Do Eastern Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception?

[Mary_SHAV]

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

 

[Mary_SHAV]

I grew up attending “Immaculate Conception” Ukrainian Catholic Byzantine Rite, Church
in Hamtramck Michigan. There is a huge statue of the Immaculate Conception on top of the Church. We are and always have been devoted to “Mary” in our Liturgies and devotions. We have always had “May” crownings, and rosary devotions. And I always
loved “Adoration” in both grade school and highschool…still love it.

 

[Cluny]

I grew up attending “Immaculate Conception” Ukrainian Catholic Byzantine Rite, Church
in Hamtramck Michigan. There is a huge statue of the Immaculate Conception on top of the Church. We are and always have been devoted to “Mary” in our Liturgies and devotions. We have always had “May” crownings, and rosary devotions. And I always
loved “Adoration” in both grade school and highschool…still love it.

And did you have the traditional Byzantine devotions to the Theotokos during the month of August?

Did you have Presanctified Liturgy during Lent?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

I have not studied this matter in depth, but my distinct understanding of the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church is that Our Lady Mary, Theotokos, is Immaculate, but that her freedom from original sin and forgiveness of any committed sins came at the moment of the Angelic Salutation, when the angel declared to her, “Hail, full of Grace”, at which moment (and not before then) the Blessed Virgin Mary became immaculate. She was not conceived and born immaculate, for that would compromise the fulness of the humanity that Our Lord received from her.

In any event, the curse of original sin was passed through the male, not through the female, of the human species, hence there is not even any need for the Immaculate Conception so far as insuring Our Lord’s freedom from original sin, since God, by the Holy Ghost, is the source of his humanity by the Virgin Birth of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

As for Eastern Catholics, one would presume that they would accept the Catholic and Western understanding, i.e. that Mary’s immaculacy derives from her very conception, since that is part, however late in formulation, of the Catholic Church’s teaching.

Jerry Parker

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jerry,

In any event, the curse of original sin was passed through the male, not through the female, of the human species, hence there is not even any need for the Immaculate Conception so far as insuring Our Lord’s freedom from original sin, since God, by the Holy Ghost, is the source of his humanity by the Virgin Birth of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

I would point out that the dogma of the IC does NOT claim that the IC is necessary to ensure our Lord’s freedom from original sin. That it is necessary is a theologoumenon that is not attached to the dogma itself. However, there are many who do believe that the dogma of the IC implies it.

I myself wholeheartedly believe in the dogma of the IC, but I do not believe it is necessary to preserve the Immaculateness of our Lord (His own Immaculateness coming about in quite a different manner from the Theotokos’ own immaculateness).

St. Proclus of Constantinople (5th century) seems to be the first who explicitly connected Mary’s Immaculate Conception with the Immaculateness of Jesus’ own flesh. Of course, the belief that Jesus derived his flesh from Mary alone is a unanimous belief of the Church, but the question of the immaculateness of His own flesh being connected to Mary’s own Immaculate Conception does not seem to be explicit until St. Proclus.

An explicit 4th century witness to the Immaculate Conception of Mary is St. Ephraim who wrote that before their respective cosmic decisions (i.e., Eve’s disobedience vs. Mary’s obedience), Eve and Mary were “utterly equal.”

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. God bless you on your journey to Catholicism

 

[jimmy]

The problem that I have with the IC is that a big aspect of Christology was that Christ took on the human nature in its fallen state and redeemed it. St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks of Christ redeeming His own human nature, which He assumed. As Daniel Keating (a Catholic) says, ‘Cyril’s development of the Adam-Christ typology portrays Christ as both agent and recipient of salvation.’ I think there is a problem when you assume that Christ had the pre-fall nature of Adam and Mary had the pre-fall nature of Eve, which is exactly what the IC is claiming. Mary is the new Eve therefore she must be pure as Eve was.

