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

My inability to have consistent internet access at the moment is hindering my participation in this discussion, so I won't say much about what's been said since my last post. I will say the following, though.

1. There's been an assertion that the IC doctrine obviates the need for the Incarnation, because, if it's true, then (allegedly) "the ontological change in the universe occurred then, not at the Incarnation." But if the doctrine is that the Theotokos was conceived in the same state as Eve in at least certain respects, i.e., as the New Eve, I don't see how her conception could take the place of the ontological change that occurred at the Incarnation. Eve's conception and pre-Fall existence didn't do that, so neither should Mary's. So far as I understand it (I'm open to correction!), the doctrine does not claim that the Theotokos enhypostatized the divine and human natures or united the human nature with the divine nature in such a way that the natural human will was decisively repaired.

2. I'm wondering if the following ideas are consistent with the doctrine of the IC. Sin has various consequences which affect human nature, including that humanity is diseased and succumbs to death. Another consequence is that humanity has lost its communion with and become separated in some way from the grace of God. That being so, can it be said that the Theotokos partakes of some of these consequences, e.g. a human nature that is still a wounded/dying human nature in and of itself, but is such that she is granted a restoration from the consequence of separation from God's grace, and receives, from the moment of her conception, a special sanctifying grace (communion with the grace of God) that overcomes that particular consequence for her? If our human nature, though diseased and dying, can receive such grace at baptism, and yet we still face certain affects of our nature having been wounded (e.g., death), why can't St. Mary be in that same position at her conception? I don't understand the thought that the IC obviates [i]any and all[/i] consequences of the Fall for the Theotokos. Isn't the idea just that she simply receives a special grace at her conception, e.g., a restored un-separatedness from God, that the rest of us, God willing, receive later? The idea isn't that every single effect of the Fall is erased from her being, is it? Here, I could use some instruction myself.

God bless.

A clear and beautiful summation, Father. However, I can just hear the old mantra now. "St Symeon was under the undue influence of the Latin west!" In the tenth century that would truly be proleptic.

It should be noted that the English translation of Homily 37 is a translation of St Seraphim's translation--in other words, a translation of a translation. It would be nice to have the accuracy of the English translation confirmed by someone with access to the Greek text. But still the same, it is suggestive.

Yes , it is.

We are baptized into Christ and put on Christ, which how it is accomplished in us. At the conception of the Theotokos in St. Anne,there was no Christ to be baptized into, because He had not yet put on the humanity of the Theotokos.

So the CCC resembles St. Symeon: does the Catechism of Trent?

Are you saying that it is impossible for God to have regenerated Mary in the Holy Spirit before the Incarnation, or are you saying that it seems inappropriate or unfitting for him to have done so within the context of the biblical story?

But I may have overstated my argument. The IC dogma need not, and probably should not, be interpreted as saying that the Virgin received all the benefits of baptism at her conception. But it does assert, I think, a special work of the Holy Spirit in her soul to prepare her for the Incarnation and her free and full interior assent to the Annunciation.

I think the challenge to the Catholic theologians is to demonstrate how this work of the Spirit at Mary's conception fits into the story of salvation. Orthodox theologians clearly believe that at the time of the Annunciation Mary was already a pure and immaculate vessel ready to receive the Lord (see St John Cabasilas's homily cited above). Surely she was exceptional in this regard. Why and how was she able to achieve a level of sanctity and interior freedom that no one before her and after her (excepting Christ, of course) had ever achieved in their historical lives? Clearly St Gregory Palamas felt this problem and offered his own solution, which appears to have been discarded in the Eastern Church, as Fr Ambrose observes.

It may well be that the West should not have attempted to dogmatize on this matter. The mystery of the Theotokos is no doubt best left to the liturgy and prayer of the Church. I suspect that if Pope Pius IX had never promulgated Ineffabilis Deus Eastern theologians today might be a tad more sympathetic to the IC teaching. After all, both Catholics and Orthodox, in contrast to their Protestant brethren, proclaim the sinlessness of the Theotokos throughout the entirety of her life. But why the "exception" of Mary?

Right; this is what I was suggesting/wondering in my previous post, a few posts above this one of yours that I'm now quoting (unfortunately, my posts appear after a delay and are sometimes missed, perhaps because I am still too new of a poster?). The statement of the dogma itself does not seem to require that the Theotokos receive any and all of the benefits that are received in Holy Baptism, as far as I can tell.

