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

Dear Rusnak,
I did not mean to offend you. Therefore I apologize. However, you made the information available in previous threads about your affiliation. You yourself made it available. You should have not made it available in previous forums for public display. So why hide it? Your belief should be consistent with the Church's belief you belong to. Is this so bad? Are you ashamed of being affiliated with your jurisdiction or embarassed by it? Unless you yourself are contemplating a change to other than Orthodoxy. What you say and believe and what your Church say's and believes has a very important significance to this thread regarding the Immaculate Conception. Unless you have desired to differ with your Church's teachings. Then I can better understand your perspective. Your perspectives on Roman Catholic dogmas have been consistent as to not reject but not to accept. It is as if you were entertaining the acceptance/justification of the Roman Catholic innovations. You did not adaquetly give Mirfsem an affirmative response but fashioned your answer in the negative as to avoid the issue or present it as being acceptable sometime in the future. You are entitled to your opinions. However, your opinions are not that of the Church you belong to.

Robert,

... I apologize. However, you made the information available in previous threads about your affiliation.

I did volunteer once that I�d gone over to the Orthodox five years ago but really never wanted to say anything about which church I go or went to until somebody else brought it up and mentioned a jurisdiction. Such information has no relevance to what I am saying.

Regarding ROCOR, no, I obviously don�t agree with the opinions of many in it regarding Catholicism but appreciate its often anti-secular stance and its preservation of the Russian use of the Byzantine rite in its fullness, as well as its strong monasticism.

I hold that a lot of the Orthodox criticisms of the increasingly secular West are true, but also believe the Schism was wrong. The differences � and there were real but legit differences between the Eastern and Western parts of the Catholic/Orthodox communion pre-Schism (even back then the western half was called �Catholic� and the eastern �Orthodox�) � weren�t enough to justify breaking communion. It all had to do with nasty politics between two empires (Carolingian and Byzantine) that no longer exist! But I also believe the creation of the Eastern Catholic churches at the Orthodox� expense was a mistake. Sorry if that�s not good enough for some people.

I�m not pretending this view has any official standing with any Orthodox jurisdiction.

I didn�t evade an answer re: the Immaculate Conception but echoed none other than Bishop Kallistos (Ware), who, like it or not, is unequivocally recognized as an Orthodox bishop. The Orthodox have not dogmatized on it, therefore Orthodox can accept it. Sheesh, sometimes I think if the Pope said �Don�t jump off that cliff!� some �Dox would kill themselves just to spite the man.

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

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 10-13-2000).]

Dear Rusnak,
Orthodox Christians are not Protestants to pick and chose if it does not have the blessings of the Church. Only an Ecumenical Council can permit such a teaching to be fully accepted. In this case, the IC has no place in Orthodox beliefs. Why are you trying to fit a square in a circle? The Orthodox cannot accept such a innovative teaching due to the Augustinian notion of Original Sin.

>>>Orthodox Christians are not Protestants to pick and chose if it does not have the blessings of the Church.
Only an Ecumenical Council can permit such a teaching to be fully accepted. In this case, the IC has no
place in Orthodox beliefs. Why are you trying to fit a square in a circle? The Orthodox cannot accept such a
innovative teaching due to the Augustinian notion of Original Sin.<<<

No Orthodox synod or ecumenical council has ruled on the conception of the Theotokos one way or the other. The language of many of the Fathers, including St. Gregory Palamas in particular, echoes the Roman understanding of immaculate conception. While some Orthodox theologians of a Romanidian bent see immaculate conception as a major divergence from Orthodox Tradition, most see it as one particular expression of a universal doctrine, historically and linguistically conditioned by the experience of the Latin Church. For most Orthodox theologians, however, the main objection to immaculate conception is not the doctrine itself, but the manner in which it was promulgated unilaterally by the Latin Church, and then elevated to a "dogma" without reference to the Churches of the East. The very fact that Rome declares certain things dogmatically seems to make them suspect in the eyes of some Orthodox Christians (whose Orthodoxy, one suspects, is defined more by being anti-Roman than by the fullness of the Orthodox Tradition): witness, e.g., certain Orthodox who began entertaining doubts about the Dormition and Assumption of the Thetokos, after the Roman Church declared the assumption to be a dogma in 1954.

