www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Mary: Holy and Pure since her conception?

I came across these words in reading The Orthodox Church by Fr John Meyendorff. He is discussing his understanding of the differences on Original Sin between East and West. He then states:


In contrast to those Orthodox theologians who postpone Mary's purification from sin until the Annuciation, Fr Meyendorff is willing to concede Mary's holiness and purity from her conception (without accepting the defined Immaculate Conception doctrine). This, I think, better reflects how the Church prays in the liturgy--in those prayers shared by Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics. How can the praises sung of the Theotokos for the feast of her Entrance into the Temple (November 21) which stress her purity be reconciled with the view that her purification was delayed until the time she was due to conceive Christ? According to the prayers of this feast even the angels are amazed to see this most pure three year old girl entering the Temple. Similarly, the Church praises the Theotokos at her birth (September 8) and her conception (December 9) in the liturgical texts of Vespers and Matins for these feasts.

Those Orthodox who believe as Fr Meyendorff (that the Virgin Mary was holy and pure from her conception) usually object to the Immaculate Conception definition as did Bishop Kallistos in The Orthodox Way:


How "superfluous"? From this perspective it was unnecessary because no one is born with any inherited guilt from Adam--so there would be no need for Mary to be conceived without this guilt. One retort from one Orthodox friend to me was: `we are all immaculately conceived...'

And yet, I ask: what was so special about this little girl born of St Joachim and St Anne? Was her `holiness and purity from conception' (as mentioned by Fr Meyendorff) in her infancy and childhood no different than our own (up until the time we could be viewed as sinful?) Or was there something unique about her in her infancy and childhood? If so, how so? Would the angels in heaven have been amazed at any three year old girl entering the Temple? Or were they amazed because of a special holiness of the Theotokos?

So, was the Virgin Mary "holy and pure from her conception" in an unique way?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-15-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Meyendorf says "of course"; or "The Virgin Mary was of course holy and pure" meaning that since the Orthodox do not believe Adams sin is passed down she "of course" is born pure. All babies, after baptism, are perfect because they have never sinned.

Which Orthodox have ever said Mary was not pure until the Annunciation? I would like to see that (not that I'm doubting you).

Mary's holiness is specially reverred because she never fell into a state of sin. She had sinful temptations but she never submitted to them, this is why she is considered the "New Eve". She was raised in the temple from age 3. From age 9 to 13 she was in the Holy of Holies in which time she was fed and talked to by Archangel Gabriel each day. She spent most of her days praying and weaving and never lef the temple.

This should partially answer your question. If you are interested in this subject further buy a most fascinating book: "The Life of the Virgin Mary" published by Dormition Skete (about $35 - 600 pages).

[In contrast to those Orthodox theologians who postpone Mary's purification from sin until the Annuciation, Fr Meyendorff is willing to concede Mary's holiness and purity from her conception (without accepting the defined Immaculate Conception doctrine).]

From the Byzantine Catholic prayer book (Hours of Pascha) -

Having seen the Ressurection of Christ, let us worship the Holy Lord Jesus, THE ONLY SINLESS ONE.

OrthoMan

Eh?

Not that I doubt you personally, but I doubt *this* ever happened. Jewish regulations prohibited women from entering certain parts of the Temple. Those same regulations said that only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies only once a year. So unless the Mother of God played dress up, pretended to be the high priest, went in, and decided not to come out for four years, I don't see how this could ever have been allowed. So what's the story behind this? You've intrigued me...great screen name, btw.

OrthodoxyorDeath wrote:


So, are you saying that when babies are baptized they receive some special grace that makes them "perfect"? If that is the case, could we view any special grace given the Mother of God at the beginning of her existence in a similar fashion?

I took Fr Meyendorff's statement to indicate that Mary's holiness and purity from conception was somewhat unusual. Perhaps I misread him. I'd be interested in other feedback.

OrthoMan wrote:


An important point. We can stress the holiness of Mary too much. When we say that the Virgin Mary was free from actual sin all her life we do not mean to put her on a level with Christ. Some polemicists attibute such a position to the Roman Church. I found this informative statement in a work which is usually viewed as "scholastic." From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (page 198):


Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-15-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Mor Ephrem,

I don't know if the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos is part of the Syrian tradition. Here's some background from the Byzantine tradition. Some of the texts for the feast were cited a couple of weeks ago on the forum:

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000936

More info on the feast itself:

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Feasts-and-Saints/Icons/12Great%20Feasts/pr esentationmary.htm [oca.org]

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Worship/Theo-Into-Temple.html

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Feasts-and-Saints/November/Nov-21.html

I've seen two viewpoints expressed about the Feast itself. Some view it strictly historical. Others view it as pious legend and understand it allegorically. I don't want to get sidetracked on that issue.

