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

Joe,

Part of the problem here, as I'm sure you're aware, is the Western obsession with having to define things down to the details. A lack of appreciation for the abundance of God' mercy seems to be evident as well. A real theological problem arises from this conclusion, though, which is that it had already been affirmed that the souls of the just who died before the Resurrection of Christ were taken to heaven. This would mean that the innocent babies that have died are treated differently by God simply because they happened to die after the Resurrection of Christ (when God's mercy is more available to men, not less so).

Fortunately, Western theologians have been "backing away" from that position for some time and moving towards a more Eastern sense of trusting in God's mercy. Certainly, the fact that God is not subject to time as we know it here on earth has to be taken into consideration as well.

FWIW, I expect that a future council will adopt a rationale similar to what Gordo has given to explain the teaching of the Council of Lyons.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Father Deacon Richard. My only question is whether the Church can "back off" and hold a view that is intellectually honest in light of past papal and conciliar teaching. I suppose, to get the thread back on track, one could ask this question about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as well. Could the Catholic Church back off of that dogma or revise it and still, with intellectual honesty, maintain the notion of papal infallibility?

Joe

Joe,

This is a fair question. Perhaps the issue also has to do with the development of how certain teachings have been interpreted. The teachings of Vatican I on papal primacy as interpreted by the ultramontanists after the council differ greatly from the interpretation (and ultimately a greater contextualizing in Holy Tradition) that occured with and after Vatican II. While the stated teaching did not change, greater effort was made to interpret it properly.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Dear Friends,

Perhaps our future Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman has a thing or two to offer us here!

He certainly counselled his fellow Anglican colleagues (a number of whom were toying with the idea of following him into the Church of Rome) not to be upset with Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility. He believed that future councils would so limit and circumscribe the conditions under which that would be exercised so as to make it a "no problem" for anyone.

Fr. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) himself once wrote that the Immaculate Conception and the other RC dogmas that were "sticklers" for Orthodoxy could themselves be ACCEPTED by Orthodoxy (foreseeably) if they were re-presented before a united Catholic-Orthodox Ecumenical Council for examination and deliberation (!).

In any event, it is possible to separate the "pith and substance" of the Immaculate Conception (Mary's All-Holiness from the time of her Conception) from the non-dogmatic accidentals (notions of the "stain" of Original Sin defined as inherited guilt of Adam's personal sin of rebellion against God).

In his book "Catholicism," Fr. Richard McBrien does indeed present two "versions" of the Immaculate Conception and says both are equally valid ways for Catholics to accept it (the second being amenable to Orthodox sensibilities).

Alex

The former doesn't make sense as a point of distinction without the latter.


Which would be a mistake since this matter is one of speculation.

Dear AMM,

We will agree to disagree on this score. One may accept that Mary was especially sanctified at her Conception in a way we are not (as was also John the Baptist) and that she experienced several of such sanctifications by the Holy Spirit - growing in holiness even when in Heaven to this day.

At no time does the idea of "inherited stain of guilt" for Adam's personal sin come into play (it does with the RC doctrine of the IC).

But Fr. Richard McBrien and others show that RC's could accept a different view of Original Sin and therefore a different view of what the IC "does."

I know I was not sanctified by the Holy Spirit from my conception and birth. I inherited the tendency to egotism and concupiscence from the impact of Adam's sin on our nature. In the case of the Mother of God, the Holy Spirit enveloped her in His Grace from the outset of her existence.

If that is contrary to Orthodoxy, then, all right I'll admit it, I'm not Orthodox!

In Fr. Meyendorff's case, he never asserted otherwise.

Alex

Well, I don't believe that, and must say this is just a point of speculation. It is indeed an agree to disagree topic.

Dear AMM,

But I do believe I have the "lex orandi" of Orthodoxy on my side!

Agree to disagree, of course, of course . . .

Have a great day, Pillar of Orthodoxy!

Alex

Metropolitan Hierotheos states she was fully enveloped at the Annunciation. That seems to be a fairly common view, though of course there is no settled doctrine.

