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

The immaculate conception theory is irrelevant for me as an Eastern Catholic.

That said, Western Christians can believe whatever they want in connection with the conception of the Theotokos, as long as they do not try to say that the Late Medieval Latin immaculate conception theory is binding upon all Christians.

Hi, This is an issue that has perturbed me greatly. I have searched far and wide and come to the conclusion that the Orthodox have not reached agreement on the sinlessness of Mary. I did see it put forth as dogma in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by fr Pomazanky (may have spelt his name wrong) as well as in These Truths We Hold by St Tikhon's monastery. However, I went to Orthodoxanswers.org and it said it is not dogma though some do believe it. I also contacted a former priest of mine who I felt tells it like it is. He felt that this opinion as well as Aerial toll houses were not true. I also contacted Fr Thomas Hopko as I greatly admire him and his contributions to the Orthodox Church and he said (via email) that this belief in the Theotokos's sinlessness was a minority opinion among the Fathers and the Saints. Please Note that this is not him putting forth his opinion. I don't know his opinion as yet. he told me about a series of podcasts he did on the Theotokos. I will listen to them in the coming weeks to see if I am moved to change my belief on this matter. I think it may just be persons unintentionally putting forth valid theological opinions as dogma. I will continue to pray on this matter.

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/hopko_lectures

I understand that Daniel Barton who quoted Bp Kallistos' words from their private correspondence is a Ruthenian Catholic priest. Perhaps he should be the first port of call in confirming what the bishop wrote. And when his confirmation is obtained, then write to the bishop.

MY BELIEF IN THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION DOCTRINE
DANIEL JOSEPH BARTON (Of the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic Church of America)
http://mysticalrose.tripod.com/barton3.html


But, frankly, is it worth it? His Grace has wobbled around so much over the years on this issue .....

Really, he should excuse himself from any further comment on this issue since he brings confusion to the Church.

I think that the Orthodox have a keen radar for heresy and in this case my spiritual mentors, monks and bishops, have called it heretical.

Fr. Ambrose,

Wouldn't one of the principal reasons for considering this opinion "heretical," however, be the fact that its primary promoters--namely the RCC--are regarded as heretics to begin with?

I think personal beliefs of this kind can sometimes transcend official ecclesiastical boundaries. In other words, some people experience these beliefs in very personal ways, as a kind of calling or vocation. This is not to say the historical or dogmatic issues are unimportant. I think Our Lady calls us to certain things like this in very personal ways that can't be explained in purely psychological or dogmatic terms.

I recall a story once told of Lev Gillet who said during his life he was both Catholic and Orthodox, something that could not be sustained by any official teaching of either church. Perhaps your belief in the Immaculate Conception is something like this, something so entirely personal that it cannot be officially approved or condemned - it just is.

As a general comment on the teaching itself, it is hard to make sense of it within the matrix of Eastern Christian theology. The only hint of it is the feast of the Conception of St. Anne 12/9. But there is also the Conception of John the Baptist, something that never had an official theological mandate. Very simply, the teaching on Our Lady is rooted in the Augustinian notion on inherited guilt, whereas the Orthodox understand this as inherited death. Eastern and Western teachings on atonement derive from these two different understandings of the Fall. More traditionalist Orthodox have held these differences are contradictory. Others, such as Bp. Kallistos see them as complimentary.

Critics of the Immaculate Conception have said it removes Mary from her humanity and personal freedom. Perhaps this touches on the Roman Catholic understanding of freedom itself. Grace enables rather than suppresses human freedom. Being preserved from sin and the possibility of sinning does not annul freedom but liberates it - we say the same of Christ who was fully human and divine, being preserved from all sin did not negate his freedom to choose; it made him whole.

Daniel

Are the RCs heretics? You can't share sacraments with heretics, but at various times and places, this was done with the official sanction of various canonical Orthodox bishops.

[quote=StuartK]Are the RCs heretics? You can't share sacraments with heretics, but at various times and places, this was done with the official sanction of various canonical Orthodox bishops. [/quote]
Romania just dealt with this decisely: one will find themself outside the Church if they dare do so. This topic was a snagg between the reconciliation between Moscow and ROCOR.

Given the history of the Henotikon, official sanction doesn't mean much.

As also with the Anglicans in both the UK and the States.

The Antiochian Church is still sharing the Eucharist with Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics.

Here is the Patriarchal Encyclical sent to Pope Leo XIII in 1895. The encyclical sees the Immaculate Conception as a perversion, a novel doctrine created in the West and asserts that Jesus Christ is alone pure and immaculate.

"And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say. But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere..."

The Patriarch and bishops also say that the IC is a novel doctrine unknown to the Church and a "substantial difference between the two churches respecting the faith."

"XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).

XIV. Passing over, then, these serious and substantial differences between the two churches respecting the faith, which differences, as has been said before, were created in the West..."

The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Dear Father Kimel,

Please see the message above which quotes from this 1895 Eastern Letter to Pope Leo XIII.

The late Fr Kucharek has made a massive blunder in saying that the concern of the Patriarchal letter was simply the manner of the promulgation by the Pope. It is very clear that the objection concerns the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception per se which is rejected in strong terms as a novelty unknown to the Church.

It is not easy to understand why Fr Kucharek offered incorrect information. I am inclined to believe that he did not take the trouble to find and read the actual letter and he was misled by erroneous information from others.

The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Does the Ecumenical Patriarch always speak -- and speak unequivocally -- for all of Orthodoxy on faith and morals?

But, on the other hand, no theological objection is raised, other than novelty. And, within the Latin Church, the concept was not novel, having been in circulation for at least six centuries. Which means that for the Western Church, the doctrine of the immaculate conception was no more "innovative" than Palamism was for the Orthodox Church--that is, each was a logical development of unstated assumptions held by each Church.

Once again, the real objection here is the inability of the Orthodox Church to accept the legitimacy of any theological development or expression that is not explicitly Byzantine--and that, of course, is the result of historical development; i.e., the loss of Egypt and Syria in the 7th century, reducing the faith of the Eastern Roman Empire to that of the Church of Constantinople, the breakdown in communications between the Eastern and Western halves of Christendom, the increasing monolingualism that affected both sides, and the resultant isolation of each half of the Church from the other.

You know, Father, it is very hard for a Church to make claims of ecumenicity when it is exclusively Eastern or exclusively Western.

Orthodoxy has had no Ecumenical Council since 787.

However there is a grouping of later Councils and Synodical Declarations which have come to be accepted as authoritative by all the Orthodox Churches. These are known collectively as the "Symbolical Books."

This particular Encyclical from the Church of Constantinople to Pope Leo XIII is one of the Symboplical Books.

One would think that the denial of the possibility of Mary's immaculate conception because Christ "alone is pure and immaculate" would have a theological import.

Likewise the statement that the Immaculate Conception is a perverted doctrine.

Likewise the assertion that the IC and other matters constitute "heretical innovations."

One would also think that "scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church" is also a statement concerning theology.