For the discussion here the texts of the feast are clear that the exceptional holiness of this three year old maiden was such that she was granted such special priviledges at the Temple and this caused the angels to take notice.

Again, I ask: was the holiness and purity of Mary in her infancy unique? If so, in what way?

OrthodoxyorDeath had asked:


Actually, I had referred to "purification from sin." Perhaps I should have said "purification from original sin." See the position of the Greek Archdiocese:

http://www.goarch.org/access/orthodoxy/about_orthodoxy.html


So, they would agree that the Theotokos did not commit any actual sin but, according to them, she was not cleansed from original sin until the Annuciation. I wonder what being `cleansed from original sin' at the Annuciation meant for the Theotokos according to this viewpoint? I ask this as a serious question. Anyone familiar with this position? If, in Eastern theology, the inheritance of original sin is not guilt but consequences then what would being "cleansed" from it mean?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

I think (and maybe I'm wrong) that because Christ was both true God and true man, He was 'incapable' of sin. I.e., how can an infinite God commit an offense against Himself?

The Mother of God, however like us is only human. As such, she is capable of sin. But we believe that she, as the chosen vessel, was given a special grace to have been kept free from sin from the moment of her birth. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, the Theotokos was guided away from evil. Thus, in many ways, it seems that the Theotokos is a perfect model for us "total humans". Although she herself was a total human being, by virtue of her assent to carry the Anointed One, she herself was guided away from sin in her personal life by the power of the Holy Spirit. This capability is also afforded to us by virtue of the Resurrection of Christ. When we call upon the name of the Lord (St. Paul) we are saved from our sins. Thus, by continually "praying" (and I don't mean the "Our Father", "Hail Mary" sort of prayer), we are kept from sin by constantly experiencing a continuous 'metanoia'.

Personally, I know that there are all sorts of occasions when I have the chance to sin; and sometimes I even head in that direction, pretty far along the road. BUT, and it's a biggy!, I know that I don't want to do anything that will offend God or injure my neighbor. So, I keep asking: OK, Lord! NOW what do I do now? And it is this continual mind-set that keeps me from real sin. If I should do something that may be considered as "evil", I force myself to NOT dwell on it, to ask for and consider it forgiven, and I MOVE ON!

My salvation lies NOT in what I did yesterday, but rather in what I do today, and in whatever tomorrows I may have.

I see a parallel in the Gospel: the disciples went into a place where they were not received. They were told to leave that place, "shake the dust from their sandals" and move on.

The same is true in dealing with our own personal sins. If you've done something that is not accepting of God's will in your life, then shake the dust from your sandals (or shoes, or boots), and MOVE ON to what is coming in your life. And do your best there. And, if you once again screw up, then GET UP, SHAKE THE STUFF OFF, AND MOVE ON!

The older I get, the more I come to appreciate the gift of the Holy Spirit, the most neglected of the Trinity by humans, and the most incredibly underused instrument of salvation given to us by the Lord. Neither life, nor salvation, is static. It is a PROCESS. Dump the crap in the past -- it's just a guilt tool used by the Evil One to drag us down.

Acknowledge the past and regret the bad stuff. Dismiss it as "past", and say: tomorrow, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, is going to be better.

Our Holy Mother, the Theotokos, knew this; but she was given special graces to stay free from all kinds of evil. But, as a human being, she KNOWS what we go through. And I have NO hesitation in calling upon her and saying: HELP!

When did this happen to her? When did she 'know' this reality? Personally, I don't give a damn. She's my mother-in-Christ and my protector. And I KNOW that she was preserved from 'evil' by the power of the Holy Spirit. So: I call her 'sinless' and 'our Mother'.

I don't need anything more than that.

Blessings upon y'all!

Dear Dr. John,

I'll drink to that...

"And yet, I ask: what was so special about this little girl born of St Joachim and St Anne? Was her `holiness and purity from conception' (as mentioned by Fr Meyendorff) in her infancy and childhood no different than our own (up until the time we could be viewed as sinful?) Or was there something unique about her in her infancy and childhood? If so, how so? Would the angels in heaven have been amazed at any three year old girl entering the Temple? Or were they amazed because of a special holiness of the Theotokos?

So, was the Virgin Mary "holy and pure from her conception" in an unique way?"

Dave --

Yes, the Theotokos was unique from the beginning, unique in her personality, in her openness to God's grace and her willingness to obey God. The distinction is not in whether the Theotokos actually sinned (although some Orthodox may claim this from time to time in a desire to polemicize the IC Dogma), because the best Orthodox theologians do not hold that and our liturgy and paraliturgical piety certainly don't reflect that, but rather what the cause of her actual sinlessness was. In Eastern Christian anthropology, it is not necessary to source this in St. Mary's conceived status vis-a-vis the sin of Adam -- and, in fact, in light of our theology of the incarnation, it is somewhat harmful to source it there -- and so we don't source it there, and we don't think that the Latin Church should make everyone source it in a place that its own anthropology (as reflected in the CCC) no longer reflects, either.