 

[mardukm]

The problem that I have with the IC is that a big aspect of Christology was that Christ took on the human nature in its fallen state and redeemed it. St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks of Christ redeeming His own human nature, which He assumed. As Daniel Keating (a Catholic) says, ‘Cyril’s development of the Adam-Christ typology portrays Christ as both agent and recipient of salvation.’ I think there is a problem when you assume that Christ had the pre-fall nature of Adam and Mary had the pre-fall nature of Eve, which is exactly what the IC is claiming. Mary is the new Eve therefore she must be pure as Eve was.

If you look at the Alexandrine Tradition, which is exemplified by Pope St. Athanasius, you might find this problem you have mollified.

According to St. Athanasius, the NATURAL state of humanity is mortality, and Adam and Eve were immortal by Grace. The Fall caused this Grace to be lost, and, thus, man became mortal - which is in fact his NATURAL state.

Mary, like any of us, was also in this NATURAL state, and it is this NATURAL state that Jesus acquired from Mary.

The promise of of Christ’s Resurrection is to TRANSFORM our NATURAL state of mortality to a SUPERNATURAL state of IMMORTALITY (as St. Paul says, from the perishable to the imperishable). What we will become by virtue of Christ’s Resurrection is actually to become MORE than what even Adam and Eve were before the Fall.

Since the Syrian Tradition as exemplified by St. Ephraem seems to mirror the Alexandrine Tradition (as you described it in the “Theosis vs. Theopoiesis” thread), perhaps that consideration will also help out.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. This has ramifications for the “Theosis vs. Theopoiesis” thread. Theosis brings us back to our natural divine nature before the Fall. Theopoiesis, on the other hand, actually transforms our natural state to a divine state (i.e., mortal to immortal).

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Further to what I had written yesterday (although it got posted as if sent in Nov. 2008), it would appear that the Immaculacy of Our Lady, the Theotokos, was really not necessary to her being the Mother of God, but I would add here that it certainly would be seemly for Our Lady to have been Immaculate when conceiving in her womb Our Lord, Jesus, as the origin of His Humanity. God’s graces are so superabundant in the saints, chief of whom, of course, is the Mother of Our Lord. Because Jesus’ humanity derives only from the female line from Adam and Eve, He would be free of Adam’s original sin, anyway, since original sin passed, to males and females alike, from Adam’s legacy. However, it is comforting to know that the Holy Ghost carried out Jesus’ sin-free conception and birth sinlessly in avoiding even the slightest doubt that His Humanity would have been tainted by Original Sin, in either His divine or human side. Indeed, “Hail, full of Grace”, Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary!

**I had written: **I have not studied this matter in depth, but my distinct understanding of the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church is that Our Lady Mary, Theotokos, is Immaculate, but that her freedom from original sin and forgiveness of any committed sins came at the moment of the Angelic Salutation, when the angel declared to her, “Hail, full of Grace”, at which moment (and not before then) the Blessed Virgin Mary became immaculate. She was not conceived and born immaculate, for that would compromise the fulness of the humanity that Our Lord received from her.

In any event, the curse of original sin was passed through the male, not through the female, of the human species, hence there is not even any need for the Immaculate Conception so far as insuring Our Lord’s freedom from original sin, since God, by the Holy Ghost, is the source of his humanity by the Virgin Birth of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

As for Eastern Catholics, one would presume that they would accept the Catholic and Western understanding, i.e. that Mary’s immaculacy derives from her very conception, since that is part, however late in formulation, of the Catholic Church’s teaching.

Jerry Parker

 

[fritzz_ezz]

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?

Christos Voskres!

The primary difference is that the Western view is more defined, and the Eastern view is more mystical.

The Greek biblical text of Romans 5:12 does contain the phrase “eph’ho pantes hemarton.” The Western Church has traditionally translated this as "in whom all have sinned.

In contrast, the Eastern Fathers understood the word “eph’ho” to modify the preceding word “thanatos,” which means “death.” Therefore the Eastern Church translates the phrase in question as “because of which (death) all have sinned.” Both are legitimate translations of the text. However, this difference in translation changes the meaning of the entire verse.

