceived in holiness.

There is perhaps a case that can be made about Western confusion about Original Sin and how it is communicated to humanity. Current RC explanations that appear to be directed at Eastern formulations don't explain the historic arguments on this score nor the albeit confusing language employed to explain the "stain of Original Sin."

This confusion and the possible appropriation by Western teachers of more than one understanding of Original Sin may also lie at the base of the differing views of the Conception of the Theotokos.

For the East, it is not that the Theotokos did not contract the "stain of Original Sin" that was really the issue in its interface with the West. It was that the entire discussion was a non-starter.

Cheers and God bless!

Alex

I have never seen this claim made by any of the Fathers.

To be a saint is to be divinized, and the Theotokos was not divinized from the first instant of her conception.

Dear Todd,

Perhaps, and I do not compare myself to you, my learned mentor, it is simply that she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit from her Conception as His Temple.

And also, divinization is a process that never ends. An elder with years of acquiring the Holy Spirit is a saint, and so is a baby killed by Herod in Bethlehem or a man who was a thief all his life but is sanctified when Someone on the Cross tells him: This day you will be with Me in paradise.

I don't see a problem. And perhaps there is no comment from the Fathers because they never saw one either.

Again, I don't know and I've been reading and studying more, and find that I really don't know a whole lot! I'm just here to comment on this, and am doing a lousy job of it, to be sure.

I'll shut up and do more study!

Alex

Divinization is an unending process, on that we agree, but Mary cannot be described as a "saint" from her conception anymore than anyone else can. She, like everyone else born since the time of Adam, was subject to the mortal condition (i.e., she was subject to the original sin).

Dear Todd,

I myself believe she was and will always be the Temple of the Holy Spirit from her Conception and was indeed holy. Not a "saint" in the sense that she could not have responded to God's love as yet. But sanctified surely.

The fact that she was subject to the effects of original sin - yes, but the Holy Spirit Who lived in His eminent Temple, the future Mother of God the Word Incarnate, mitigated the effects of original sin throughout her life. And she was certainly overshadowed on more than one occasion i.e. at the Annunciation in particular.

The prayers of the feast in particular demonstrate a strong belief in her holiness in this way already.

Surprisingly, an icon of the Feast of the Conception of the Most Holy Theotokos that became popular in E. European Orthodoxy was identical to the Western representation that is to be found on the "Miraculous Medal."

This is written up on the OCA Website for this feast (except that on either side of the Mother of God with her hands extended downwards, there are icons of her parents, Sts Joachim and Anna).

This could have been a Latinization. Again, don't know.

Alex

Alex,

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is founded upon an erroneous view of the nature of Adam's sin and its effects upon his descendants. Every man is innocent from the first moment of his conception, because guilt and sin are personal realities, not natural realities. That said, no one is born (or conceived) sinful or guilty; and -- as a consequence -- there is no need for the Western dogma of the Immaculate Conception in order to protect the innocence of the Theotokos.

Moreover, theosis requires synergy (i.e., cooperation between God and man), which means that it cannot be seen as something that is simply passively received. Thus, to be just, a man must enact and live the virtue of justice as a gift of God, but also as a product of his own free will.

God bless,
Todd

Dear Todd,

I agree with all you have said above except . . .

Synergy is not absolutely necessary for us to receive the Grace of the Holy Spirit. Infants that are baptized, chrismated and receive Holy Communion at the same time - are you saying that this has no effect on their souls because they are not capable, as yet, of cooperating with God? Alexander Schmemann once wrote that the acceptance of infants into the Church is founded upon not the infants' faith, but on the faith of the Church.

And we are born with a fallen nature that we have inherited from Adam - and that is not our fault.

I believe that there can be an Orthodox view of the Immaculate Conception that is based on the sanctification of the Theotokos according to her soul and the Holy Spirit anointing her from her Conception to begin the process of Divinization (as it begins for us at Baptism/Chrismation) to prepare her for her exalted role as the Mother of the Divine Word Incarnate.

If that falls short of official Orthodox theology, then I am simply not ready for it.

I am contented to be in the company of those Orthodox who accept it as a theologoumenon

St Dmitri of Rostov and a number of other Orthodox Saints of the Baroque era especially accepted this view.

I think I'm in great company, don't you?

As the Orthodox Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception prayed in the 18th century:

All Holy and Immaculate Theotokos, save us!

Dominus Vobiscum

Alex
Hopeless Latinophrone

As we agreed earlier, theosis is a neverending process; and so, infants who die may cooperate throughout all eternity with the divine energy. Salvation is not a passive reality.

God bless,
Todd

a.k.a. - a hopeless de-Latinized Byzantine

There is no dogma of the "immaculate conception" in Orthodoxy, nor will there ever be such a dogma. Nevertheless, an Orthodox Christian may piously believe in the sinlessness of the Theotokos, but -- of course -- he may also believe, as St. John Chrysostom believed, that she committed sins.

Dear Todd,

As an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome, I do so piously believe.

The Fathers never believed she committed "sins" in the true sense of that word. And if any did, they go counter to the lex orandi of the Orthodox Church.

In any event, it is easier for me to believe that when St John C. said that, he had not yet achieved the requisite Theosis to believe otherwise.

One could suppose that coming from a male-dominated culture as they did, the idea of a Woman resplendent with such great Grace . . .

Yes, I think it's beginning to get my male ego too . . .

Not at all.

