www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Hi, I'm Orthodox, and I believe in the IC.

In my years on the Net and on various forums I have never ever heard it said by any Catholic that an Orthodox Christian is able to properly comprehend the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Always the opposite! And some of these Orthodox are academically trained by the Catholics, such as Patriarch Bartholomew of the Greeks - five years at the Gregorian University in Rome and graduating with a Doctorate - and he *still* cannot understand the dogma!!

I have now concluded that the the Orthodox are congenitally unable to understand it and we should not even make the effort and torture our brains uselessly.

For my part, no, I don't want to venture any ideas about this (though I sense the question wasn't intended in full sincerity anyway). But even so, that Pope Shenouda is in fact misrepresenting the dogma in the way that Fr. Deacon Lance suggested -- or is at least presenting it in a very misleading way -- is something that can be confirmed.

Pope Shenouda says that the Orthodox Church (apparently in contrast to the Catholic Church) considers Mary holy "whilst a natural member of the human race," and immediately adds, "We do not set her apart from the human race [by teaching the doctrine of the immaculate conception] . . . as if she was born of no human seed." This at least suggests that the Catholic Church's doctrine is that she was set apart from the human race as if she was not born of human seed. But a reading of the Papal bull proclaiming the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus, will not reveal any such idea, and will instead reveal that it explicitly teaches that the Theotokos was "conceived by Anna" and "derived from Adam." Further, any reasonably-informed Catholic should be able to tell you that, as the liturgical texts confirm, Catholics believe her to be conceived of human seed, from Joachim and Anna. They believe her to possess our human nature, though not "stained" (to use the Roman language) with the effects of original sin. As Fr. Deacon Lance intimates, if the mere claim that someone was conceived without suffering the effects of original sin implies that the person conceived did not possess our human nature, then one implication is that Christ Himself did not (God forbid!) possess our human nature, and likewise for Adam and Eve. Since the latter doesn't follow, neither, apparently, does the former.

More than this could be said, I think, but the above is just one example.

As an aside, a valid exegesis of Scripture would show it confirms no such thing. But the quote does show that the Orthodox understand and even use, even effectively and with conviction, the reality of Original Sin, and can state authoritatively as in the Catechism Of The Greek Orthodox Church by the Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D., Doctor of the Ecumenical Throne: "of the Virgin Mary after her cleansing of original sin by the Holy Spirit when the Angel announced to her the conception and birth of Christ." Thus a "teaching of the Ecumenical Patriatrchate in this Catechism is that the Mother of God was cleansed from Original Sin in her teenage years." Note, "teaching of the Ecumenical Patriatrchate": "Virgin Mary," "cleansed," from "Original Sin."

Actually, I can cite an Orthodox writer who got the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception right--Fr Michael Pomazansky. In his Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, he identifies the Roman doctrine the stain of original sin as a deprivation of supernatural grace. Given that all of humanity is conceived deprived of this supernatural grace, and given that the Virgin Mary is acknowledged by the Archangel as "full of grace," the Roman Church infers that Mary "received, in the form of an exception, a supernatural gift, a grace of sanctity, even before her birth, that is, at her conception. They called this removal a 'privilege' of the Mother of God" (p. 192).

Be of good courage, Fr Ambrose. If Fr Pomansky can get the doctrine right, I'm confident that other Orthodox theologians can do so, if they would but try. I think it's called synergism.

Inded it is a a sincere question, Iason. I have been on these boards and others for many years. Time and time and time again the Orthodox are told that they misunderstand the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

This thread was commenced by DoxRox who says he or she is a new Orthodox convert but all the same he believes in the Immaculate Conception. Then, a few messages into the discusion he posts a definition of the Immaculate Conxception and asks if that is what should be believed. In other words, although he says he believes in it he is not certain *what* he believes in!

However DoxRox's uncertainly about what he believes is not the point of my message. The point is that Catholics have always said, without exception IIRC, that the Orthodox do not understand the Catholic dogma. Would this be an example of invincible ignorance? (A serious question.)

We can access what Fr Pomazaksky says because his work is on line. Go to
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_FA.HTM

and use the Alphabetical search at the top of the page to search for Conception.

Dod Pomazansky get it right? He is ignorant of the claim that the Immaculate Conception was made possible only by the pre-application of the merits of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. That is a major plank of the dogma and I am surprised you have not picked up on its lack in Pomazansky's understanding.

The things he says in rebuttal of the dogma are interesting though. Would they be acceptable to Eastern Catholics?


Given Pomazansky's defective understanding, I think that I myself grasp it better then he did.

I believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. Yet I have no comprehension of how the Lord makes it happens. I daresay men on earth can only have an inkling of understanding of such a great Mystery. Using your logic I and the whole of Catholicism and Orthodoxy don't know what we believe in.


I can't speak for them, but I would discern a difference between what some Catholics believe (and say) and what is real Teaching. I know Orthodox who understand the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Some reject it. Some do not. I had forgotten about Father Pomazansky's understanding. That you don't understand it could be for one or many reasons. You may not have tried. You may have tried and honestly failed. You may have a sliver in you eye against Catholicism that prevents you from wanting (or being able) to understand. I think that you could understand if you wanted to (maybe Fr. Kimel's post of Father Pomazansky's explanation could be a start towards your understanding). You might reject it in the end but it is certainly possible for you to understand.

Having said all that, I personally accept the Catholic theology on this issue. I find it to be very sloppy theology, as the given theology does not define what original sin is. But sloppy theology can be and is (in this case) true.

I do not follow. The matter raised by DoxRox was the content of the dogma and not the mechanics of it.

I spoke about the content of the dogma of the Eucharist, not the mechanics.

But Pomazansky got the central thesis of the dogma correct--namely, the Virgin Mary was conceived in a state of sanctifying grace. The dogma presupposes the scholastic understanding that original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace.

What is "sanctifying grace"? That is the critical question, and it is this question upon which the Orthodox always seem to stumble. To find the answer one must look not to Augustine (who was unacquainted with the notion of created grace) but to Aquinas and the scholastic tradition.

It really scandalous and inexcusable that Orthodox polemicists (present company excepted, of course) refuse to acquaint themselves with the long-standing Catholic teaching on original sin. They seem addicted to the Augustinian construal of "original guilt." As a recent example, I direct everyone's attention to this this recent article by a Fr Ernesto and the subsequent discussion [orthocuban.com].

Fr Ambrose, I'd like to draw your attention back to the interview with Patriarch Bartholomew that you quoted earlier in this thread, specifically these sentences:
Note that Bartholomew mistakenly construes the Latin understanding exclusively in legal and moral categories. Clearly he did not pay much attention to Latin theology when he studied in Rome. But note especially how he describes the Orthodox understanding of original sin, namely, that sin that is "caused by the separation of mankind from the uncreated grace of God." Okay, here's the essential point: what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception declares is that the Virgin Mary never experienced a separation from the uncreated grace of God!!!

Now maybe the Latin Church is wrong about this, but this, and this alone, is what needs to be addressed in this thread.

Yes, the quote from Patriarch Bartholomew shows he has not looked at it correctly. One only need to give Trent an exacting read to understand that in Latin "guilt" has two definitions and that one must discern between the two. As I like to explain to those who write the website with questions, Adam is guilty of "doing the crime" and the guilt we inherit form him is not the guilt of "doing the crime" but the guilt of "doing the time". Such a double definition of "guilt" is not normative for the English language.

Meyendorff got this wrong in his otherwise excellent "Byzantine Theology", and I suspect that is where many Orthodox pick up this misunderstanding of Latin theology.

You may be right that Meyendoff may be the source for the continuing Orthodox misunderstanding of the Latin doctrine of original sin. Some may find of interest a series of short articles I wrote on this topic three years ago [pontifications.wordpress.com].

As I said, maybe the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception is wrong and maybe not a lot really hinges on the Latin dogma being right; but it would be really nice to read Orthodox reflection on the dogma as it is actually taught by the Catholic Church. What I want to know is what the Orthodox think about the Latin notion of original sin as separation from uncreated grace. Does this notion make any sense to the Orthodox? If not, why not?

Gentlemen, you are building my case for me very nicely and I thank you- no Orthodox is able to comprehend the dogma of the IC. Would this be an instance of invincible ignorance afflicting an entire Church?

Grace is only uncreated (never created) and that of course means that grace is God. So your question is posed in Latin terminology which the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics would avoid dealing in. It draws us into offering an answer based on constructs which are outside our theology. The inevitable result, if we were foolish enough to attempt such an artifical answer, is that we would be told we do not understand Latin theology.

Ahh, Father, you vastly underestimate yourself. I bet you could give an answer if you tried really, really, really hard.

Catholics can talk about deifying union with God without invoking the scholastic notions of created grace. So just forget for the moment everything you think you know or don't know about created grace. Let's just talk about uncreated grace and union with God.

Recall Patriarch's Bartholomew's suggestion that ancestral sin is rooted in a separation from uncreated grace (i.e., God). Do you agree with this? Is this at least one Orthodox way of thinking about ancestral sin?

If the answer is yes, then does it at least make sense, in Orthodox terms, to suggest that the Theotokos never experienced this separation from God?