www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Immaculate Conception according to Father Gillet

I would be very interested in views and opinions on this essay by Father Lev Gillet found at

http://fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2012/06/immaculate-conception-and-orthodox.html

Father Gillet seems to find lots of evidence among the Orthodox for a belief in the IC

Robert

I don't think it's a revelation that belief in an "immaculate conception" has a place in Orthodoxy. There are different thoughts and opinions on the Theotokos' relationship with sin within the Eastern churches, including that.

Which is kind of the point. The conflict is not with the teaching itself, but with the declaration of its "infallibility."

And that is a very different can of worms.

But isn't it infallible if its seen in terms of Latin theology? The issue I always see brought up is that Immaculate Conception is unnecessary in Eastern theology as we have a different understanding of The Fall and how it has affected human nature.

If you ask a Latin Catholic, they will tell you that infallibility is, well, infallible, no matter what anyone else may think. It isn't really a matter of perspective - the definition of infallibility is quite absolute. No real room to wiggle.

So, you either sign on, or reject the infallible dogma. Saying it's "unnecessary" is doing essentially just that.

This is what Orthodox reject.

The understanding of original sin and the necessity of the dogma is generally as you say, but plenty of Orthodox have no issue with the teaching. The link you posted, for instance.

So it seems, based on the answers, that the topic of the Immaculate Conception can be removed from the list of difficulties or problems between Latin West and Orthodox East.

The issue of the infallibility of the doctrine of the IC is then simply another instance of the problem of differences in the understanding of the Papacy.

Is that correct?

Robert

Essentially, yes. Although the idea of the Immaculate Conception itself was never on a list of difficulties to be removed from.

It's necessary according to the traditional Latin understanding of sin, nonsensical according to the traditional Eastern understanding of sin.

To say one understanding is infallible would, as you might imagine, be problematic.

Jesus Christ had a totally Human essence as much as a Divine essence.

To be born of one burdened with the Sin of Adam does not detract from His Humanity (in fact I think that it makes him more human - more connected to us).

She did not sin during Her life.

But that does not imply She did not inherit the condition we all start with!

Accepting the Will of God and being chosen as The Theotokos was the incredible part.

I think that is the Orthodox mentality -

no need to over analyze like the Latin Church does a lot!

correct me if I'm wrong on this please!

"...no need to over analyze like the Latin Church does a lot!"

This is one thing that I find appeals to me about the Eastern Church. This tendency of the RC Church to hyper-define the unknowable (even to the point of arranging the angels in "choirs") has always puzzled me. I say that with all due reverence to my own Church, but I have to concede, at the same time, that the need to precisely define all things (even when something doesn't seem precisely definable) bewilders me. I'm always grateful for the fact that I'm unable to grasp most of those doctrines (like the Immaculate Conception) and that the sheer thickness of my skull will prevent me from ever becoming a heretic.

As well-stated above, because the Eastern Orthodox view of original sin as ancestral/inherited sin is so very different from the Western view of original sin, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is indeed "nonsensical" to the Eastern Orthodox. The proof of this can be found in this good forum's archives wherein much "blood" was shed in past years on the same topic.

While almost all Orthodox Christians would say that the Theotokos inherited ancestral sin, many would also say that she committed no personal sins. Still others would say that she was both an inheritor of ancestral sin and commited minor personal sins. A figure of no less stature than St. John Chrysostom pointed to her minor vanity over her role as the Birthgiver of God as an example of her minor sins. Neither opinion (and for the Eastern Orthodox, they are just opinions) has ever been the cause of excommunication or schism within our Church. We hold both to be acceptable opinions, even though we know that they cannot both be true.

Personally, I find the first position to be a contradiction in terms, as we Orthodox consider ourselves culpable in our sins whether "in word or in deed, knowingly or unknowlingly, in knowledge or in ignorance, manifest or unseen."

A useful example might be trying to find the culpable party for the atomic bombings of civilians in Japan: Were the Japanese who loyaly followed their emporer culpable for starting an aggressive war or just the Japanese who led the war and ignored the US warnings of a new and terrible weapon? Were the scientists who developed the bomb responsible or all of the staff that protected and serviced the Manhattan Project facility? Were all the men on the USS Indianapolis responsible because they sailed with the bomb or just those who guarded and handled it?. Were the crew members of the bomber aircraft guilty or just the pilots, or just the bombardiers? Was the US President culpable or was it also the War Department staff or maybe my taxpaying grandparents who made it all financially possible?

The scripture says that "Men are caught up in an evil time as fish are caught up in a net." How very true that is in our own lives. It is a soteriological view that says, in colloquial language, "You have sinned and been a party to sins. You will most likely do so again. Get used to it, pick yourself up and fight another day to do good, not bad."

Because the dogma of the Immaculate Conception means so much to the Western Church and so little to the Eastern Orthodox Church, it would be wrong to say that it is not a problem between us, but also right to point out that the underlying root problem is really the understanding of original sin.

I, as much as anyone, hope for an eventual union of East and West. At the same time, I can't imagine the West accepting me into their communion while I hold the positions stated above.