Thus, the Western Church has traditionally translated the entirety of Romans 5:12 as such:

“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,” (Douay-Rheims Version).

The Eastern Fathers translated the second part of Romans 5:12 as follows:

“…and so death passed upon all men, because of which all have sinned.”

The traditions developed differently, thus, we see original sin obtained from being in an evil world. The Eastern Catholic Church believes the act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act changed the reality of this present age of the cosmos. The Greek Fathers emphasized the metaphysical dimension of the Fall of Man, whereby Adam’s descendants are born into a fallen world, but at the same time held fast to belief that, in spite of that, man remains free. Man bears no guilt for the sin of Adam.

I accept the Immaculate Conception, as being a mystery.

The Virgin Mariam is the Theotokos (Birth-giver to God) and Aeiparthenos (Ever Virgin) She is also called Panagia, the “All-Holy,” indicating her closeness to God in her obedience. She is the Eastern Gate which remains closed. St. Cyril of Alexandria, along with the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, insisted on calling Mariam Theotokos not just to glorify her, but to safeguard a correct doctrine of Christ’s person, the Incarnation. Orthodox Catholic Christians feel that one can not really believe in the Incarnation and not honor Mariam.

Voistinu voskres!

Fritzz

 

[mardukm]

Alithos Anesti!

Dear brother Fritzz,

I have been discussing this matter over at an Orthodox website, and I just found out something that blew my mind away. An EO poster told me that the difference between the EO and Catholic view is the different conception of Original Sin. I told him my understanding as an Oriental Orthodox in communion with Rome is no different from my understanding when I was an Oriental Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome, and then asked him what he thought the difference was. In reply, stated he understood Original Sin as taught by St. Palamas, and then he provided the following quote:

As the separation of the soul from the body is the death of the body, so the separation of God from the soul is the death of the soul. And this death of the soul is the true death. This is made clear by the commandment given in paradise, when God said to Adam, On whatever day you eat from the forbidden tree you will certainly die.’ And it was indeed Adam’s soul that died by becoming through his transgression separated from God; for bodily he continued to live after that time, even for nine hundred and thirty years. The death, however, that befell the soul because of the transgression not only crippled the soul and made man accursed; it also rendered the body itself subject to fatigue, suffering and corruptibility, and finally handed it over to death. For it was after the dying of his inner self brought about by the transgression that the earthly Adam heard the words, Earth will be cursed because of what you do, it will produce thorns and thistles for you.’ … Thus the violation of God’s commandment is the cause of all types of death, both of soul and body, whether in the present life or in that endless chastisement. And death, properly speaking, is this: for the soul to be unharnessed from divine grace and to be yoked to sin. This death, for those who have their wits, is truly dreadful and something to be avoided. This, for those who think aright, is more terrible than the chastisement of Gehenna. … As the death of the soul is authentic death, so the life of the soul is authentic life. Life of the soul is union with God, as life of the body is union with the soul. As the soul was separated from God and died in consequence of the violation of the commandment, so by obedience to the commandment it is again united to God and is quickened. … The death of the soul through transgression and sin, is then, followed by the death of the body and by its dissolution in the earth and its conversion into dust; and this bodily death is followed in its turn by the soul’s banishment to Hades. …

After our forefather’s transgression in paradise through the tree, we suffered the death of our soul—which is the separation of the soul from God—prior to our bodily death; yet although we cast away our divine likeness, we did not lose our divine image.

(“Topics on Natural and Theological Science”, Chapters 9-14, Philokalia 4:296-297, 363)

Brother, this blew me away! This is so different from what I have been hearing from EO and some EC on the matter. The latter have all stated that the PRIMARY result of the Original Sin is PHYSICAL death and fear of it is the result of all manner of sin. But here we see St. Palamas teach a view that is completely in line with the Catholic and Oriental understanding - THAT THE PRIMARY RESULT OF THE ORIGINAL SIN IS SPIRITUAL DEATH, NOT PHYSICAL DEATH. It is interesting that St. Palamas did in fact explicitly hold to a belief in the IC of Mary. There seems to have been a change in the teaching of the EO since the time of Palamas. I am thinking it occured in the 19th century as a result of the controversy over the IC. At that time, polemics sought to distance itself as far as possible from the IC which, prior to that time, had been an almost unanimous belief among the EO Fathers. I am surmising that this change in the teaching on Original Sin was spurred by the IC controversy. Given what I know now about what St. Palamas actually taught, I really feel that MODERN EO’xy has really broken from its roots. For many months now, I have been noticing more and more that MODERN EO’xy in several areas of teaching is rather different from HISTORIC EO’xy, MODERN EO’xy being more a child of reactionary anti-Catholicism than being a genuine development from historic EO’xy.

I would love to hear comments from you, both with regards to what I wrote, and with regards to the quote from St. Palamas.

Blessings,
Marduk

Christos Voskres!

The primary difference is that the Western view is more defined, and the Eastern view is more mystical.

The Greek biblical text of Romans 5:12 does contain the phrase “eph’ho pantes hemarton.” The Western Church has traditionally translated this as "in whom all have sinned.

In contrast, the Eastern Fathers understood the word “eph’ho” to modify the preceding word “thanatos,” which means “death.” Therefore the Eastern Church translates the phrase in question as “because of which (death) all have sinned.” Both are legitimate translations of the text. However, this difference in translation changes the meaning of the entire verse.

Thus, the Western Church has traditionally translated the entirety of Romans 5:12 as such:

“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,” (Douay-Rheims Version).

The Eastern Fathers translated the second part of Romans 5:12 as follows:

“…and so death passed upon all men, because of which all have sinned.”

 

[fritzz_ezz]

I’ll respond either on Saturday night or Sunday evening, as I’m heading out to my mother’s funeral.

Basically, there is a Latinazation period of the Eastern Church and since Pope John Paul II, we are making our journey back to our roots.

Alithos anesti!

Fritzz

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

in short the answer is yes.

 

[Ghosty]

Mardukm: Thanks for providing that quote.

As I’ve said many times here and elsewhere, St. Gregory Palamas is not the same as the “neo-Palamites” who came around in the past century or so, these being theologians like Lossky and Meyendorff. Such theologians had an explicit program of distancing the Byzantine tradition from the Latin, and while I believe they were sincere, and that they even did some great work, their approach had the unfortunate effect of blurring the traditional Byzantine theology (which they were trying to recapture) and making a new theology shaped in large part by their presumptions and approach.

The unfortunate thing is that this new theology is being presented as the “authentic Byzantine tradition” by many, so much so that it’s practically the de-facto Eastern Orthodox “tradition” in many places and discussions. This has become such a strong party line that it can be difficult to counter, aside from actually presenting the writings of the Byzantine Fathers themselves.

In my eyes there is a reason that issues such as Original Sin were not viewed as matters seperating East and West at the various reunion Councils, despite the West holding to the same views then as it does today: the Byzantine East and the Latin West held views similar enough, if not identical, to make any differences obviously matters of emphasis or terminology (and oftentimes not even these were different).

My biggest concern is that in trying to “cut away the rot” of Latinism, some genuine healthy Byzantine tissue is being thrown out as well. My main concern at this point is not that the Byzantine tradition should more closely conform to the Latin, but rather that the authentic Byzantine tradition be preserved and not get distorted by modern theologians who have their own agenda in shaping theology. There are certainly points of legitimate diversity, and perhaps even conflict, but Byzantine traditional theology shouldn’t be chopped up and distorted in order to highlight these differences.

Fritzz_ezz:

I’ll respond either on Saturday night or Sunday evening, as I’m heading out to my mother’s funeral.

May her memory be eternal!

Basically, there is a Latinazation period of the Eastern Church and since Pope John Paul II, we are making our journey back to our roots.

