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

Just a note on the Dormition/Assumpion. I don't think that the above article meant to say that the Orthodox don't believe Mary's body was taken into Heaven. For one thing,I believe it is the "mode" of this event which is disputed. From what I have read, Orthodox believe that Mary's body was "metathesized" or translated, which is apparently different from the Western concept of her simply being assumed bodily (at least according to Orchid Land Publications). Perhaps the objection also relates to the time frame of the event. Orthodox do not believe that her body was taken to Heaven immediately (key words- at the time of her death), but rather that she was laid in a tomb until the third day, when she was resurrected, thereby not having to wait until the common resurrection to be with her Son, both body and soul.

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Double_Eagle ]

Dear Friends,

Since I'm hanging around waiting for my ride to take me to the airport, I thought I'd share a thought about this important subject.

Sinlessness in and of itself doesn't guarantee that someone will be assumed into heaven.

Enoch and Elias, Moses the God-Seer are among those who were taken bodily by God after their lives came to an end.

Rome actually did not define that the Most Holy Theotokos ever did die, this question was deliberately left open, as RC theologians and writers are wont to affirm.

This is because the theology of Original Sin in the West has always been rather "cloudy" owing to the existence of the (predominating) Augustinian version, something that the CCC seems to have discarded entirely now.

To say that the Most Holy Theotokos did die would be tantamount to affirming that She had "Original Sin" in the sense of its effects on humanity.

The Immaculate Conception was the RC Church's response against the conclusion of Augustinianism on the subject of Original Sin touching the idea of inherited guilt.

St Augustine himself always excluded the Mother of God from any imputation of "taint" of sin, so one could say that he not only created the new idea of Original Sin, he also, and immediately, created the Immaculate Conception to preserve the Mother of God free of its effects and stain.

Also, the Spanish and French Empires declared that the Immaculate Conception was to be upheld as a Catholic doctrine within their jurisdictions. This is one reason why the old Ursuline Chapel in New Orleans has the image of the Immaculate Conception as its patron.

And even the early Lutheran theologians and teachers believed in the Assumption of our Lady, this is contained in the Lutheran confessional books, my Lutheran Benedictine monastic friend assures me.

There was and is still the pious belief (defined as a 'doctrine' by a Spanish antipope)that St Joseph himself was immaculately conceived and assumed into heaven, just as there is the pious belief, noted in the first Ikos of his Akathist, that St Nicholas was sanctified in the womb of his mother prior to being born.

Again, the case of the Mother of God the Word Incarnate is a special one and the Apostolic Churches, although expressing it in different ways, agree on Her total holiness and her reign in Heaven, body and soul, alongside Her Son.

Merry Christmas to you all!

Alex

Orthodox Catholic,
You stated, "The Immaculate Conception was the RC Church's response against the conclusion of Augustinianism on the subject of Original Sin touching the idea of inherited guilt."

I respectfully disagree. The IC was the RC Church's *confirmation* of the notion inherited guilt. IC is affirmed as a necessity to safeguard God's Son from being so tained in His conception.
In the Eastern Christian mind the thought process is: "no inhereted guilt, no need to protect the Son, thus the IM is superfluous," as has been already correctly posited in this discussion.

-just an ordinary kind of fool.

Dear "durak,"

I am a little uncomfortable calling you this way . . . It was how my father called out to me when he was really mad at me . . .

1) The Immaculate Conception doctrine protects not the Son, but the Mother of God from the Augustinian "taint" notion of Original Sin. I know this because I am Ukrainian Catholic and therefore Latinized . . .

2) I thought I said that the IC was put in place so that the Mother of God could not be said to have the "taint" of Original Sin, something which even St Augustine said in his own lifetime.

3) The Immaculate Conception affirmed the sinlessness of the Mother of God BECAUSE of the Augustinian doctrine that was NEVER approved by the Catholic Church and the proclamation of the doctrine of the IC in itself does NOT proclaim Augustinian Original Sin to be an "infallible" doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

4) As Fr. John Meyendorff and Catholic theologians have shown, one may accept an interpretation of the Immaculate Conception as an expression of the Orthodox view, that the Mother of God was truly sinless, but, from a more dynamic point of view, was sanctified at Her Conception and when in the womb of Her Mother, St Anne.

