Do Eastern Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception?

[Monica4316]

Or, do you like the Orthodox, agree that Mary was sinless but don’t believe in original sin?

what do you all think of this?
piustheninth.com/chapter7.htm
and
piustheninth.com/chapter4.htm

just wondering!!

I’m becoming Catholic this Easter, and I’ll be attending a Latin rite parish cause I don’t have any Eastern rite parishes around me, but technically I’ll be an Eastern Catholic. But I believe in the Immaculate Conception and go to Eucharistic Adoration and pray the Rosary, I guess you might say I’m pretty “Western” in that way, although I love the Eastern liturgy! I’m kind of a mix actually…

so …is the Immaculate Conception something you accept?

thanks

 

[dixibehr]

If you want to know the teaching of the Byzantine Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox) on the matter, you can do no better than to read the liturgical texts for the Feast, which is celebrated on 9 December:

noeticspace.com/AutoIndex/index.php?dir=Liturgical_Resources/Menaion/12.December/&file=DEC09.DOC

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Monica,

From having talked to many Eastern and Oriental Catholics on the matter, I’ve found that Oriental Catholics are generally more receptive to it than Eastern Catholics. The Eastern Catholics - once again, from my experience - fall in three categories:

1. They accept it as dogma. 2) They accept it, but not as dogma. 3) They reject it.

The very great majority fall under #1 or #2, leaning more towards #2. In truth, I’ve only met a very few handful who reject it.

It should be noted that the proscription contained in the dogma of the IC is only against those who do not accept it. IMHO, a person who accepts it, but not as a matter necessary for salvation (i.e., dogma), would not fall under the proscription stated in the dogma. In fact, the Catholic Church officially recognizes an hierarchy of Truths within the Church (i.e., some Truths are more necessary and important than others for the maintenance of the Faith), so my opinion would have a good likelihood of being within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Sunflower15]

I’m becoming Catholic this Easter, and I’ll be attending a Latin rite parish cause I don’t have any Eastern rite parishes around me, but technically I’ll be an Eastern Catholic. …

thanks

Just wondering, please don’t take me wrong…but why are you “technically an Eastern Catholic”?

I’ve read other posts by you and the last thing, other than being Protestant, would be that you were Eastern.

In particular, I have learned in this forum that:

1. Easterners do not agree with “exposing” the Blesses Sacrament, they “veil” Him in the Tabernacle. Also, don’t exactly worship Him in this way, because they don’t precisely “see” Him more in the host than everywhere else…so worshiping at an Adoration Chapel is almost a moot point.
2. The Easterners feel we “elevate” Mary by dogmas as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, etc. Particularly, the Coronation or Crowning of Mary [as in the Rosary], is seen as “adding” unnecessarily [at best, as heretical at worst] to doctrine.
3. On the Sacred Heart, for example, Easterners don’t worship Him by “parts”…physical [heart] or spiritual [His love for us], just as a “whole”.

I feel drawn to the beauty and truth of their expression of faith. However, I would have to lie if I said I do not feel completely in need of the above, though…regardless of how beautiful their liturgy might be.

I also notice that I’m asked to “experience their Liturgy” but as a Western Catholic, I don’t “experience” ANYthing until I understand /study and analyze consequential effects beforehand! Yes, maybe we Latins are closet philosophers and control freaks…oh well…

 

[mardukm]

1. Easterners do not agree with “exposing” the Blesses Sacrament, they “veil” Him in the Tabernacle. Also, don’t exactly worship Him in this way, because they don’t precisely “see” Him more in the host than everywhere else…so worshiping at an Adoration Chapel is almost a moot point.
   I would be surprised if this were true - I mean about the part that Easterns do not see anything special in the Host “more than everywhere else.” Perhaps you mean to say something else?

1. The Easterners feel we “elevate” Mary by dogmas as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, etc. Particularly, the Coronation or Crowning of Mary [as in the Rosary], is seen as “adding” unnecessarily [at best, as heretical at worst] to doctrine.

I don’t think it was the dogmas of the IC and the Assumption that prompted EO to make this criticism - rather it is all the talk of another Marian dogma (“Co-redemptrix”) that has prompted the criticism.