The majority of Orthodox theologians are agreed that there is nothing in the doctrine of immaculate conception that an individual Orthodox Christian may not hold as a personal theological speculation; it is a theologumenon, and as long as one does not attempt to impose it upon others as a condition for membership in the Church, there is no problem.

Your Orthodox integrism, by the way, has a very Latin flavor to it not found in the more open and apophatic approach favored by the Fathers, who well understood that there were many ways of perceiving and expressing the ineffable mysteries of the divine nature.

Robert,

Humor me for a moment, please. You say that it is impossible for the Orthodox to accept the teaching of the Immaculate Conception which states that Mary was born without Original Sin.

Now, is it not true that the Orthodox Church teaches that no one is born with original sin? Granted, the consequences of original sin are part and parcel of our humanity, but the guilt is not something that we inherit. Is that a reasonable statement of the Orthodox position?

If so, how is that position incompatible with the exact same position taught by the Immaculate Conception?

Edward, a confused deacon and sinner

Dear StuartK,
I agree with you. No Orthodox synod or Ecumenical Council has ruled on the dogma. However, that is not the point I was trying to make. However, you rightly describe the problem but it should not be accepted because it is subjucated to the Augustinian notion of Original Sin. We need to go back and look at the rational and the consequences behind such a dogma. It's all there recorded in the history books. Unilateral promulgation of the IC by Rome is but one reason not to accept it. Personnal speculations do not aid us in our theosis. The Virgin had undergone deification which we are to immitate. We have never known Her to be conceived without Original Sin as understood by the East. The IC dogma is speculative thinking that confuses and spoils the Eastern understanding of Original Sin. Therefore this is not an Orthodox way of perception nor has it ever been. Or else I would not be writing this rebuttal.

Dear FrDeaconEd,
I never said it was "impossible for the Orthodox to accept the teaching of the Immaculate Conception". I am sure there are Catholics who became Orthodox still cling to such a teaching which is not acceptable. The word "acceptable' not "impossible" would be appropriate. As an Orthodox it is not nor will it ever be acceptable until the Western notion of Original Sin is transformed again to the East's understanding. All things are possible with men but such a teaching would not be acceptable. Only Christ is born without sin. There was never in God's divine plan as far as we know to conceive the Virgin without sin and to wait for a Pope to announce it in 1856 AD. The early Church never taught it but the church which you are affilaited with adores it and has elevated it as an article of faith equal to that of the Trinity. However, you don't see the problem because organizational unity is far more important to you and others than the UNITY OF THE FAITH. It's not that the dogma is impossible to believe in, it's that it is not acceptable now or in the future. Blessings to you and all.

Can any one explain the difference between Byzantine and Latin understanding of original sin?

Ignorant Khaled

I appreciate the healthy dicussion which has taken place since my original question. From what I read, Christians had not heard of the I.C. before the 9th century, when for the first time, the Abbot of Corvey, Paschasius Radbertus, expressed the opinion that the Holy Virgin was conceived without original sin. Beginning from the 12th century, this idea began to spread among the clergy of the Western Church. Thomas Acquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux decisevely cesured it, while Duns Scotus defended it. Latin Dominican monks preached against it, while the Franciscans strove to implant the doctrine everywhere. Bridget (of Sweden) said that Mary told her Herself,that she was conceived immaculately. However, her contemporary, the more renowned ascetic Cathertine of Sienna, affirmed that in Her conception, the Holy Virgin participated in original sin, by revelation she said she had received from Christ Himself (See the book of Archpriest A. Lebedev, "Differences in the Teaching on the Most Holy Mother of God in the Churches of East and West").

The (Scholasticism) of the West obviously lead to the eventual acceptance of the I.C. The Holy Fathers praised the sanctity Mary, however, I think one would be hard pressed to find one who actually went so far as to actually say that Her conception was different from the rest of humanity.

"Of all those born of women, there is not a single one who is perfectly holy, part from the Lord Jesus Christ, Who in a special new way of immaculate birthgiving, did not experience earlthy taint." (St. Ambrose, Commentary on Luke, ch.2).

"There is none without sin stain before Thee, even though his life be but a day, save Thee alone, Jesus Christ our God, Who didst appear on earth without sin, and through Whome we all trust to obtain mercy and the remission of sins" (St. Basil the Great, Third Prayer of Vespers of Pentecost).

Am I wrong, or did not even St. John Chrysostom say that Mary committed at least one sin (the sin of presumption), when Jesus rebuked her at the wedding of Cana?

I personally say, that the Virgin Mary could not be sanctified before Her conception, inasmuch as She did not exist!

I could go on here, but the fact is, that for defenders of the I.C. dogma, Latin or Byzantine, there is a voice which is above the testimony of Sacred Scripture, Holy Tradition, or any Father/theologeon from East or West,, and that is the the voice of the Pope.

[This message has been edited by Mirfsem (edited 10-13-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Mirfsem (edited 10-13-2000).]

Oy gewalt.

This is the most scholastic approach to the reality of the Mother of God that I have read in a long time.

While the Western approach relies upon metaphysical and ontological terminology and 'distinctions' to define who the mother of God is, the Eastern Church talks about who she is in terms of her humanity and her response to the request of the Archangel Gabriel. She's Christ's Mom; she's Anne's daughter; she's John's step-Mom; and she's the most wonderful lady who said "Yes" to God's proposal that she become the Mother of the Savior.

And that's just OK for us Byzantines; she's "THE WOMAN" who does what needs to be done. We love her; and, from our perspective, we want to kiss her hand and have her give us a hug and a kiss on the forehead. And spread out her head-veil to protect us. And tell Christ that she wants us protected by His power. And, as Christ gave her to St. John as a Mother, and to St. John as someone to be cared for, so is it for us. She's our Mother. And for us, that's that. (And if you've got something bad to say about our Mother, we'll punch your lights out. <Figuratively, of course.>)

The theologian's ruminations are fine. But in the context of 'family', our Mother is unique, special and the best there is. And that means, without fault. Period.

Blessings. (And may She who gave birth to the Savior take you under her protection.)

Robert,

Okay, we'll use "unacceptable" then. You still didn't answer the question (but nice dogde!).

Since the Orthodox Church teaches that we are born with the consequences but not the guilt of original sin and since the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary was born without Original Sin (meaning without the guilt -- clearly she was born into this broken world and, therefore, into the consequences of original sin) -- why is it unacceptable for an Orthodox person to hold this belief?

I fail to see how the Catholic Church teaching that Mary was born without sin and the Orthodox Church teaching that we are all born without sin makes the Immaculate Conception some kind of error -- it seems to me that it would be a particular case of the general.

Again, rather than say it can't be accepted until the definitions of Original Sin agree -- what's missing that I don't seem to grasp?

Edward, deacon and sinner

When reading the Orthodox objections to the I.C., I do not see page upon page ranting and raving about how it simply should never have been defined by the Pope. What I see are multiple arguments, the chief one being that Jesus "alone" can be said to be without sin. The "error" lies in declaring that of all humans born of women, there TWO persons who are without spot or stain, rather than ONE. Neither Sacred Scripture, Holy Tradition, nor the Fathers of the Church, ever made room for TWO persons in humanity who were conceived withtout sin, spot, stain or blemish. The Lamb of God holds this unique position alone, and Orthodox commentators which I have read made it abundantly clear that to say otherwise is error.

To declare the Virgin Mary immaculately conceived, i.e., sinless, spotless, stainless, redeemed beforehand, saved from all eternity, or spared the consequences of the Fall,is to place her along side her Son,in a position which He alone can hold.

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory forever!
Mirsfem,
It seems that you have conflated two separate issues 1) devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and 2) the Dogma of the Immacultate Conception of the Virgin Mary.


As you may know the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God was solemnly defined by Bl. Pope Pius IX in 1854. The Immaculate Conception is professed and celebrated by all churches in communion with Rome. The Ukrainian, Russian, and Ruthenian Byzantine churches are particularly devoted to the Mother of God under this title or concept. We have produced icons, composed hymns, and formed brotherhoods all dedicated to her. Many Russian Byzantine Catholics pray the following: "Most Holy Theotokos, conceived without sin, save us!"


Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary developed apart from the above. This is not a dogma. It is a Roman or Latin devotion, as you, Rusnak, and Kurt have noted. Where this devotion in practised by Byzantine Catholics it is a latinization.

There are many Byzantine Catholics who do have a strong devotion the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The two often go together. Ukrainian and Ruthenians have icons and banners to the Immaculte Heart of Mary. Patriarch Myroslav of Kyiv once preached a sermon on the Sacred Heart devotion! In time these practises will be replaced by devotions more in keeping with Orthodox spirituality.

Dear FrDeaconEd,
The Roman Catholic doctrine of Original Sin should have been called Original Guilt. The history of Catholicism has suffered and inflicted suffering on others according to this teaching. It should not surprise you as to why there cannot be unity of the faith with the Orthodox Church. The problem with your perception as well as of many others is that you have accepted the underlying notion of Original Guilt and have excused the Virgin from being born with Original Sin. The Roman Catholic Church as well as her Protestant progenies have relied extensively on Augustine's convoluted definition that was never accepted universally. Thank God!!! Only an infected mindset can excuse the IC from error. The IC is the fruit of the distorted doctrine of Original Sin.
Also, you are playing with fire by promoting the IC when it cannot be reconciled with Orthodox truth. Are you sure you are not a Latinizer? No offense, I think you are. That is why you have referred to yourself as a bi-ritual and whether you know it or not you are working against the cause of Orthodoxy. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic doctrine does not ONLY say that the Virgin was born without Original Guilt but also without Original Sin. Do you believe that unbaptized babies go to hell? Why not? Augustine said so. Is there anything wrong with this immaculate picture? Probably not since you are amongst one of his devoted followers. How could you disagree! Again, I repeat there is ONLY ONE PERSON born without sin and that is Christ and Christ ALONE. Why are you fooling yourself in believing in the IC? Especially when Byzantine Catholics do not accept it as part of the Orthodox theology or a dogma paralleled to that of the Trinity? Explain to me the unity of the faith when we have contradictions such as these: Eastern Churches do not accept the IC dogma being anywhere equal to that of the Trinity, and the Roman Catholic accept the IC dogma equal to that of the Trinity plus an anathema for those who do not believe in it.

Robert,

I have clearly stated that I was born into and raised as a Latin Catholic. I was ordained for the Latin Diocese of Orange in California. I am a bi-ritual deacon because I also have faculties to serve in the Melkite Church. There is nothing secret about this.

And, no, the Latin Church does not raise the Immaculate Conception to the same status as the Trinity. There is, in the Latin Church, a hierarchy of truths. The Immaculate Conception, coming from the sensus fidelium has been raised to a high level, but not the same level as the Trinity.

Edward, deacon and sinner

>>>Many Russian Byzantine Catholics pray the following: "Most Holy
Theotokos, conceived without sin, save us!"<<<

Well, that's certainly a tendentious translation, bordering on innovation. Whatever happened to the injunction to "add nothing, delete nothing, change nothing", on which the Russian Catholic Church was founded?