If this is not so, you can call me a "durak" just like my father did . . .

Merry Christmas,

Alex

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Esteemed Alex,

Perish the thought that I would call or deem anyone other than yours truly a fool. People sometimes think or act foolishly, but the persons who think or act foolishly cannot be judged by anyone but God.

I feel that I am substantial ground in asserting that all dogmas and doctrines must have Christ as the Ultimate Reference, or they mean nothing in the course of salvation. (The Assumption of Mary as theological "echo" of Our Lord's Ascension is a case in point--He shared flesh from her flesh--but that is a topic for another thread.) So, when you state, "the IC was put in place so that the Mother of God could not be said to have the "taint" of Original Sin," I wholeheartedly assert this as unquestionably true within Western "logic," but I also think that this is of no value if asserted without the necessary "so that...", i.e., so that Christ would be protected from the inherited guilt.

I happen to ascribe to the Eastern "logic": There is no inherited guilt; therefore, no reason for the concept of an IM in the Western sense of not being born with the taint of Adam's guilt - the sense that prevailed at the time of it was defined as a dogma of the Latin Church.

May you and anyone reading this be illumined with joy, warmth and peace during this Holy Season.
And during your travels, "C'Boh'om."

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: durak ]

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: durak ]

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: durak ]

Dear du . . du . . .(How about) Durango!

I agree with you. And so do the Fathers . . .

But from the Latin perspective, especially at the time when the doctrine was proclaimed, the IC was concerned with the Mother of God and protecting Her alone from the charge that She could ever have been in sin. Christ would have been protected from sin either way.

Merry Christmas,

Alex

Those Orthodox who deny the Assumption of Mary are a minority but as the link provided above shows are a significant minority. I'd be interested in hearing more about their objection. On balance, I should note Bishop Kallistos' comments in The Orthodox Church:


So I take the quotes I provided earlier in this thread to mean what they say: they are denials of the Bodily Assumption of Mary. They are a minority viewpoint but represent a significant minority (even being on the Greek Archdiocesan webpage).

Back to Mary being "holy and pure from her conception." In re-reading the CCC I noticed this:


The Catechism's explanation of the Immaculate Conception doctrine is that "Mary...was redeemed from the moment of her conception." This seems very close to the thought expressed by Fr Meyendorff at the start of this thread.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

A couple more texts I'd like to add to this thread:

From one of the Opening Prayers for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in the Roman Rite:


All in all, this prayer that shows what the Feast confesses does not seem far removed from Fr Meyendorff's comment at the start of this thread.

Further on those Orthodox who deny that the body of the Theotokos was raised from the dead:

Fr George Mastrantonis is the author of the article on the Greek Archdiocese's website cited above which denies the bodily assumption of the Theotokos. He was the editor of several booklets published by OLOGOS which can still be found in many Orthodox parishes. Recently I came across the booklet The Virgin Mary Theotokos where he explains his position more clearly. It contains some factual errors (he gives the wrong year for the proclamation of the dogma and his history of the development of the dogmatic teaching in the Western Church is a masterful exercise in polemical rewriting). For Fr Mastrantonis the Feast of the Dormition refers to her "death or repose" while he acknowledges that "the Assumption is a late `pious tradition' for some people of the Eastern Orthodox Church" (emphasis added). He equates "assumption" and "ascension" whereas Catholic theology distinguishes between them (Jesus ascended into heaven by his power as God--the creature Mary's body was assumed or taken to heaven by Jesus). Under the section "Feast Days in Honor of the Theotokos" he writes:


For a much better treatment of the subject of the Dormition I would recommend the book On the Dormiton of Mary: Early Patristic Homilies with translations and introductions by Brian E Daley, S.J., published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press in 1998.

[ 02-02-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Dear Dave,

Thank you for all your painstaking research!

I think these Orthodox are speaking their own minds and are going contrary to what their (and our) liturgical tradition has ALWAYS taught about the total holiness and bodily assumption of the Mother of God into heaven.