1. On the Sacred Heart, for example, Easterners don’t worship Him by “parts”…physical [heart] or spiritual [His love for us], just as a “whole”.

I don’t think Easterners make this criticism generally. Only the polemic ones do - the ones who bend over backwards to criticize the slightest differences, or to make mere distinctions as actual Church-dividing issues.

Blessings

 

[jimmy]

The Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox certainly believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is the body and blood of Christ according to them. That said, they believe it is for the purpose of consumption so Eucharistic Adoration is meaningless to them.

I don’t think it was the dogmas of the IC and the Assumption that prompted EO to make this criticism - rather it is all the talk of another Marian dogma (“Co-redemptrix”) that has prompted the criticism.

mardukm is probably right with this. I recall reading an article by Bishop Kalistos Ware who said that if Rome defined the mediatrix of all Graces or coredemptrix - even though there might be an orthodox interpretation of these statements - it would end all ecumenical discussions between the two Churches.

 

[Sunflower15]

The Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox certainly believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is the body and blood of Christ according to them. That said, they believe it is for the purpose of consumption so Eucharistic Adoration is meaningless to them.

I certainly did NOT mean that the Eucharist doesn’t mean His Presence…what I meant is that Eucharistic Adoration per se is not understood as Him Being there more than anywhere else…or that Adoration per se is a moot point at a Chapel [as we do]…In fact, that is exactly what you both said!

mardukm is probably right with this. I recall reading an article by Bishop Kalistos Ware who said that if Rome defined the mediatrix of all Graces or coredemptrix - even though there might be an orthodox interpretation of these statements - it would end all ecumenical discussions between the two Churches.

As far as I know, the Mediatrix one has NOT yet being defined as dogma or is even really spoken about much…though in its simple form is obvious, it can be taken to exaggerate Mary’s ability, though probably not her desire, to cooperate in redemption

 

[Sunflower15]

I would be surprised if this were true - I mean about the part that Easterns do not see anything special in the Host “more than everywhere else.” Perhaps you mean to say something else?

Yes, I have a hard time explaining that I am not referring to the belief in the Eucharist, but rather in the Adoration of the Eucharist per se…which is not in the Eastern tradition…it seems

I don’t think it was the dogmas of the IC and the Assumption that prompted EO to make this criticism - rather it is all the talk of another Marian dogma (“Co-redemptrix”) that has prompted the criticism.

That one is not a dogma yet…and the Immaculate Conception is certainly a problem for a lot of Easterners, as I have gotten quite a lot of posts for that!

I don’t think Easterners make this criticism generally. Only the polemic ones do - the ones who bend over backwards to criticize the slightest differences, or to make mere distinctions as actual Church-dividing issues.

Blessings

I agree about the fact that some people see huge differences in “particles of cosmic dust” …~lol

It certainly was NOT my intention to do this at all! I tend to not see much difference at all among Christians…in this particular case of Monica, however, I know her from a thread about Eucharistic Adoration…and the meditations we do while there [personally] as in the Rosary.

So, I was asking her because she didn’t sound Eastern at all in her meditations! Actually, not even most Latin Rite Catholics experience the intensity she does at Adoration!

So, I just was curious & had to explain myself, so she would understand my curiosity…not that I meant to “steer” her away or to criticize or anything…

Then again…speaking in general terms about the Eastern churches is a problem in itself…there are so many and are so different!

Every time someone from one tradition explains something to me, someone else from another tradition contradicts it! It’s so hard to get to know even a little, but I think it is very important and worthwhile, so I’ll keep at it!

 

[wjp984]

What difference does it make? The East believes Mary was sinless and the West believes Mary was sinless. No other human has ever been sinless besides Mary (and of course Jesus) and both the East and West believe this.

I think it is just a matter of the concept of Original Sin and whether to use a Western or Eastern approach which there are numerous threads on. But the end result is still the same.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Monica,

From having talked to many Eastern and Oriental Catholics on the matter, I’ve found that Oriental Catholics are generally more receptive to it than Eastern Catholics. The Eastern Catholics - once again, from my experience - fall in three categories:

1. They accept it as dogma. 2) They accept it, but not as dogma. 3) They reject it.

The very great majority fall under #1 or #2, leaning more towards #2. In truth, I’ve only met a very few handful who reject it.

