www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Not really. Orthodox theologians are not infallible. However, I can tell you that the concept that Mary could not sin would be completely unacceptable to Eastern Orthodoxy. Mary is the Second Eve whose obedience to God help liberate us from the curse of ancestral sin that resulted from the sin of the first Eve. If Mary could not sin, she did not have free will and could not represent humanity by her obedience to God thereby accepting God's gift of salvation.
There are also very important Christological implications here. Christ was fully God and fully Human. It was the assumption of our fallen human nature and its healing of its fallen nature by its union with the divine nature, a doctrine the Fathers called the communication of attributes that saves us. Christ was of one essence with God in His divine nature, but was also of on essence with us in His human nature. St. Gregory the Theologian wrote, "That which is not assumed is not healed." If Christ had not assumed our fallen nature from Mary, our fallen nature could not be healed. If our fallen nature was not healed by the Incarnation and the communication of attributes, we are not saved.

Fr. John W. Morris

While many people conclude that the West teaches that Mary could not sin, the doctrinal teaching here is that she did not sin. There is big difference between the two. The Immaculate Conception, then, means that she was (among other things) born free of the inclination towards sin. Mary was free to choose to sin, but she didn't. Unfortunately, there are those who teach on this topic who don't get it correct.

The East would generally see this as all very unnecessary (which I agree with).

One could add that not only are Orthodox theologians not infallible, they are also not consistent historically either.

As late as the 19th century, there were Orthodox theologians and Saints who not only, as Fr. John Meyendorff wrote (+memory eternal!), understood and accepted the Western positions on Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception, they made tremendous efforts to promote them within Orthodoxy.

Fr. Alexander Schmemann even criticized the Kievan-Mohyla Academy's professors for spending so much time liturgically glorifying the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Theotokos.

The OCA website on Orthodox Saints actually states that the icon for the feast of the Conception of St. Anne on December 9/22 is the depiction of the "Theotokos standing on a serpent with her hands open downward."

St Dmitry of Rostov and others of his era actually belonged to Orthodox Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception where they wore medals similar to today's Miraculous Medal, frequently prayed the invocation, "Immaculately-Conceived Theotokos, save us!" and took the bloody vow to defend to the death the Immaculate Conception. John the Baptist's Conception is also liturgically celebrated.

RC theologians today are open to a version of the Immaculate Conception which affirms that the Most Holy Virgin Mary was "conceived in holiness" rather than "cleansed from the stain of Original Sin."

Liturgically, the fact that the Conception of the Theotokos and of the Forerunner are celebrated as feast-days affirms by means of "lex orandi, lex credendi" that they were both conceived in holiness in a way that we are not.

For the Mother of God especially this meant that her will was strengthened by the Grace of the Holy Spirit to enable her to clearly choose not to sin of her own free will.

The notion that somehow "prevenient Grace" robs us of free will is simply nonsense. Grace empowers our free will, just as concupiscence weakens it and leads us to sin and to live in a sinful state.

As I want to be as Orthodox as my forefathers at Kiev, I will end by saying: "All Immaculate Mother of God, save us!"

Alex

Eastern Orthodox do teach that Our Lady did not sin. However, the theologians that taught the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary represent an era called "The Western Captivity of Orthodox Theology." Led by people like Fr. John Meyendorff, Vladimir Lossky and Fr. John Rominedes, Eastern Orthodoxy has returned to its patristric roots and has reaffirmed its traditional teaching. In his Byzantine Theology, Fr. John Meyendorff goes into great detail to explain that the true Eastern Orthodox doctrine is different from the Augustinian doctrine of original sin that is taught in the West, especially by Calvin. We teach ancestral sin, which is the doctrine that we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin, but not the guilt. We believe that we are only guilty of our own sins. The major consequence of Adam's sin is mortality and the corruption that accompanies it. Because we are mortal, we all sin. However, the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary freely cooperated with the grace of God to prepare her to give birth to Christ, and did not actually sin herself. However, she was still born in ancestral sin and died a natural death as a result. Three days after her death and burial, the Apostles opened her tomb and found it empty. They were then given a vision of her ascending body and soul into Heaven. That is why the feast of the Assumption is normally called the Feast of the Falling Asleep of the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary. In the East when someone dies, we say that they have fallen asleep. Thus Mary was sinless, but she was born in ancestral sin because she died. I know that the Catholic Church does not consider it heretical to teach that Our Lady died, because the Melkite and Byzantine Catholic liturgical texts for the Feast of the Assumption are identical with the Eastern Orthodox texts for the feast and contain numerous references to her death and burial. Like Catholics we also call Our Blessed Lady Immaculate, all holy and affirm that she was prepared by God's grace to become the Theotokos. Thus Eastern Orthodox and Catholics arrive at the same basic teaching about Our Blessed Lady, but do so by a slightly different route.



Fr. John W. Morris

Can someone tell me what is the difference between a Byzantine Catholic and a Ruthenian Catholic and a Ukranian Catholic?

Blessings

Fr. John W. Morris

Well, used broadly, Byzantine Catholic could refer to all Eastern Catholics who use the Constantinopolitan Rite; however, the Ruthenian Church in the USA refers to itself as the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh, so often, the term Byzantine Catholic is used to refer to Ruthenian Catholics. Ukrainian Catholics are members of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. The Ruthenian Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church both use the Constantinopolitan Rite, as do Melkite Catholics, Russian Catholics, Romanian Catholics, Italo-Albanian Catholics, etc.

Are Ruthenians also called Carpatho Russians? If that is the case, the Ruthenians were not under Poland-Lithuania, but under the Habsburgs. Then it would be correct to consider the Ruthenian Catholic Church the result of the Union of Uzgorod, while the Ukrainian Catholic Church comes out of the Union of Brest?

Fr. John

The term Ruthenian, as I understand it, is a Latinized version of the term Rusyn, so yes, the Ruthenians are the same group as the Carpatho-Rusyns. As to your question about the Union of Uzhgorod as opposed to the Union of Brest, I'm not familiar enough with the history to respond.

The Carpo-Rusyn (or Ruthenian/Byzantine Church) in America is a daughter Church of the Eparchy of Mukachevo, that came into communion with Rome at the Union of Uzhgorod. As is the Archeparchy of Presov.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is made up of those Orthodox Christians who came into communion with Rome at the Union of Brest.

Eastern Orthodox do not usually use terms like sanctifying or prevenient grace. We usually only speak of grace, which we believe is an uncreated energy of God flowing from His hidden essence.

The story of the conception of St. John the Baptist is told in St. Luke 1:5-25

The story of the conception of Our Lady is similar Joachim and Anna were an older couple who had had no children. God granted their prayers and Our Lady was conceived and born in the normal manner. An Eastern Orthodox response to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary can be found at http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/Orthodox-view-on-Immaculate-Conception.aspx

Fr. John W. Morris

Bless Father!

According to Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!), there were Orthodox theologians who both understood and accepted the West's view on Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception.

This is what he wrote. The Immaculate Conception (however that would have been understood) was used widely among the Orthodox Saints of the Kievan Baroque era and especially by the Mohyla Academy. Again, I've no idea how they would have understood it.

Alex

I also know that Fr. John Meyendorff did not accept the Western view of original sin as inherited guilt or the deprivation of God's grace. I sat with him as part of the Eastern Orthodox delegation to the North American Orthodox Lutheran Ecumenical Dialogue and we discussed this issue in great detail with the Lutherans. We certainly do not accept the Protestant doctrine of total depravity which is found both in Luther and Calvin.
I will not comment on the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic doctrine of original or ancestral sin, because I do not fully understand the Roman Catholic doctrine. It is different enough from the Protestant doctrine of original sin, that I am not sure that there is really that much difference between us on this matter except how we express ourselves. I may be wrong, but I think that we believe essentially the same thing but are separated by the differences between Greek expressions of doctrine and Latin expressions.
Just because some Orthodox fell under Western influence does not mean that traditional Eastern Orthodox theology accepts the Western view of original sin. We teach that we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin, not the guilt. That consequence is that we are born mortal in a world that is filled with sin. Because of the corruption that mortality involves, we sin ourselves and become guilty of our own sins. However, we never lose our free will or God's love or God's grace. That is why we can affirm that Our Blessed Lady was born in ancestral sin, but was "full of grace."
Our Lady is a special case. She was born in ancestral sin, that is mortal, but she was prepared from childhood by God to become the Theotokos. Mary could have sinned, but because she used her free will to cooperate with God's grace, she did not sin. Therefore she is Immaculate, all holy and sinless. Thus, there is not really that much difference between the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Mary and the Roman Catholic doctrine of Mary.
I find it interesting to note that during the Catholic Masses and a wedding that I recently attended, I noticed that Mary was hardly mentioned, while she is constantly mentioned in all Byzantine Rite services. I may be wrong on this, but that was my impression.
Fr. John