Joe,

I think all official pronouncements of the RCC from 1054 right up until Vatican II were formulated under the assumption that only the RCC and those churches in communion with her were in fact the Church, and that all other bodies that regarded themselves as the Church (or part of the Church) were not. At Vatican II the RCC did not officially repudiate that view, but by embracing ecumenism it might be argued that she did so provisionally, allowing for the Holy Spirit to direct future developments in this regard.

From this perspective, assuming a future reunion with the EOC is anticipated, I should think the only intellectually honest thing would be to take this "paradigm shift" into account in any future pronouncements.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

And yet, to follow Father Serge's constant encouragement, all one need do is explore the readings for the feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos and the Conception of St. Ann to see that with she who is Immaculate, her conception and birth were both miraculous and truly unique. Clearly she was regarded as holy even in the womb and in the crib! This is also portrayed iconographically with the halo over her head while in her crib.

I struggle to think of any infant - apart from Christ - that is portrayed that way. That does not mean it does not exist, of course. (John the Forerunner, perhaps? I have not seen an icon of him in his infancy...)

On another point, I am struck by those who assert that Mary's conception as Immaculate separates her somehow from humanity - the "great exception". Logically one would have to argue the same regarding the Christ - that his humanity was somehow lacking because He too was sinless.

Finally, I would like to quote Mariologist, Dr. Mark Miravalle, concerning the address of the Angel Gabriel to Mary at the Annunciation.


Introduction to Mary:The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion by Mark Miravalle.

http://www.queenship.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=5608

God bless,

Gordo

The Kontakion proclaims her immaculate, not her conception. There is nothing stating full sanctification took place then in the hymn, and everything I've read states this happened later. There is no need to form a dogma on the point, and the church never has. She was also not precluded from anything that affects the rest of humanity, and did not have a nature different from the rest of humanity.

Here is an Orthodox view of the Annunciation

http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/annunciation.htm

I just want to point out that this quote, which others have been examining, does NOT say that the "unbaptised" go straight-away to Hell, but rather that those who have Original Sin (the natural absence of Grace) go to Hell. This can include the unBaptised, but it also doesn't automatically include them; countless martyrs were unBaptised, and even St. Dismas (the good thief) was unBaptised and died after Christ without Martyrdom, but is certainly in Heaven.

The point of the Council is NOT that the unBaptised are Damned, but that Original Sin in and of itself can cause Damnation without the need for personal sins to be heaped upon it; the question of how God deals with Original Sin is another issue entirely (and one that ultimately remains a mystery beyond what God has certainly told us, such as that Baptism imparts the Grace of Divine Life). In other words, we are born (and destined to remain, barring Divine intervention) outside of Paradise by virtue of who we are, entirely aside from our own personal sins. That is the point of the Council and its statement about Original Sin causing Damnation.

The Catholic Church isn't in any way going back on Conciliar definitions when it says that we can hope in God's Mercy when it comes to the unBaptised, it's simply going against the popular theology that grew up around such definitions (and which are entirely seperate from them).

Peace and God bless!

Orthodox Catholic: You seem to be well versed in the topic of Byzantine tradition concerning the Immaculate Conception, and I was wondering if you could PM or e-mail me concerning it as I'm very interested in the resources you've studied over the years.

Thank you and God bless!

The Orthodox understanding of this subject makes sense to me. Our Lady was borne with original sin. Romans 3:23 tells us that "all have sinned". However, by grace, Our Lady chose not to commit personal sin. This is what we are all called to do also. We are called to battle the passions, wage fierce spirutual warfare, and increase in virtues. I do not have to tell anyone how difficult it would be to remain free of personal sin for your entire life. Seems impossible to me. But by the grace of God, Our Lady remained sinless. The love and veneration of the Godbirthgiver amongst the Orthodox faithful is second to none. Scripture and patristics is largely silent on anything approaching the doctrine of the IC.

That is my take on it.

Peace to all,
R