www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West EOC & Immaculate Conception

There are many things one could say are a valid opinion because they have had support in the life of the church - perhaps the position of the Josephites or the practice of infrequent communion. I can't deny they're there, but I can deny they are good for the church or make sense.

Dear AMM,

Good point, but the views of Orthodox Saints and Teachers on the point under discussion here CANNOT be likened to views on infrequent Communion or the "Name-worshippers" of Mt Athos or anything of the sort - surely!

That the All-Holy Mother of God (and St John the Forerunner) are celebrated on the feasts of their Conceptions (and not only of their Nativities) as Saints by the liturgical prayers of the Eastern Church - this is surely for the good of the Church and it makes eminent sense that the two people who, in all of human history, were "least unworthy" of Christ and who had such a pivotal role in salvation history would be true Temples of the Holy Spirit from their Conception . . .

This is distinctly different from the dogma of the IC, although that dogma, as Archbishop Kallistos Ware stated in his "The Orthodox Way" intends to state the same thing, albeit in a way that is foreign to the East.

And certainly, the Orthodox Saints who went beyond the parameters of traditional Orthodox theology to accept BOTH the Western doctrine of Original Sin AND the West's Immaculate Conception (St Dmitri of Rostov among them) were never condemned for their views, since they held them as personal ones and never condemned anyone for not sharing them (including Krokovski).

As for the the matter of how they came to accept and become influenced by the West and the Jesuit schools - history is about the interpretation of events and we may have legitimate and differing interpretations to be sure. We may both produce back-up to support our views and that is as it should be.

I just don't get the same sense of the views on the significance of the Conception of St Anne from the Menaion, as Fr. Archimandrite pointed out above, that has been represented here.

However, I am biased in my own way and I want to glorify the Most Holy Theotokos as Mother of the Divine Word Incarnate - and this is, for me, one way to do it i.e. that she was sanctified from the moment of her Holy Conception because of who she was to become in salvation history.

Alex

Dear Friends,

I will apply myself to more in depth study of the matters raised here and apologise to any I may have inadvertently given offence to in any way.

I'll shut up now.

Alex

It is known in theology that what happens to an unbapitized child is theological opinion and not a matter of dogma, the current mind of the Church is that we entrust them to God's mercy.
I do not see how that contradacts Trent.
Stephanos I

Certainly no offense taken, nor do I wish to offend the sensibilities of somebody who has a deeply held belief in the matter. The points you have raised are certainly worthy of considersation and discussion. I think you have an appreciation of the various viewpoints involved. Hopefully you can understand where I'm coming from as well. I guess maybe this is just one of those agree to disagree topics.

Stephanos,

I was responding to the quote I read in a prior message that was attributed (I thought) to Trent: "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."

If you wouldn't call current teaching a contradiction to that, perhaps you'll accept "softening?"

Dave

That quotation comes from the 6th session of the Council of Florence.

Not a softening but an deeper understanding of the infinite mercy of God!
Stephanos I

I have been reading an article, Mary in the Orthodox Tradition, which looks at the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception in relation to the Orthodox title of Panaghia. I hadn't come across the author, Virgina Kimball before, can anyone tell me anything about her?

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/maryorthodox.htm

Brigid

Virginia did her graduate study at the University of Dayton's International Marian Research Institute, and is an "Orthodox Mariologist" - a rare breed/specialist among Orthodox theologians. She has also served on the board of directors for the Mariological Society of America for a number of years.

On a personal level, she was baptized Latin Catholic, and became Orthodox approximately 10 years ago.

Hope that helps.

Gordo

It does indeed, Gordo and thank you very much. I am sure you would have been interested in what the paper had to say about the attitude of Bishop Kallistos. If the original discussion with Fr Yarnold is still available from the Ecumenical Society of the BVM, I would like to read it in its entirety.

Thanks again,

Brigid

Agreed! Better said, and more to the point I wanted to make. Having read your words, I see that "softening" has a negative connotation (of error) that I certainly did NOT mean to imply.

Thanks.

Dave

I have spent some time thinking and praying through this issue. Two thoughts come to mind, which may be helpful in reconciling the conciliar teaching of Lyon and Florence and the CCC.

1. "Hell" - The conciliar text makes reference to the state of "hell", but it lends itself (with the reference to "unequal pains") to interpreting it in light of the revealed distinction between "Sheol" (the dwelling of the righteous dead) and "Gehenna" (the dwelling of the damned). Such a teaching is very much a part of the Christian Tradition. Every Sunday, for instance, we process in the creed faith in Jesus' descent into "hell" on Holy Saturday. By professing this, no one is asserting that Jesus descended into Gehenna, the dwelling of the damned! Rather, He descends into Sheol, the dwelling of the dead, to conquer its gates and release those who are held captive. It seems that the conciliar teaching could/should be read in light of this distinction.

This leads to the second point...

2. Since Christ has entered and conquered the gates of Sheol forever, it is not too much to imagine, in His infinte mercy, that the innocent souls of children who have never willfully committed any sin, despite their "contraction" of the original wound of Adam, are quickly "released" from that state (perhaps through the "preaching" of Christ?) and allowed to enter glory. I would think that this would be the case especially with children whose parents are already under the covenant of the New Adam and would have had their child baptized. (Not to exclude anyone else, of course...) This approach may also help clarify the deeper penetration of God's mercy, as presented by the Catechism, that Father Stephanos alludes to.

Just a few thoughts...

Gordo

Dear Bob,

The "Hell" you say . . .

Alex

Gordo,

It seems to me though that it is was the councils intended to teach that matters. Did they mean sheol and not gehenna? A straightforward reading and the fact that those who die "in original sin only" are paired with actual sinners going to the same place suggests that the councils intend to teach that all unbaptized infants go to gehenna, yet their punishment is the mildest. Even the doctrine of "limbo" states that limbo is a part of hell. Even if the infants have "natural happiness" (whatever that means) they are still deprived of the vision of God. I would think that if the councils wanted to make an exception or hold out hope for the poor unbaptized, they would have specified more in this regard. That there is no nuance in the conciliar teaching shows that they did not intend to say that it was possible for unbaptized infants to be saved.

Joe