I think, for example, that if the RCC had the view of Original Sin that is reflected in the current CCC (which does not emphasize the Augustinian view at all), there wouldn't have been an IC dogma declared. RC theology on this point has experienced a corrective and has moved beyond the Augustinian categories that were dominant for so long -- and which clearly laid the foundation for the *need*, from the RC perspective, for the IC dogma. And so what we have is a dogma that was based, to a substantial degree, on a theology of Original Sin that is no longer fully or openly embraced by the RCC -- leading to the theological gymnastics we see today trying to justify or explain the IC dogma in terms that are neutral vis-a-vis the Augustinian view of Original Sin, which is no longer fully endorsed (ie, no longer current) -- but which nevertheless casts a long shadow over a number of inherited theologies in that particular Church.

I think we can agree that St. Mary was without actual sin and was unique among all creatures in that respect, and that from the time of her conception. If we can leave the business about "Original Sin" out, Orthodoxy and Catholicism are close to 100% in agreement on this point -- at least, that is, until the next RC "Marian dogma" is proclaimed --- :-)!

Brendan

Dear Dave,

I like Brendan's view, but I wonder if it would agree with statements made by someone like St John Maximovitch on this very subject. I don't know.

There was a time, as Bishop Kallistos Ware notes, that Orthodox would try to go in the "opposite direction" when the two Marian dogmas were proclaimed by the Catholic Church.

The Feast of the Nativity of Our Lady in the Byzantine Rite goes beyond an understanding of the "sinlessness" of the Mother of God.

The Feasts of the Conception of St Anne and Our Lady's Nativity celebrate the mystery of her dynamic sanctification from the very beginning of her existence and conception.

No one would try to establish a "feast" in our honour for our having been born without the "stain" of Original Sin in the Augustinian sense.

But that feast exists for Our Lady because she was born a Saint with all the choicest gifts of the Holy Spirit as befitted Someone of her role and position in our salvation.

Meyendorff not only affirmed that Our Lady was born without the "stain of sin." He also affirmed the above about her holiness before her birth, from the very beginning of her existence.

She is the Temple of the Holy Spirit and the Ark of the New Covenant!

The Orthodox Church's veneration of Our Lady is second to none, as we know.

There are over 1,000 miraculous icons of Our Lady honoured all over the Orthodox world.

The liturgical beauty of her feasts as the Orthodox Church celebrates them is magnificent!

And as often as the Holy Trinity and Christ are mentioned, so too is She as the Mother of the Word Incarnate.

Alex

The quotation from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma shows that the classic undestanding of the Immaculate Conception (and limits to Mary's fullness of grace) is far from making her almost a "goddess" as some have claimed.

Is this just an exercise in "mental gymnastics" to try to find a way of harmonizing the Western and Eastern views on this subject? True, there appears to have been a shift in understanding of Original Sin among Western theologians. But, has there always been a uniform view of Original Sin in the East?

Louis Bouyer writes in The Seat of Wisdom:


In a footnote on page 104 he says:


For further on the Eastern support for "the feast and the belief" see:

http://www.cin.org/imconcep.html

If the Theotokos was "holy and pure from her conception" this must have been as a result of some special grace. If the Theotokos remained "holy and pure" all her life without some movement of God's grace in her life this would be a greater miracle than the Immaculate Conception. For her to be free from actual sin was a result of her active cooperation with the grace God gave her. One does not have to believe in the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin to see that what the essence of the Immaculate Conception is getting at is God's gift of grace to the mother of his Son.

Perhaps the definition of the Immaculate Conception was inopportune. Perhaps not. For me, as a Catholic, I know with a certainty that what the liturgical texts for the various Marian feasts (the Conception of St Anne, the Nativity of the Theotokos, the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple and I might add the Dormition) tell me about the Theotokos are true. There was something special and unique about her
conception and birth and her early life. The same holds true for her Dorimtion/Assumption. I still am shocked when I read statements denying that Mary's body was raised after her death such as at:

http://www.goarch.org/access/orthodoxfaith/fundamental_teachings.html


A Dictionary of Greek Orthodoxy by Rev. Nicon D Patrinacos (published by the Department of Education of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese with a foreword by Archbishop Iakovos) denies the Dormition/Assumption in the same breath as it denies the Immaculate Conception:


This extreme minimalist view of Mary is further shown where Fr Patrinacos says with regard to the Paraklesis:


Whether one believes in the Dormition is still an open question in Orthodoxy. One can firmly believe and teach that the body of the Theotokos has rotted away in a grave somewhere. (I've always wondered what those Orthodox who reject that the body of the Theotokos was taken to heaven do at the Feast of the Dormition--do they stay home? Perhaps it's like those people who call themselves Christians and celebrate Christmas but deny the Incarnation.) As for me, I know for a certainty that the Dorimition is true because the Church in her wisdom has guaranteed that it is true.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Dave --

I will readily admit (as I have alluded to previously in this thread and in others as well) that there have been excesses in polemic directed against these two most recent dogmatic pronouncements from the Papal throne. It is, however, equally possible to find incorrect statements of faith made by various Catholics at various points -- that is neither helpful nor useful.

The Orthodox Church affirms the sinlessness of Mary, and most Orthodox affirm this from the time of her conception (unfortunately some go further than this in a polemical exercise that I judge needless). We disagree, however, that this relates to her status vis-a-vis the Sin of Adam because that causes problems in our understanding of Christian anthropology. That's really the only issue, between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, relating to this matter. Making more of it than this is not helpful, and, IMO, trying to convince Orthodox that we have to believe that St. Mary was conceived without the effects of Original Sin is also pointless -- at this point, in other words, thats an argument that isn't going to be won. IMO, it doesn't need to be won, for Catholicism and Orthodoxy to agree that St. Mary was sinless from the time of her conception.

As far as the Dormition is concerned, the quotes are surprising indeed, as I have never seen that understanding of the Dormition expressed in any mainstream Orthodox book. My own reference in this regard would again be "The Orthodox Way" by Bishop Kallistos (Ware): "Although not accepting the Latin doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Orthodoxy in its liturgical worship addresses the Mother of God as 'spotless' (achrantos), 'all-holy' (panagia), 'altogether without stain' (panamomos). We Orthodox believe that after her death she was assumed into heaven, where she now dwells -- with her body as well as her soul -- in eternal glory with her Son." The only nit that Orthodox tend to pick regarding this is the fudge that Catholicism seems to make regarding whether St. Mary died -- the formulation is often that she was assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly life (ie, possibly meaning one iota before she actually underwent death), and there are some Catholics who therefore don't believe that she underwent death (Orthodoxy does, as our rites for 15 August underline). I think that Catholicism, if pressed, would also agree that Mary underwent death, so my own sense is that while the official wording seems to fudge, the undlerying beliefs regarding the feast of 15 August are the same.

Brendan

Brendan brought up the notion that among some Latin Catholics, the idea is that the Mother of God was assumed into heaven at the end of her life, without having died. Yet the East believes that she did die. Fine, I accept that, and a lot of Latin Catholics I know do too.

Interesting question: what do we make of Enoch and Elijah who probably did sin at one point or another in their lives, but were taken by God, seemingly without dying? While everyone else is listed as having died, in the Genesis account, Enoch "walked with God", and was taken and was no more on the earth. And we all know about Elijah and the chariot of fire that swept him away. Their bodies weren't around, otherwise they'd be reckoned dead; but they weren't.

So what happened to them? Were they taken body and soul to be with God, even though they probably at one point did sin? Then it seems they were privileged with something that the Virgin wasn't, but which she is more worthy of than them, since she hasn't sinned ever.

Was the Virgin taken body and soul to heaven without dying? Then the Eastern tradition is wrong, as well as that of many Latins.

Or did Enoch and Elijah not sin at all, thus meriting their privilege? Then they were on a par with the Mother of God, and still the Virgin got jipped out of something which (I believe) she above anyone else would've deserved.

How do we reconcile any of this?

The death of Mary was the focus of an early study of Walter Burghardt, SJ. If I remember the conclusions properly, there was a significant tradition in the West that posited that Mary merely fell asleep and did not die. Still, the clear weight of Western Chrsitian Tradition taken as a whole clearly asserts her death. The East overwhelmingly and consistenly affirmed the latter.
As for Enoch, Elijah and Mary, perhaps what happened to all all three can be treated under the heading of "realized eschatology." In Eastern terms, immediate deification that is the goal of every human at the fullness of time for the dead and living alike. Mary alone was sinless, the other two, gifted.

Mor Ephrem,

My understanding has always been that, in reference to Enoch, Elias and Moses (added by tradition and Apocrypha) being assumed into "heaven", this does not mean they were taken to the presence of God. Rather, they were in limbo or hades until the Resurrection like all the other saints, albeit with their bodies. Why this was done who knows? But the Transfiguration is a clue as to why this was done for Elijah and Moses. As they appeared to testify to Christ's divinity and fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets at Tabor they will do so again at the End of Days. They will be the Two Witnesses of Revelation Chapter 11.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate