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

The Orthodox Church does not teach that really - that Mary was protected from all sin all of her life. Such a "protection" would diminish her great glory. Her avoidance of sin was not a "protection" but rather it was the fruits of her own efforts of co-operation with trhe grace of God. This is what you will find in Orthodox theologians.

A distinction without much difference. In Byzantine anthropology, grace is a gift freely given and it is up to each person to cooperate with the indwelling Holy Spirit to make it efficacious. Such symphonia is open to all people, yet all sin anyway. Mary is an example of perfect symphonia, making her the perfect disciple. Yet we are not pelagians, and it is only through the grace given her that Mary has such strength in the first place.

As for the Latin Church, its view of grace is somewhat different, as is its perception of the effects of original sin. Blame Augustine's obsession with Pelagius, if you want, but that is their legitimate mode of expression. The outcome is the same in both cases.

Good Byzantine Christian that I am, I concur that no man is born into a "state" of sin, but each man is born mortal and prone to passions which incline man to sin. Only through divine grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit received at baptism are we redeemed from sin; only through cooperation (synergia) with the Holy Spirit are we able to resist the urge to sin (and here, I don't see that the use of "preserve" instead of resist makes much difference; if I was writing a theological treatise, I would, of course, start with a long series of definitions, but I am not writing one). Christians of all stripes believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit is conferred through Baptism and Chrismation--in other words, sacramental initiation into Christ's Church. But Mary anticipates the Church, and does what no man or woman had ever done since Adam and Eve. As Paul writes, there is no salvation in the Law, because no man can observe the Law. So, if Mary did not sin, then she was exceptional indeed. Her cooperation with the Holy Spirit was perfect, and therefore extraordinary, and thus I am inclined to think that she was, in some way, a special case, even if not conceived "immaculately" (which I cannot believe, because I do not believe that man is born into a "state" of sin).



One can be both the great example and the great exception at the same time. It's a false dichotomy. Mary's dormition and assumption likewise make her a great exception, yet at the same time she remains the great example in that as well, for the miracle serves as a guarantor of our own bodily resurrection.

.

And I have also observed that other texts refer to Mary as all-pure, blameless, without stain; i.e., also sinless. How do we reconcile the the apparent contradiction? I have given the answer, which is rooted in our belief in theosis: Christ is sinless by nature, Mary is sinless by grace, in the same way that through theosis, we will be partakers in the divine nature, becoming by grace what Christ is by nature. If you accept theosis, then you must believe our ultimate destiny is to become sons of God--but only Christ is the Son of God. The difference is Christ's Sonship is inherent in his nature, "born of the Father before all ages", whereas ours is due entirely to divine grace and "the gift of filial adoption".

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

I suppose the bottom-line truth of the situation is that when Roman and Eastern Catholics read Orthodox liturgical texts they find them expressing the Immaculate Conception ** (but I see from Apotheoun this would be just a segment of the Eastern Catholics so there is no unanimity there.)

The Orthodox, on the other hand, read the same texts and do not hear Immaculate Conception.

This may be a fact which we simply have to acknowledge.

-----------------
** Is this true though? Nobody has taken the text for the Feast of the Conception and given us the texts which teach the Immaculate Conception.

Actually, I don't see it at all. Your need to put me in a box is rather disturbing, Father. I personally don't see the doctrine of immaculate conception as being explicit or implicit in any Orthodox liturgical text. And I see it as irrelevant within the system of Orthodox theology. Since none of us are born with the stain of original sin, we're all "immaculately conceived" in Latin terms.

On the other hand, I don't see anything in the texts that rules out the doctrine of immaculate conception, and as a rule, anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted. That the Orthodox Church has so few dogmas is its strength, not its weakness (He who dogmatizes least has the least need to dogmatize). There is considerable room for legitimate variations in Orthodox opinion, and a wide range of speculation has been entertained over the years. If Patriarch Bartholemew is free to speculate that Mary received some special grace at the Annunication (and just where did he get that idea?), then other Orthodox ought to be free to think Mary received some special grace prior to her birth.

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other, since it is not "dogma". The Latin Church can teach what it wants, as long as it doesn't attempt to impose it on me (and, contrary to anything you may think, it never has tried to do so to me) or on Churches that have a different Tradition. Individual Orthodox are free to believe whatever they want within the broad boundaries of the Tradition's assertion that Mary was sinless her entire life (and synergia considered, it's still a special gift that was given to her).

You want it both ways, saying that there is no settled doctrine, but then eliminating one specific doctrinal speculation based upon the flimsiest of theological arguments One paragraph in an 1895 letter that was essentially polemical and not theological in nature? That's the best you can do? Romanides devoted half a book to it, but only succeeded in making his argument by misrepresenting both the Orthodox and the Catholic positions and by claiming the entire Latin doctrine of original sin is heretical--even though none of the Fathers, who knew what the Latins believed, considered it to be so. I think this is what David Bentley Hart meant by not relying on "dyspeptic Greeks".

Be honest with us and yourself, Father: the principal Orthodox objection to the doctrine of immaculate conception is its unilateral promulgation as "dogma" by the Latin Church through what amounted to an anticipatory exercise of papal infallibility.


I'll flip it around and throw it back at you: is there anything there that would prohibit an individual Orthodox Christian from believing in the immaculate conception as a privately held theological speculation? Be specific about it, please.

Stuart and Hieromonk Ambrose make some excellent points and are in basic agreement about the fact that the theory of the "immaculate conception" is unnecessary in Byzantine theology.

Clearly this thorny issue would disappear if the West would stop trying to say that its theories are universal dogmas.

I said that the common principles laid out in the letter could be used in order to reestablish communion and I stand by that statement. Here are the common principles as given in the text:

Thank you Todd! That is the crux of the problem.

.

In fact, the West seems to be doing just that, having backed down from its preconciliar positions on the Filioque, purgatory and a number of other doctrines. The real question is whether the Orthodox will be satisfied with de facto restorations of patristic doctrines, or whether their real interest is in humiliating the Latin Church by demanding formal recantations--in which case, we should all just pack up our bags and go home, because it ain't gonna happen--and, if the Orthodox gave it a moment of thought, they might perceive that it would not be good for them or for the whole world, if the largest Christian Church was suddenly plunged into chaos by an unnecessarily explicit repudiation of what many consider settled teachings.

In any case, as Eastern Catholics we can best help the process along by being true to the Tradition and not adopting Latin theological terms, categories and doctrines that are not part of our patrimony. Only by being fully Orthodox while maintaining our communion with Rome will both Rome and the Orthodox Churches be able to determine that which is truly universal, and that which is specific to one specific Tradition.

And if it makes some Eastern Catholics uncomfortable, or angers some of our Latin brethren, well, that's just too bad. We are called to be who we are, all of the time, and not just when convenient for Rome.

The common principles laid out in the 1895 synodal letter are, in fact, the kind of capitulation I think Stuart is referring to above, and that is what I, as a Catholic, find abhorrent. Latin Catholics would be little more than western rite uniates awaiting the next critique of their innovations from the Phanar. I could live in a Catholic Church of Stuart's vision, but not the one put forth by the synodal letter. It would be orthodox, but not catholic. What disturbs me more is that you said that you found nothing wrong with the document.

Rev. Fr. Ambrose,
You're not answering the question; I'm not certain you understand the question.

these 12 men who signed:
were they all heads of autocephalous churches? Yes or no?
If not all, who were?
Were all the then autocephalous churches part of that decree? Yes or No?
If no, how can it be binding upon all? (this being the logic behind the Orthodox claiming the 8th and later councils can't be Ecumenical, after all)

here's the list of signatories:

• + ANTHIMOS of Constantinople, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
• + NICODEMOS of Cyzicos, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
• + PHILOTHEOS of Nicomedia, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
• + JEROME of Nicea, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
• + NATHANAEL of Prusa, beloved brother and intercessor of Christ our God.
• + BASIL of Smyrna, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
• + STEPHEN of Philadelphia, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
• + ATHANASIOS of Lemnos, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
• + BESSARION of Dyrrachium, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
• + DOROTHEOS of Belgrade, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
• + NICODEMOS of Elasson, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
• + SOPHRONIOS of Carpathos and Cassos, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.
• + DIONYSIOS of Eleutheropolis, beloved brother and intercessor in Christ our God.

Let's see...
Cyzicos is in Turkey, just south of Constantinople
Nikomedia is just southeast of Constantinople
Nicea is right near Cyzicos.

Let's see... hitting Orthodox Wiki, and looking for dates of autocephaly...
from the get-go:
Rome (No longer considered Orthodox in 1066)
Constantinople
Alexandria
Antioch
431: Cyprus
466: Georgia (but abolished by Russia in 1811 and restored de facto in 1917; regonized by Russia in 1943, and Constantinople 1989)
692: Jerusalem

1488: Russia
1833: Greece (Tomos in 1850)
1832: Serbia (Recognized in 1879)
1865: Romania (Tomos in 1885)

Not recognized at that point as autocephalous:
1872: Bulgaria (reconciled 1945)

not yet autocephalous then:
1922: Albania (recognized 1937)
1970: OCA (still not universally recognized)

Ok, Belgrade is the primatial see of Serbia. So it wasn't just a local council. But I see no Russian... and can't tell on the rest.

Two of them were - Constantinople and Belgrade

The other 11 were not

In toto there were 13 bishops.



At the time of signing, no.


It was accepted throughout all Orthodoxy as a correct expression of the Orthodox faith. "Binding" is some legalistic term which may not be appropriate. It is a matter of reception. It was seen as being of some significance and hence it was accepted into the small body of important post-787 statements known as the "symbolical Books" as a true expression of our Tradition(see Timothy Ware, "The Orthodox Church." http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/__P10.HTM )

My perception is that you wish to say that the 1895 Encyclical to Pope Leo XIII is valueless? Is that correct?

Yes, the last official Orthodox statement on the Immaculate Conception is the 1895 Encyclical to Pope Leo XIII.

The Encyclical condemns the Immaculate Conception as an "heretical innovation" which contradicts the teaching that it is only Jesus Christ who was conceived purely and immaculately. It states that it is a teaching unknown to the universal Church of the first millennium. It states that the Church of Rome will have to abandon it, inter aliae doctrinae, in order to return to communion with the Orthodox Church.

The Encyclical is quite specific about these things.

As we have seen, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware has abandoned his previous liberality in the matter (he thought it could be held as a private opinion) and now views the Immaculate Conception as introducing a distortion into the history of mankind.

That's not a liturgical text (you wanted a liturgical text), and not even a particularly important synodal document. It certainly does not come up in Orthodox circles when the subject is discussed.


You keep saying that, and yet the last time I heard His Grace speak on the subject, at Orientale Lumen, he had not changed his mind at all. Moreover, you have yet to produce a first hand representation of his opinion, merely unsubstantiated hearsay from an unattested source.

You yourself said there was no definitive Orthodox doctrine on the subject, but here you insist this document is a definitive doctrinal statement. Yet insofar as the doctrine in question is concerned, it devotes less than a paragraph to it, and in the process manages to misrepresent the Latin position (nothing special there--at the time, the Latins consistently mispresented the Orthodox position as well). In short, you read more into the document than it can support. In the words of Gertrude Stein, "There's no there there".