I would like to commend a book that I am presently reading, and plan to re-read: The Burning Bush [amazon.com]. Originally published in 1926, it has only just recently translated into English.

Bulgakov's intent in this book is to present what he believes to be the true Orthodox understanding of the sanctity of the Theotokos, particularly over against the Roman Catholic scholastic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which he violently rejects, and over against some late 19th-early 20th century Orthodox presentations of the Theotokos, presentations that he judges to be over-reactions to the Catholic dogma. The former removes Mary from the fallen human condition; the latter dare to immerse her in personal sin.

Invoking the liturgical prayers of the Orthodox Church, Bulgakov begins his book with a clear and emphatic affirmation of the absolute sinlessness of the Theotokos. "Does the Most Pure, the All-Immaculate One have any kind of personal sin?" he asks. "Is it possible even for a moment to conceive this dreadful abuse? And yet, as strange it may sound, to just such an admission do those Orthodox theologians tend who are tempted by excessive zeal to shatter to its foundations the unsuccessful Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God." Bulgakov acknowledges confusion among some of the Fathers on this question, but asserts that in the end the authentic teaching of Orthodoxy is represented in the views of Ephrem the Syrian, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianus, Ambrose of Milan, and Augustine, which were eventually authoritatively embodied in the liturgical prayers:


A proper understanding of the Theotokos will seek to articulate how one who was subject to the condition of fallenness could overcome it and live a personally sinless life. This is the burden of Bulgakov's book.

I was gratified to see that Bulgakov does not focus his critique of the Immaculate Conception dogma on the red herring of original guilt. He understands that the Roman Church construes original sin as a privation of original righteousness, and it is precisely this construal that he vigorously attacks. He rejects the dualism of nature and grace that he sees in the Catholic teaching of his day. This neo-scholastic dualism would later be strongly criticized by Catholic theologians in the mid- to late 20th century, Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, and Hans Urs von Balthasar (see Stephen J. Duffy, The Graced Horizon), as well as by Anglican neo-Thomist Eric Mascall. If Bulgakov were alive today, perhaps he might be a tad less harsh with Catholic teaching--perhaps.

Let me close with a passage that must certainly resonate with all Catholic hearts:
While this might not appease very traditional Catholics who are wedded to a scholastic theological framework, I suspect that many Catholic theologians today would acknowledge that Bulgakov's presentation of the purity of the Theotokos satisfies the principal theological concern that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception seeks (however imperfectly) to address. Whatever differences might remain certainly are not church-dividing.

Pick up a copy of this book, read, and inwardly digest.

To get a feel for Bulgakov's views on the Theotokos, read Mother Maria Skobtsova's article "The Veneration of the Mother of God [berdyaev.com]." The influence of Bulgakov on Mother Maria is manifest, at least so it appears to me.

Thank you, Fr. Kimel, for this book recommendation. It looks most interesting.

Yes, this is one of the precious pieces of short writings one finds now and again. It beautifully expresses the Orthodox understanding and veneration of the Mother of God, but I would say it is not something particular to Bulgakov and his influence on Saint Maria of Paris. It is broader than that, it is the universal understanding throughout Orthodoxy. It is what the Saint has gleaned and learnt form the Orthodox liturgical tradition. In the liturgy the Orthodox have embodied their doctrines fully and accurately and they seep into the soul by constant hearing year after year.

Dear Fr Kimel,

Having perused the essay which you recommend by Virginia Kimball, I note that she quotes the Metropolitan of Montenegro, Athanasius (Yevtich) on the Immaculate Conception. A very learned theologian-bishop and one of the inner circle of disciple-students of the just canonised Fr Justin Popovic.

Ms Kimball reports:
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/maryorthodox.htm

"The dogma of the Immaculate Conception severs Mary from her ancestors, from the forefathers, and from the rest of mankind. It marginalizes the preparatory history and economy of the Old Testament as well as the true meaning and holiness of the Theotokos herself. By severing her from fallen mankind and any consequences of the fall, this legalistic mechanism makes her personal holiness and theosis nonessential in the economy of salvation and, for that matter, even in her own salvation. Moreover, “it places in doubt her unity of nature with the human race and, therefore, the genuineness of salvation and Christ’s flesh as representative of mankind.
[Quoting, A., Yevtich, The Theotokos: Four Homilies on the Mother of God by St. John of Damascus, 3].”

There is a monograph on the web by Daniel Barton who is a member of the Ruthenian Catholic Church (and a Byzantine priest?)

He writes of his correspondence with Bishop Kallistos Ware and informs us that Bishop Kallistos has no belief in the Immaculate Conception. What is of interest is that Bishop Kallistos advances the same reason for his denial as is advanced by Metropolitan Athanasios (Yevtich) in Victoria Kimball's essay which you have referenced.

Daniel Barton writes:

"In sharing my thoughts with Greek Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, he informed me by letter that he "personally does not believe the doctrine as it changes all of history of mankind".

That should knock on the head the common misapprehension that Bishop Kallistos is a believer in the IC.

Taken from MY BELIEF IN THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION DOCTRINE
DANIEL JOSEPH BARTON (Of the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church of America)

http://mysticalrose.tripod.com/barton3.html

This would be all very interesting IF anyone had asserted that Met Kallistos was a believer in the Immaculate Conception ... but no one has asserted this. On the other hand, the exchange between Met Kallisos and Fr Yarnold, which can be found in the 1987 booklet "The Immaculate Conception: A Search for Convergence," does reveal a measure of common ground between Orthodoxy and Catholicism (at least as Orthodoxy and Catholicism is understood by Ware and Yarnold).

Fr Ambrose, you have emphatically asserted that you believe the IC dogma to be heretical. Met Kallistos cannot be enlisted to support your view. As far as I know, his Beatitude has not altered the view that he articulated in his book The Orthodox Church:


In his exchange with Fr Yarnold, Met Kallistos observes that "If the Christian East had adopted a strictly Augustinian view of the Fall and of original guilt, then we would also have been led to affirm the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. We cannot imagine that the Mother of God was subject to the consequences of the Fall as Augustine envisages them. But if we do not take an Augustinian view of original guilt, then perhaps the question can remain open. In fact the Christian East has not thought of the Fall exactly in the way that Augustine does, and therefore for us the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not so much untrue as unnecessary."

Of course, Catholicism does not authoritatively teach a doctrine of "original guilt" either, as Met Kallistos is well aware. It articulates original sin as a privation of sanctifying grace, which Fr Yarnold in this exchange describes as a "God-shaped hole." "If the question is posed in these terms," says Ware, "I do not find myself so very far apart from him."

Thank you for the opportunity to commend to the brethren this most interesting booklet, published by the Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary [esbvm.org.uk].

Having had several conversations with His Grace on the subject, I can most emphatically say that he does not accept the doctrine of immaculate conception as expressed by the Catholic Church. What he actually said--in print, no less--is this is a theologumenon, and an individual Orthodox Christian may believe it as a private opinion, without separating himself from the Orthodox Church.

Nothing more, nothing less.

It is obvious from Daniel Barton's correspondence with Bp Kallistos that the bishop has changed his mind. He wrote to Daniel Barton:


"In sharing my thoughts with Greek Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, he informed me by letter that he "personally does not believe the doctrine as it changes all of history of mankind".

Now a bishop is sworn to uphold truth, and if he has now come to the conclusion that the Immaculate Conception "changes all of history of mankind" he could not possibly allow his flock to hold an erroneous belief. So while he may once have accepted it as a theologoumenon, such is no longer the case.

PS: Can anyone confirm that Daniel Barton is a priest of the Ruthenian Catholic Church?

To claim on the basis of this single quotation from an unpublished, occasional, and undated correspondence that Met Kallistos has changed his mind about the Immaculate Conception is to put a meaning upon Kallistos's quoted words that they cannot bear. In fact, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that his Beatitude's views about the IC have changed. He strongly criticized the IC twenty-five years ago. He remains critical of it today. This does not mean that he believes that the IC teaching, particularly when original sin as construed as the privation of sanctifying grace, achieves the level of heresy. A belief may be erroneous without being heretical. No evidence has been presented that Kallistos has retracted his published statements that the IC may be held as private opinion within the Orthodox Church.

It is wrong for you to put words into the bishop's mouth. You need to contact Met Kallistos directly and confirm your interpretation of his words. You may well owe him an apology for publicly misrepresenting his views.