All Holy and Ever Holy Theotokos, pray unto Your Son and our God for the salvation of our souls!

May the Holy Spirit teach us all how to honour you as God Himself desires and has ordained!

Over and out, Big Guy!

Cheers,

Alex

I too believe that the Theotokos never committed any sins, but this is a pious opinion, it is not a dogma, nor can it ever become a dogma. That said, it is perfectly Orthodox to hold that she did fall into sins.

As Patriarch Maximos IV remarked on the floor of Vatican II, it is true that on ONE occasion Saint John Chrysostom said that, again on ONE occasion, the Holy Theotokos (let heaven hear and earth shudder!) had committed a sin. He did not teach that she committed any other sins.

In addition, the teaching of one Church Father, even a hierarch of the standing of Saint John Chrysostom, is not decisive.

I suggest reading the numerous liturgical texts of our tradition regarding the Holy Theotokos. There is abundant material to support the traditional belief that she committed no sins at all, and nothing whatever to support the suggestion that she ever committed a sin.

Most Holy Theotokos, save us!

Fr. Serge

The "immaculate conception" is not, nor will it ever be, a dogma of the faith. The sinlessness of the Virgin Theotokos is a pious opinion, and not a dogma. As Fr. Behr said, in connection with the false notion of doctrinal development promoted in the modern West:

"From an Orthodox perspective, there simply is, therefore, no such thing as dogmatic development. What there is, of course, is ever new, more detailed and comprehensive explanations elaborated in defense of one and the same faith -- responding, each time, to a particular context, a particular controversy etc. But it is one and the same faith that has been believed from the beginning -- the continuity of the correct interpretation of Scripture. And for this reason, the Councils, as Fr. John Meyendorff pointed out, never formally endorsed any aspect of theology as dogma which is not a direct (and correct) interpretation of the history of God described in Scripture: only those aspects were defined as dogma which pertain directly to the Gospel. So, for instance, the only aspect pertaining to the Virgin Mary that was ever recognized as dogma is that she is Theotokos -- 'Mother of God' -- for she gave birth to our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ -- it is something which pertains to the Incarnation, rather than to Mary herself. Whilst individual theologians have speculated about other aspects concerning the Virgin herself, and her glorification, items not directly pertaining to the Gospel of Christ's work of salvation, such as the Assumption and the Immaculate conception, have never been held to have the status of dogma in the Orthodox Church."

I just read though this intriguing discussion on the Theotokos. Let me say that I am agnostic concerning whether she had committed any sin. I don't think it really matters either way. If she had sinned at some point, the Holy Spirit purified her and sanctified her. I don't think that our Liturgical proclamation of the Theotokos as All Holy necessarily implies that sin had never touched her being. Wouldn't a sinner who was redeemed and cleansed by the Holy Spirit be All-Holy? Won't we be All-Holy as well in heaven? Isn't the Virgin Mary the icon of what it means to be a disciple of Christ? And do we not call Christ "the only sinless one," in some of our services? In the funeral and memorial services, we ask for mercy for the departed, saying, "...for there is no man that lives and does not sin. You alone are without sin..."

Also, I would point out that the Prayer of Menassah, a Canonical writing for Orthodox, holds that the patriarchs (Abraham, et al) were righteous and in no need of repentance. Does this mean that Abraham never sinned? And where in the world is there any evidence that St. John the Baptist was immaculately conceived? At best, we might say that he was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb. But that doesn't entail that he was entirely sinless. And did not Our Lord say that no man who had ever lived was greater than John the Baptist? Yet, we proclaim the Theotokos "more honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim..."

Ah me, lots of "tensions" to sort out in Scripture and Tradition. That is why I think that it is very foolish to be dogmatic about these kinds of things. The Creed is all the Dogma we need (and perhaps some essential Dogma regarding the sacraments). Just my two cents. I confess that I'm moving in the direction of a kind of dogmatic minimalism.

Joe

Dear Apotheoun...

I just wanted to let you know that I am reading your remarks here with interest. I often like to see more than one side to an issue - and you present ... the view you present ... very well. As do do the others here. This is not a winner take all debate - and so I am getting good info from all sides here.

I am and RC (and always will be) but I admit some problems with the human management layer of all churches. I also (privately) consider that the two major churches - have perhaps talked themselves into a box.

I have recently been researching the issue of Infallibility - and I must admit that I see some problems with it as I understand it to be presented (plus background of the �keys� and so on) by my RCC. I now tend to see it a little more in the Orthodox direction. At least I see that some of the arguments that the Orthodox have presented - have some basis. I plan to post on that at some later date. I am not sure that either the Orthodox or the RRC have it - right. My research seems to be leading to other questions that I must track down answers for.

!As if, I were qualified! (not really) but I feel it an obligation of my own conscience to do this research.

Some of the questions seem unanswerable - for example - It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that when the ecumenical council for Vatican I was announced - the Orthodox were invited but did not attend (?) if they had attended - perhaps their views on the proposed Infallibility - could have tempered the results. Perhaps that was a mistake (to decline) and robbed the Church of thier valuable views. Can you comment on that for me. Were the Orthodox invited to attend in any capacity � ?

I am open to such questions and opinions as surround Infallibility.

At times it is a bit difficult to �breath with both lungs� .. as I try to do. And so I really do appreciate your views as they do elucidate what one lung is all about.

Peace to you and to your holy church
-ray