www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Immaculate Heart of Mary

A friend of mine who attends a Maronite Church told me that this past Sunday during the Liturgy, the priest asked everyone to pray the "Act of Entrustment to the Immaculate Heart of Mary". Unless my friend misunderstood what the priest said, supposedly the Pope had decreed that this was to be prayed in all Churches which are in Communion with Rome. I am curious to know if this was the case in the Ruthenian Church also. I would like to know how Ruthenians reconcile their Orthodox heritage which such a request by Rome, and the Immaculte Conception in general. I know that Orthodoxy does not believe Mary was conceived any differently from the rest of humanity, and rejects the notion of the Immaculate Conception, as clearly stated in the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895 regarding reunification. Defenders of the Immaculate Conception among Latin Catholics claim that there is "one truth" simply expressed in two different ways by East and West regarding the sinlessness of Mary. However, differences in belief are clearly evident as documented in books such as "The Orthodox Veneration of Mary The Birthgiver of God", by John Maximovitch, published by S.t Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. If indeed a prayer of concecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was required by Rome for Ruthenians to pray in church, how could a Ruthenian in good conscience pray such, and consecrate themselves to the I.C., knowing that it promotes, condones, and professes a Latin dogma which is well-documented by many sources to be offenseive to, rejected by, and alien to authentic Orthodox Tradition? Thank you for any insight into how such issues are reconciled or dealt with.

I knew about this from a Catholic homeschoolers site I lurk on, but no mention was made of it in my Ruthenian parish.


Cheers,


Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

The Orthodox neither affirm nor deny the Immaculate Conception as defined by Rome and indeed the Byzantine Rite calls her �immaculate�.

The imposition of the Immaculate Heart devotion, even for one Sunday, on all churches in communion with the Pope seems, re: the Eastern Churches, to be a heavy-handed latinization or an assertion that Roman equals universal or �more Catholic�, which is too bad. I thought everybody in the Catholic communion was supposed to be moving beyond that. I imagine it was a request, not an order, and can�t picture the Russian Catholics I�m acquainted with or most Melkites (who mostly are Orthofiers?) doing it, not because they don�t love Our Lady (I�m sure many there do) but because it is a foreign devotion to their scrupulously maintained Orthodox practice.

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

Dear Rusnak,

In reply to your statement that the Orthodox have neither affired nor denied the I.C. dogma: The information I found on how the Orthodox view the Immaculate Conception came from a page sponsored by the Orthodox Christian Information Center. The particular page is called "THE PATRIARCHAL ENCYCLICAL OF 1895, A reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Reunion. I would like to quote article XIII of the document below:

"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 differnt times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologans)."

This appears to be an official document, and the wording seems to deny the Papal dogma in pretty clear terms, unless I am reading it wrong The web site for this page is
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.htm

Clicking on the words Ecumenism Awareness in the top right hand corner will take you to the Orthodox organization which sponsors the page. I believe it is an ROCOR site If I have stumbled across a site that has innaccurate information, I would appreciate someone letting me know.

Thanks

>>>"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 differnt times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologans)." <<<
The objection of the Orthodox synod was to the proclamation of a "dogma" concerning the conception of the Theotokos. In Orthodox opinion, (a) a "dogma" can only be pronounced by an ecumenical council, which by definition must include ALL the patriarchical Churches; and (b) dogma properly refers to the essentials of the Christian faith in its public proclamation of the Gospel, whereas the Tradition concerning the Theotokos belongs to the inner life of the Church. Many of the Greek Fathers, most notably Gregory Palamas, write of Mary in ways that closely mirror the doctrine of immaculate conception, but differ from it in that Palamas and those who echo him do not hold the same understanding of human nature and original sin as the Latin Church. And, at the bottom, it is that Latin understanding of original sin that makes immaculate conception both logical and necessary to its soteriology and Mariology. On the other hand, immaculate conception is not by any means integral to Byzantine Christology, soteriology, or Mariology; for the most part, it is irrelevant given the primary set of assumptions.


That said, there is nothing that prevents any Orthodox Christian from believing in the immaculate conception, or any other theological speculation (theologumena) concerning the birth of the Theotokos, provided that these do not contradict established elements of Tradition that apply to the Theotokos. Those would be the understandings that fall out of the teachings of the Council of Ephesus, combined with the liturgical passages that apply to Mary in her various feasts, the Liturgy of the Hours, and the Divine Liturgy plus the consensus of the Fathers.

[This message has been edited by StuartK (edited 10-12-2000).]

WOW! I am really loving this forum. The people here are EXTREMELY knowledgable and informative. With that said here is my take on this.