It is true that there was a period of Latinization, but what is currently being pushed is not a genuine return to Byzantine roots. It’s a new theology that has taken hold and is being passed off as “completely authentic” when in fact it departs in many significant ways with the past. A perfect example of this is the quote of St. Gregory Palamas, who lived not only before the period of Latinization, but during what was perhaps the most anti-Western periods, and his arguments were against those perceived to be importing “Western ideas” to the Byzantine East.

The modern neo-Palamite theologians are not going back to the theology of St. Gregory Palamas, however, at least not in the case of sin (and I would argue that they distort his teaching on the Essence/Energy distinction, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish). That’s the problem we’re coming up against in this discussion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Marduk,

Thanks so much for your comments. I do not quite understand all of what you mentioned. For years I neglected Our Lady, so I have much catching-up to do, which I started from an Eastern Orthodox vantage rather than Eastern (or Roman) Catholic one. Anyway, there is Scriptural warrant for the Immaculacy of the Blessed Theotokos, if one understands the Angelic Salutation as the Church has expounded its meaning, which, of course, now I do.

May Our Lord Jesus bless you, and His Thrice-Holy Mother, Our Lady, Mary, intercede for you (and for me) with her Son!

Jerry Parker

**You wrote: **I would point out that the dogma of the I[mmacultate] C[conception] does NOT claim that the I.C. is necessary to ensure our Lord’s freedom from original sin. That it is necessary is a theologoumenon that is not attached to the dogma itself. However, there are many who do believe that the dogma of the I.C. implies it.

I myself wholeheartedly believe in the dogma of the I.C., but I do not believe it is necessary to preserve the Immaculateness of our Lord (His own Immaculateness coming about in quite a different manner from the Theotokos’ own immaculateness).

St. Proclus of Constantinople (5th century) seems to be the first who explicitly connected Mary’s Immaculate Conception with the Immaculateness of Jesus’ own flesh. Of course, the belief that Jesus derived his flesh from Mary alone is a unanimous belief of the Church, but the question of the immaculateness of His own flesh being connected to Mary’s own Immaculate Conception does not seem to be explicit until St. Proclus.

An explicit 4th century witness to the Immaculate Conception of Mary is St. Ephraim who wrote that before their respective cosmic decisions (i.e., Eve’s disobedience vs. Mary’s obedience), Eve and Mary were “utterly equal.”

Blessings, Marduk

P.S. God bless you on your journey to Catholicism

 

[mardukm]

Mardukm: Thanks for providing that quote.
The unfortunate thing is that this new theology is being presented as the “authentic Byzantine tradition” by many, so much so that it’s practically the de-facto Eastern Orthodox “tradition” in many places and discussions. This has become such a strong party line that it can be difficult to counter, aside from actually presenting the writings of the Byzantine Fathers themselves.

Is the term “ancestral sin” part of this neo-Eastern Orthodox movement? I have to admit that when I first heard it several years ago, I thought it was strange. I didn’t pay any mind to it at the time, since it seemed reasonable enough to call it that. But now that I think about it, perhaps using the term “ancestral” instead of “original” is simply another tactic for modern EO’xy to distance itself from Catholicism, which, unfortunately, also inadvertantly distances itself from HISTORIC Orthodoxy as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

Is the term “ancestral sin” part of this neo-Eastern Orthodox movement? I have to admit that when I first heard it several years ago, I thought it was strange. I didn’t pay any mind to it at the time, since it seemed reasonable enough to call it that. But now that I think about it, perhaps using the term “ancestral” instead of “original” is simply another tactic for modern EO’xy to distance itself from Catholicism, which, unfortunately, also inadvertantly distances itself from HISTORIC Orthodoxy as well.

Blessings,
Marduk

I honestly don’t know about the use of the term “ancestral sin”. It could be recent, but it could just as easily be an ancient usage. I don’t know because I only read translations from the old Greek, and I’ve seen both terms used in different works; it’s possible that they’re both authentic, but it’s also possible that it’s the work of translators either way.

Peace and God bless!

 

[marymol]

Thank you for all the many good posts above that shed light from diffrent angles and traditions on the truth of The Immaculate Conception .

( And peace and Memory Eternal to mother of Fritzz_ ezz )

Unsure if there is a sense of resentment from those who rightly love and honore all their traditions as to why The Church had to declare the truth of Immaculate Conception as dogma .

One interesting providentail coincidence that has come to mind is the fact that in the U.S and many other areas of the world , it is the Marians of The Immaculate Conception that are also the official promoters of the Divine Mercy Theme .

Divine Mercy devotion and its focus and motto , on trust - "Yeshua , I trust in Thee "

The gift of being able to trust in God , His mercy and goodness and being able to live in accordance to the trust that one is a child of God by His mercy - are they not very great gifts indeed !

True, these are truths that we ought to have known always yet in a changing world of may be intensifying battles , esp. of the spiritual type , these truths had to be specially upheld and reminded again .

The Dogma of Immaculate Conception - is it too not all about trust !

It contrasts and thus helps us to be grateful - when we see the effects of the distrust of the first Eve ( who too was immaculate ) to the far greater extent of trust that our Bl.MOther was called to and was able to offer !

Born of Jewih faith ,a people esp. chosen to show proper reverenece to the holiness of God and where even the high priest was to enter the holy of holies only once a year , Bl.Mother was to trust in the infinite love and humility of God who was going to become incarnate !

She - to be The Mother of such a God !

St.Joseph too, to be living with and taking care of the Godchild !

’ He has seen the lowliness of His handmand ’ - we get a little glimpse of what she herself was to fathom of the vastness of the contrasts and her role !

Would it not have been not only merciful but even just on God’s part that she was to be Immaculate , thus free of the undue fear / lack of trust in God brought on by the lie of satan into our lives by the choice of our first parents !

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception - does it not inturn help us to be grateful for this great trust that our bl.Mother has been able to extend all through her life that she inturn could help us to have more trust in God and His rightful, visible authorities , their guidelines and teachings that are all critical for our times .

’ He has done great things for me ’ - yes, The Father had prepared her to be The Tabernacle and would He not want us too to rejoice in these great things that our own trust in Him would be magnified .

O Mary , conceived without sin, pray for us !

 

[mardukm]

I just found St. Gregory Palamas’ Sermon relating to the IC, for anyone interested:

orthodox.net/sermons/feasts-of-the-theotokos_+entry-of-the-theotokos+by-saint-gregory-palamas.html

Some very interesting points:

1. He says Mary was sinless by nature.
2. He says Mary’s sinlessness is the cause of the sinlessness of Christ’s own human nature.
3. He says that there is a lineage of holiness from Adam that culminated with Mary, the all-holy Theotokos.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I just found St. Gregory Palamas’ Sermon relating to the IC, for anyone interested:

orthodox.net/sermons/feasts-of-the-theotokos_+entry-of-the-theotokos+by-saint-gregory-palamas.html

Some very interesting points:

1. He says Mary was sinless by nature.
2. He says Mary’s sinlessness is the cause of the sinlessness of Christ’s own human nature.
3. He says that there is a lineage of holiness from Adam that culminated with Mary, the all-holy Theotokos.

Blessings,
Marduk

Very interesting, but I would argue not correct. The BVM’s sinlessness was by grace and not the cause of Christ sinlessness (in fact, I could probably argue the opposite way around).

as far as point three, not really sure.

 

[mardukm]

The BVM’s sinlessness was by grace and not the cause of Christ sinlessness (in fact, I could probably argue the opposite way around).

Oh, I agree. I’m just relating what St. Palamas taught in his sermon. St. Proclus of Constantinople in the 5th century also made the same claim as St. Palamas. It seems as if this intimate causal relation between Mary’s sinless nature and Christ’s own sinless nature is a particularly Eastern Byzantine Tradition, not an Oriental one. Not even the dogma of the IC makes such an explicit claim, though I know there are those who argue that the dogma at least implies it (not me, though ).

Blessings