Some writers, I have found, reject the Assumption because the Roman Church defined it, without rejecting its "pith and substance."

The Roman Church left the issue of whether Our Lady actually died open when it defined the dogma, a point raised by the extension of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

The Orthodox tradition accepts that She did die, as a matter of fact.

There are individual theologians in both Churches and traditions, East and West, who will say what they want to say, irrespective of their Churches' time-honoured teachings.

No Orthodox Saint has ever denied Our Lady's total Holiness and Her bodily Assumption into Heaven.

Alex

Just came across these thoughts from Theotokos: Mary, Mother of Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ by Archbishop Joseph Raya:


The book is very well written and well worth obtaining! I believe it is now handled by Sophia Institute Press.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/index.html

[ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Is there some debate here (I take it over the issue of the Immaculate Concpetion and Assumption of Our Lady? All Catholics ***MUST*** believe and profess these dogmas or else they are heretics (Since they deny something that is taught as necessary for slavation). Now you can put an emphasis or spin on the interpretation of certain theological points of these dogmas that you want but, in the end, you gotta believe the basics of them.

I, even as Orthodox, always believed in all the Marian dogmas, as well as Purgatory, Merits, and Indulgances. They are dogmas that all make perfect sense regardless of what Church tradition you hail from and should not be tarnished with speculation because they have laready been defined. I cannot understand for the life of me why certain Eastern Catholics have such a hard time excepting these beliefs. If it is because the Orthodox do not officially accept them then I guess that the Orthodox are wrong for not doing so and the Catholic Church (AS always) is on top of things.


Robert K.

That's like saying, "I, even as an Orthodox, always believed in the Church of Scientology dogma that Evil Galactic Emperor Xenu landed H-Bombs on the Earth 25 Million years ago to destroy the inter-galactic souls of the Tentans."

It is more than irony to claim to belong to a faith and not hold that faith. Once again, the "club" mentality, I say I am therefore I must be; and it is offensive for you to disagree.

As far as the Latin dogma of the Assumption, for the life of me I cannot figure out why it is "nessesary for my salvation" to believe she was assumed into heaven??? Anyone??

And since papal infalibilty is a dogma, that is, nessesary for my salvation, I guess I am a heretic and not being saved.

Thank you Robert, finally progress toward the truth of what these faiths teach and away with all of the syncretism.

And I mean you no offense, just speaking bluntly.

[ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

OoD writes:


The Church has determined many things which are necessary to believe but it does not automatically follow that those who do not believe in them will be lost. Many of our Protestant friends, for example, do not believe in the necessity of icons nor in the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos: things which were detemined as necessary by Ecumenical Councils recognized by both Orthodox and Catholic.

I, for one, have no problem with placing the holiness of the Theotokos and her Dormition on the same level of belief as her perpetual virginity or the necessity of using icons. The Church guarantees that the holiness of the Theotokos and her being raised to heaven are not just "pious traditions" but are, in fact, realities.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

Dear Friends,

Orthodoxy, through its liturgical tradition, has ALWAYS, ALWAYS taught that the MOther of God was assumed body and soul into Heaven.

To deny that is to deny Orthodoxy itself.

Orthodoxy doesn't always make infallible pronouncements to get its theological points across .

And when has any Orthodox teacher ever denied this about the Mother of God?

Alex

OrthodoxyorDeath

I am an Anglican and am not familiar with the ways of Orthodoxy. I ask this question to better appreciate the Orthodox faith.

Could an Orthodox person honestly reject the bodily assumption of Our Lady? Could an Orthodox Christian stand through the Liturgy of Dormition on August 15 and refuse to say the responses and then walk out of the church and tell his brothers-in-Christ, "I reject that celebration. I refuse to believe in what was commemorated by the Church's authorities. Mary's body is still in the dirt. I say this as a faithful son of Orthodoxy."

Is there a possibility for that person to be Orthodox?

I always thought that it was absolutely necessary to confess the bodily assumption of the Theotokos in order to be Orthodox. Correct me if I am wrong.

yours in Christ,
Marshall