First, I think in all fairness it must be explained that when the "Holy Father of Rome" makes his proclamations from the seat of Peter he does so as a means to clarify beliefs, traditions etc.. that have been called into question. He does not (to my knowledge) make statements of Papal Authority simply based upon his desire to start a new belief. (not saying that this has been said by anyone here...more stated as a response to the Protestant argument)

Secondly, if one reads the old testament (don't have my bible with me at work but can get the verse at a later time if necessary) one will read about the Ark for the coming Christ. This belief about the Immaculate Conception of Mary stems from old testament teaching and this idea: (apologize in advance for my inability to draft a clear image) If GODS WORD was so holy that it had to be carried (with very specific instructions) in an ARK which was pure. How much more pure would the ARK (ie Mary) need to be to hold GOD in his person?

Just as alwasy MHO (My Humble Opinion)

Yours in Christ,

Jeff

Let us o back to the original question. The Universal Pastor of the Church has recommended to all Catholics devotion to the Mother of God under the title her Immaculate Heart. A certain type of mindest (Latin? Anglo-Saxon? Irish jansenist? I don't know) immediately asks the question "Is this an order? Do we have to do it?. The Byzantine mindset sees it as a pious recomendation from a beloved leader of the Christian community.

The devotion is in reference to the same Mother of God whom English language Orthodox service books call either immaculate or all-pure. The words mean the same thing. Do the Orthodox commonly have a devotion to the Immacualte Heart of Mary? No. Does this devotion have an aspect that is in conflict with Byzantine spirituality? I don't see it and no one seems to assert it. The only objection seems to be that it is a devotion originating in the Catholic Church and not the Orthodox. As my mother might say, "if the Orthodox jumed off a cliff, would..."

Glory to Jesus Christ!

In reply to your statement that the Orthodox have neither affired nor denied the I.C. dogma: The information I found on how the Orthodox view the Immaculate Conception came from a page sponsored by the Orthodox Christian Information Center. The particular page is called "THE PATRIARCHAL ENCYCLICAL OF 1895, A reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Reunion.

Mirfsem,

The document you cite doesn�t have dogmatic standing. I should have said the Orthodox don�t dogmatically deny the IC though some do deny it as a private opinion (reaction to the Catholics� dogmatizing it).

<a href=http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

i find this misconception too often. the eastern churches, mine is byzantine catholic, are NOT Orthodox churches which are part of the Catholic Church. they are byzantine (in custom and tradition) and Catholic. while they are meant to be in harmony with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, they are not obliged to comply with Orthodox theology. They are in that thread, but tht thread has entwined with the Roman Catholic thread; it is not simply a matter of being Orthodox and accepting the Pope as head of the Church. So, the question seems to begin with an error. but the string is inteesting. the tendency towards ecumenism has stated tht in many cases we are providing more than way to understand a basic Truth, that these are not meant to be in conflict but to be in harmony. there need not be only one explanation or understanding of any one Truth. the church is rich, we need not quarrel ovre words, as did for too many centuries. There is only one Church, the Body of Christ, on earth there are many ways this is understood, the variety does not need to be antagonistic nor does one aspect have to rule out all others.

Interestingly, none of the Latin Churches in my are did this. I wonder where this information came from...

Edward, deacon and sinner

Mirfsem,
To answer your question, most, if not all, Orthodox Christians do not accept the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Our friend Rusnak happens to be lackadaisical on this issue. Rusnak would maintain that there is no Ecumenical Council that rejects it. Therefore, one may entertain the idea of acceptance. First, Rusnak is not a Orthodox bishop. Second, if it is not an Orthodox teaching derived from Apostolic Tradition it is not to be accepted. Third, Rusnak should obey the authority of the ROCOR which he belongs to. The ROCOR have a very strong stance against the dogma. Why doesn't Rusnak obey his bishop without creating justification for its acceptance or lack of rejection? It seems Rusnak is bent on playing agnosticism on Roman Catholic dogmas that were not Ecumenical nor binding nor valid upon the Eastern Churches.
The dogma should be rejected since it has no Orthodox approval or involvement. It's basis was formulated on the Augustinian notion of Original Sin that is very different from the Orthodox understanding.
Since the Christian West has been infected with the Augustinian notion of Original Sin the effects have been devastating. It is this reason that an Orthodox Christian must not accept the dogma of the IC. If the root was infected so will its branches. For they will fall and wither to their death.
Furthermore, no independent Church in Christ has any authority to create a dogma and impose it upon all the churches. Only an Ecumenical Council can impose and bind teachings on all the Churches in Christ. Rome is certainly not an Ecumenical Council nor is she allowed to impose her will upon the Orthodox Church. This is another reason there cannot be Unity in the Faith with the Orthodox Church.

To StuartK,
I certainly don't know if you are promoting relativism when you say that "there is nothing that prevents any Orthodox Christian from believing in the immaculate conception." I believe you know that all the Orthodox bishops have the authority and many have stated that such a non-Orthodox dogma is not to be accepted. I challenge anyone one of you to ask an Orthodox bishop if he accepts the Immaculate Conception. More likely than not they will reject it. The silence of a bishop is enough to say that it is not welcomed. Go figure! Your remark stems from your unity with Rome that applauds you on your back. Every Orthodox Christian has a duty to not accept foreign dogmas. If they are not sure they need to ask their Bishops and not rely on themselves or others for truthful answers. Such remarks will continue to hinder Rome's acceptance to the Orthodox Church.

First response to wasyl,,,,

You say that Byzantine Catholics are NOT Orthodox in Communion with Rome. However, that's exactly what some consider themselves to be. If you will note the web site for St. Michael Russian Byantine Catholic Church in New York:
http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com/stmichael.htm/

Here, you will find a section called "History of the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church:
http://praiseofglory.com/stmichael.htm/necplus.htm/

And I quote: "Properly speaking, we should refer to ourselves as Russian Orthodox who are in communion with the Church of Rome, because we are Orthodox in our entire liturgical and spiritual practice according to Holy Tradition of the Byzantine Church and the spiritual traditions of Russian Orthodox Church".

I imagine that there are many Russians and Ruthenians and Melkites who would call themselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome. The emphasis on the word catholic in Byzantine Catholic is "universal", NOT "Roman or Latin". I'm sure many consider themselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome, rather than just Roman Catholics observing an Eastern Rite.

Somebody else back me up here!

Besides that, my original question did not have to do with Byzantines being required to Observe Orthodox traditions, it was whether or not Rome forces Byzantines to observe Latin traditions incompatible with Orthodox spirituality.

I take that no Ruthenian in this forum was required to pray the prayer to the Immaculte heart.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

First, to Robert Sweiss: volunteering or repeating information, true or false, about someone (like what jurisdiction he or she may or may not belong to) when that person has not volunteered it himself is cr*ppy netiquette. I never wanted to tell anyone here which church I go to, which is my right. What I have to say has nothing to do with that information.

Mirfsem,

The emphasis on the word catholic in Byzantine Catholic is "universal", NOT "Roman or Latin".

Righto. Or at least it�s supposed to be.

I'm sure many consider themselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome, rather than just Roman Catholics observing an Eastern Rite.

Somebody else back me up here!

You are right about the way things should be, and many Byzantine Catholics online say they are Orthodox in communion with Rome. There is, however, resistance to that among some �cradle� Byzantine Catholics (the unsung, often very good folks who make up most local congregations and don�t write online) because they wrongly were taught they were Roman Catholics using an Eastern rite.

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

Dear Kurt,

You say that when Catholics and Orthodox say immaculate they "mean the same thing". However, the Orthodox meaning does not carry with it the notion that Mary was born any differently from the rest of humanity as the Latin dogma stresses, or that any such dogma is required as belief for salvation. That is a great differnce.

From an ontological, eastern theological perspective, the immaculate conception is tantamount to saying that Mary was born "immortal", or "saved from all eternity". I believe that most Orthodox would say that if there were to be a defined moment where Mary became totally free from all sin, immaculate, all pure, all holy, it would be at the Annunciation, where she, being conceived like the rest of us, willfully accepted salvation on her own behalf, as well as for the rest of humanity. She is robbed of this singular perogative by saying that she was conceived differently and did not share the same state as the rest of humanity.

Therefore, I believe that for a person to make a devotion to the Latin version of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, is to put a stamp of approval on a notion that is totally incompatible with Orthodox spirituality. Must a Byzantine Catholic give up such spirituality and convictin in order to be in Communion with Rome?

The "loophole" that allows Latins to continue claiming it's "the same thing", is the fact that the Orthodox would never dare define an issue such as this dogmatically, which is not Trinitarian, Christological or Sacramental, and does not, therefore, bear on one's salvation. While refusing to dogmatize on the matter, the silence of the Orthodox is often mistaken for acceptance or approval.

Please forgive me if I come across as argumentative, as I do not mean to.

This weekend I was unable to attend our Byzantine liturgy. Instead, I went to the Sunday evening Roman liturgy at the cathedral downtown. There was no such prayer at this Roman Catholic church which is the seat of the RC diocese. The RC bishop here in town is very conservative and if there was some kind of prayer that was requested, I think it would have been said.