It should be noted that the proscription contained in the dogma of the IC is only against those who do not accept it. IMHO, a person who accepts it, but not as a matter necessary for salvation (i.e., dogma), would not fall under the proscription stated in the dogma. In fact, the Catholic Church officially recognizes an hierarchy of Truths within the Church (i.e., some Truths are more necessary and important than others for the maintenance of the Faith), so my opinion would have a good likelihood of being within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy.

After some research, I’ve found out that the Armenian Apostolic Church (OOC) would fall under the #2 group I mentioned above. Here is a link to some info from a fellow Oriental Christian who translated to the OOC from Catholicism several years ago.

geocities.com/derghazar/ACRCMARY.DOC

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dixibehr]

For me:

The Most Holy Theotokos was a stranger to sin. She cooperated with God every step of the way. She is immaculate, and everything about her is immaculate, and it is irreverent to inquire into such a holy mystery further.

For me this suffices.

 

[Diak]

1. Easterners do not agree with “exposing” the Blesses Sacrament, they “veil” Him in the Tabernacle. Also, don’t exactly worship Him in this way, because they don’t precisely “see” Him more in the host than everywhere else…so worshiping at an Adoration Chapel is almost a moot point.

The East never questioned the Real Presence, and thus any devotion outside of the Divine Liturgy was not seen as necessary. It is not that we do not think it is a valid devotion of our Latin brethren (I have gone myself) but it is not our tradition and the liturgical need for such a thing has never arisen.
FDRLB

 

[Diak]

After some research, I’ve found out that the Armenian Apostolic Church (OOC) would fall under the #2 group I mentioned above. Here is a link to some info from a fellow Oriental Christian who translated to the OOC from Catholicism several years ago.

That is true. The local Armenian Apostolic priest told me quite directly that he has no problem with the IC and holds it himself as a theologumena.

Jimmy raises an excellent point about “co-redepmtrix”, and the lack of the late Holy Father and the current to even discuss it seems to indicate Rome does not have the interest or will at this time. I think not only for ecumenical reasons but for dogmatic reasons it could be a dangerous thing - the term itself seems to be prone to misunderstanding and ambiguity.

 

[Lycoming]

Just wondering, please don’t take me wrong…but why are you “technically an Eastern Catholic”?

I’ve read other posts by you and the last thing, other than being Protestant, would be that you were Eastern.

In particular, I have learned in this forum that:

1. Easterners do not agree with “exposing” the Blesses Sacrament, they “veil” Him in the Tabernacle. Also, don’t exactly worship Him in this way, because they don’t precisely “see” Him more in the host than everywhere else…so worshiping at an Adoration Chapel is almost a moot point.
   Untrue. In some recensions of the Byzantine Rite, the Blessed Sacrament is placed in a chalice, a veil and then a small crown is placed over the top of the chalice, OUTSIDE of the tabernacle.

Jesus is exposed, not reposed in that setting.

 

[Sunflower15]

Untrue. In some recensions of the Byzantine Rite, the Blessed Sacrament is placed in a chalice, a veil and then a small crown is placed over the top of the chalice, OUTSIDE of the tabernacle.

Jesus is exposed, not reposed in that setting.

Interesting! I was even given the explanation that the leavened host would not even fit inside a monstrance…so even if desired, it wouldn’t be possible…well…then, it is exposed AND veiled at the same time! Wow!

Does your church use leavened bread? or unleavened hosts like us Latin Rite?

 

[Sunflower15]

That is true. The local Armenian Apostolic priest told me quite directly that he has no problem with the IC and holds it himself as a theologumena.

Jimmy raises an excellent point about “co-redepmtrix”, and the lack of the late Holy Father and the current to even discuss it seems to indicate Rome does not have the interest or will at this time. I think not only for ecumenical reasons but for dogmatic reasons it could be a dangerous thing - the term itself seems to be prone to misunderstanding and ambiguity.

