www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Immaculate conception - eastern view?

How could the dogma of Immaculate Conception be understood in an Eastern view?

In a number of "Le Lien", Greek-Melkite Patriarchate`s magazine, there is an article of Dimitry Gallaro stating that to the ancient christian tradition to be exempt of the original sin means to not be born or concepted according to the ordinaries laws of nature. So it`s necessary to say that Holy Mary was redeemed as all the human genre, even if her salvation was realized in an unique and special way. About that, East and West agree. The divergence is about formulation.
Wanting to follow a patristic language, the author says "the Holy Virgin heirs the original sin as she shares the fallen human nature, but she was sanctified by an unique divine intervention since the first moment of her conception". Then he refers to Cabasilas`s homily on the Nativity of the Virgin, which talks about the successives purifications operated by God in the ancestors of St. Mary until St. Anne "to remark the divine intervention by which the temple of God made flesh, through the action of the All-Highest, was sanctified since her apparition so as to be able to receive the Word incarnated".

So the point is "purified" is best than "exempt" to the Eastern view?

Philippe,

Good point. Normally, the term "purified" is problematic in that it implies that the one receiving purification was previously somehow impure.

However, Gallaro's quotation from Cabasilas appears to be saying that Holy Mary's purification was accomplished through her ancestors, such that it was already accomplished at the time of her "apparition."

(FWIW, in the Byzantine Liturgy, we hail the Holy Theotokos as "ever-blessed," which can certainly be taken to mean there was no time in which she was not blessed ...)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Interesting! Perhaps this is a way for east and west to come to an agreement.Let's develope this a little further.
Stephanos I

I don't know of any reputable theologians who think the doctrine of the immaculate conception in any way constitutes a substantive obstacle to unity. It is mainly among the faithful on both sides that difficulties arise, and then mainly because both sides are equally ill-informed about the theology of their own Tradition.

His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew, in an interview with the Italian Catholic journal "30 Days", expresses his concerns over the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Please see
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2005/03/08/patriach-bartholomew-on-the-immaculate-conception/

His All Holiness objects primarily to the institution of the doctrine as a dogma, as do I (for it rests on assumptions peculiar to one particular Church, and also covers a subject which, traditionally, the Church has not seen as proper for dogmatization).

I also believe that he reads too much into both what the Latins believe and teach, as well as what the Orthodox Church teaches, for it has never pronounced (and likely never will pronounce) formally on the mechanics of Mary's sinlessness. For instance, where, precisely, is it taught that Mary's purification "happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain"?

As far as I know, this entire area is one open to theological speculation, as Metropolitan Kallistos has written and reiterated many times. As he puts it, he sees no reason why an Orthodox Christian cannot hold the doctrine of the immaculate conception as a theologumenon, provided he does not put it forward as the official teaching of the Orthodox Church.

It is also disturbing to see His All-Holiness elevating the Western understanding of original sin and its consequences to the level of a dogma. Certainly, for the first thousand years of the Church, the West held its view, and the East held its view, and neither saw this difference as a sufficient cause for withholding communion. Indeed, both East and West recognized that the common theologia of the divine revelation allowed for diversity in theoria, that is, the systematization and elaboration of ramifications of theologia. We today should not erect stumbling blocks where the Fathers themselves did not see any. Expressions such as those of His All-Holiness call into question whether the Orthodox Church can ever accept as legitimate any form of theology that is not explicitly Byzantine.

As for us, the Greek Catholics, we see the immaculate conception as something necessary for the Latins in their system of theology, but generally irrelevant to us. We hold Mary to be ever-blessed and without sin, and leave it at that. She is like us in all ways, save that she was preserved from sin throughout her life. We are all born with the same potential as Mary, for we inherit from Adam man's propensity for death and corruption that lead us into sin. But Mary was protected by divine grace, and her synergia with the Holy Spirit so perfect that she was saved from the fate that covers us all.

His All-Holiness is clear that he objects to the dogma because it is based on erroneous theology - an erroneous teaching of original sin.

[quote=Epiphanius]Philippe,

Good point. Normally, the term "purified" is problematic in that it implies that the one receiving purification was previously somehow impure.

However, Gallaro's quotation from Cabasilas appears to be saying that Holy Mary's purification was accomplished [i]through her ancestors[/i], such that it was already accomplished at the time of her "apparition." [/quote]

Interesting that Cabasilas held that view. I had known of it only through Saint Gregory Palamas and assunmed that it was unique to him.

"...in his 65 published Mariological homilies, [Palamas] developed an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand, Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans conceptionis“, and on the other, he states quite as categorically as any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”.

http://curiosus002.livejournal.com/2287.html

This ties in with the teaching of Saint Ambrose of Milan that the semen of Saint Joachim was immaculate and so Saint Joachim was able to produce an immaculate child.

The Latin Church's approach to original sin has been fairly constant since Tertullian. For some reason, in all of the polemics directed by the East against the West (and vice versa), this issue never came up. Why is that?

And please refer to what I wrote above:


You seem to be implying that the Latin Church has no inherent right to do theology in a way consistent with its Tradition. In this, you and His All Holiness elevate theoria to the level of theologia. It seems a rather one-sided conversation, since the Orthodox Church insists on the right to its own unique theoria. So I will ask once more:

1. Why has the Latin Church's perspective on original sin only now been elevated to the level of a theological issue?

2. Does the Orthodox Church recognize the legitimacy of any theoria that is not explicitly Byzantine?

Inasmuch as it is consistent with the theology of the Undivided Church of course it has the right, as do other Churches, Anglican, Lutheran...


The right of the Orthodox Church to its own theoria rests in the fact that it is the Una Sancta in which the fulness of the Church subsists. As such it is able to assess all others in the light of its own knowledge.


It recognises all theoria which is orthodox whether that is found in the Orthodox Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church.

To quote someone from Orthodoxwiki (although this is a common Orthodox viewpoint I am not sure if I would go so far as this author):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Other_points_of_conflict

"These doctrinal issues center around the Orthodox perception that the Catholic theologians lack the actual experience of God called theoria and thereby fail to understand the importance of the Heart as Noetic or Intuitive faculty. It is the Catholic Church's reliance on pagan metaphysical philosophy and rational methods such as scholasticism rather than on intuitive experience of God (theoria) that causes Orthodox to consider the Catholic Church heretical. Other points of doctrinal difference include a difference regarding human nature as well as a difference regarding original sin, purgatory and the nature of Hell."

How consistent has it been? The teaching defined at Florence was that those who died in original sin, including unbaptized children, went to hell immediately. This is not the teaching today.

"The Council of Florence also defined, in Session VI, the following: "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."

"This same doctrine is found in the Confession of Faith which was given to the Eastern Emperor Michael Paleologus in 1267 by Pope Clement IV, and which was accepted by this same emperor in the presence of Pope Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274.

"The same doctrine is found as well in the Profession of Faith given to the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that which was prescribed for the oriental schismatics by Popes Urban VIII and Benedict XIV."

Sorry, that I have written in haste and have grabbed these paragraphs from a Catholic Traditionalist site:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=73&catname=15

Augustine pretty much taught the same thing. This has always been one of the Western rationalia for infant baptism.

Dear Dn. Richard, I think the term "purification" is appropriate, because the "impurity" refers to the fallen state of human nature. Even if the All-Holy Mary's ancestors passed by a successive purification, it seems to me the finalization of the purification would be needed in Theotokos's embryo (or in her parents' gametes, as St. Palamas would seem to suggest, I don't know!), contemporary to its apparition ("in primo instanti suae
conceptionis"), otherwise St. Anne and St. Joachim would have to be "pures" too!

***

Pardon my ignorance, but what would be the Western conception of the original sin? Is what Fr. Thomas Dowd in the commentaries to Patriarch Bartholomew's utterance said?

"Original sin (in the Catholic view) consists merely in a privation of grace, not a transfer of actual guilt. The theologians of the 17th and 18th centuries said it was a transfer of actual guilt (a.k.a. the “moral stain” the Patriarch speaks of), a view which the Catholic Church *rejected*. The reference to the merits of Christ is to refute the idea that Mary somehow didn’t need Jesus in order to be sinless. Salvation is, of course, much more than salvation from sin — theosis is part of the concept of salvation as well, something the Protestants rejected and which the Catholics needed to re-affirm".

And why that conception would require the Immaculate Conception, and the Eastern one wouldn't?

I still wait for answers, if possible.

And, Stuart, could you please explain in which sense serious theologians do not see the Immaculate as an obstacle anymore?

I think a better question is as to how it could be seen as an obstacle.

West: "Mary was born without the stain of sin."

Uhm, I can't write a non-snarky East: line.

hawk