I agree that the language and terminology would have to be extremely specific and cautious, so that no one think that God needed help nor that Mary is somehow divine…

Having said that…the belief that Mary fully cooperated in our redemption by trusting God without reserve, and by allowing His Will completely in her life, [whether is made sense or place her at serious risks], is as ancient as the Nativity story.

If properly explained, I can’t imagine ANYone not agreeing…a human woman HAD to cooperate for our salvation to brought about in THIS particular manner…of course, God could devise infinite solutions to the problem of our salvation…but for THIS solution…a human woman, in this case Mary was the chosen one, was absolutely necessary as cooperator in redemption…or co-redemptrix.

To my knowledge, it isn’t a dogma yet…just an ancient belief that has resurfaced for some reason…

Does anyone know of this to have been proclaimed as dogma?

 

[RyanML]

Does anyone know of this to have been proclaimed as dogma?

It has not been dogmatically proclaimed. As you point out, the meaning of “co-redemptrix” is quite simple and ancient. Personally, I see no need for Rome to declare it.

 

[Lycoming]

Interesting! I was even given the explanation that the leavened host would not even fit inside a monstrance…so even if desired, it wouldn’t be possible…well…then, it is exposed AND veiled at the same time! Wow!

Does your church use leavened bread? or unleavened hosts like us Latin Rite?

Leavened. It’s baked right at the parish. A very dense bread cute into cubes about the size of a small die. Even in the Latin Rite the ritual states the Blessed Sacrament may be exposed in either a monstance or a ciborium.

 

[narrowpath]

Back to the Immaculate Conception for a moment. What are the EO grounds for rejecting original sin? Also, if an EC rejected the dogma, wouldn’t they be guilty of heresy?

 

[jimmy]

Back to the Immaculate Conception for a moment. What are the EO grounds for rejecting original sin? Also, if an EC rejected the dogma, wouldn’t they be guilty of heresy?

On another thread on whether Christ was born into OS I said this (I hate to quote myself but maybe it could help):

Jesus possessed the fallen nature which we possess. If He didn’t then there would be no salvation for us since our salvation is based on the fact that Christ assumed our nature completely. Christ assumed the human nature into the divine hypostasis and the divine energies/Grace penetrated the human nature and healed it/deified it.

This fallen nature consists of death and corruption or subjugation to the passions. There is no guilt implied. As a result of this man develops a gnomic will and sin follows. A gnomic will is one which is discursive. The will of Adam on the contrary was simply the natural will which is good and leads always to God.

Jesus was sinless not because He inherrited a nature that was purified and made like Adam’s before the fall but rather that He did not have a gnomic will (a discursive will that is the result of the fall). Christ did not have a gnomic will because His human nature was united in the divine hypostasis, which is the acting subject of Christ. He was subject to the incorruptible passions (hunger, thirst, fear, and etc.) but since He did not have a gnomic will He could not have the corruptible passions (like lust and greed) which would imply sin.

If you want more info. on this you can read about the fathers of the Church like St. Maximus the Confessor and St. John of Damascus.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=321641

Regarding OS, the EO would say that there is no change in human nature. Creation always remains good. What they will say is that since the fall man has a gnomic will due to his loss of the Grace of immortality and consequenlty the subjection to death and the passions. The guilt of the sin of Adam could not be handed on. So no man is concieved as a sinner but rather each man chooses his own sins. Therefore the Immaculate Conception is meaningless because OS does not imply any guilt for sin or any lack of “original justice” or “original holiness”.

Mary could have remained free from sin through her own free choice. This does not imply pelagianism though because the Byzantine tradition does not speak of pure nature. The human nature is never completely seperated from divine Grace. The idea of nature vs. supernature is a western conception. Man was created in the image of God. This image was never lost. This is a Grace. What was lost is the likeness to God which can be obtained through the growth in the virtues and through the reception of the Grace of Christ.

Christ saved us by uniting the human nature in His divine hypostasis/person and deifying it. Through the sacraments of initiation (Baptism, Chrismation/Confirmation, and the Eucharist) we recieve communion in the body of Christ and consequently communion with the divine nature of Christ.