Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?

[Chaldean_Rite]

The Theotokos is not a great exception, she is the Great Example.

And thats another reason why the Orthodox church is not the Spouse of Christ. It just goes against Scripture on this one.

Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, just like the overshadowing in Genesis: a NEW creation, something different than everyone else.

 

[Nicholas82]

And thats another reason why the Orthodox church is not the Spouse of Christ. It just goes against Scripture on this one.

Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, just like the overshadowing in Genesis: a NEW creation, something different than everyone else.

So the Theotokos was something different from us, something above humanity? I wonder where Christ recieved His human nature from…

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

So the Theotokos was something different from us, something above humanity? I wonder where Christ recieved His human nature from…

wrong context: different in the sense of her being conceived without Original Sin, unlike you and me.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Mary was the new Eve. Like Eve was brought forth from Adam without sin so Mary was born without sin so that she could be the mother of our Savior and mother to us all the New EVE. The whole argument over the this issue appears to me to be nothing more than away to divide Gods people and Christ Church.

It also appears to be more of a topic to of discussion between Catholic and Orthodox tan between East and West. Now if there is a difference on this between Eastern Rites Churches and the Western Church that would be worth talking about to increase understanding among Catholics of all your brethren.

 

[Hesychios]

wrong context: different in the sense of her being conceived without Original Sin, unlike you and me.

That would really depend upon your understanding of what original sin actually is though…wouldn’t it?

 

[yeshua]

Anthony, would you please stop with the drive by posting and present your own arguments?

I will help you out on this one, though.

Indeed, we know that there was a 5th Century feast called the “Immaculate Conception” celebrated in the Syrian Church on December 9th. However, then the Monophysite controversy came along, and many Syrian-speaking Christians embraced the heresy of Monophysitism, which taught that Christ had only one nature (that of God) as opposed to two natures (God and man). At this time, the Greek-speaking Emperor at Constantinople started to replace the native, Syrian-speaking bishops of Antioch and the other Syrian bishoprics with Greek bishops from Constantinople. These Greek bishops were resented by the Syrians, and called “Melchites” (from the Syrian word for “king”) because they had been forced upon them by the Emperor.

First, there never was a feast entitled “the Immaculate Conception” because prior to 1854 there was no mention of the “Immaculate Conception” in any liturgical pieces. Second, what Syrian Church are we talking about? Even prior to the breaking of the Oriental Orthodox from the full body there was diversity in the Syrian Churches. Were the St. Thomas Christians celebrating this supposed Syrian Feast? Funny how there is no historical record of them having celebrated the sort either.

Now why bring in the Monophysite controversy? Since the Syrian bishops were supposedly espousing this doctrine that suddenly the Greeks came in and replaced them, and thus replacing also IC belief? How does that add up with IC apologetics that claim even the Greeks used to have a feast of the IC (called the feast of the Immaculate Conception of St. Anne)? One would think that these new Greek heirarchs would be vested in distributing such a feast into their new Syrian flock. I will leave the hilarious comment about the naming of the Melkites to my venerable Melkite brothers.

Well, these Greek bishops had the Greek understanding of Original Sin (an understanding which is different from the Latin and Syrian understanding, and which is still prevalent in the Eastern Orthodox Church today). And, because of this, serious theological objections to this feast of Mary’s Immaculate Conception came into being. Therefore, the feast was eventually withdrawn from both the Greek and the Syrian Liturgical calendar because of these theological disputes (much like the ones we see later in the 13th century). Yet, this December 9th feast was eventually restored in the East, and is still celebrated today in the Eastern Orthodox (Greek) Church as the “Conception of Mary” – a more “politically correct” title for the wary Byzantines.

If these Greek Bishops had a “faulty” understanding than the other traditions (I guess the Greeks and we Syriacs disagree on original sin now? ) why is it that the “Syrian Feast of the Immaculate Conception” did not carry on in the OTHER Syriac Churches that still existed regardless of the split? I would also invite you to look at the actual title used for the particular feast celebrated by the Greeks on December 9th…The Conception by St. Anna of the Most Holy Theotokos…and it never was striken from either Syrian or Greek calendar, your author provides us with no citation for such a claim.

Yet, the feast of the Immaculate Conception did not disappear all together. In the 7th & 8th Centuries, as Islam was overruning the Christian Middle East and more and more Christian bishops fled to the West, we began to have a lot of Syrians elected as Pope! Among these were Pope John V (685-86), Pope St. Sergius I (687-701), Pope Constantine (708-15), Pope St. Gregory III (731-41), etc. Most likely through their influence, or the influence of their disciples, the Syrian feast of the Immaculate Conception was transported to Italy in the mid 7th century.

General scholarship places the emergence of the Immaculate Conception in the West via Anglo-Saxon communities, hence the uproar of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Bonaventure and others against the belief. In fact, like the Eastern teachers, prior to 1476 most Western Fathers held opinions against the IC (i.e. Acquinas). I’m not making a judgment call on the validity of the belief itself, just showing your butchering of Syrian history does not support the belief in the IC, and that it’s emergence either East or West is not of Syriac origin. Ignorance about Syriac theology and expression has been taken for granted to provide such arrogant commentaries about foreign beliefs to our tradition, and it is downright offensive.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[yeshua]

The central issue for using Syriac fathers for “proof” of the IC is to correlate the immaculate and stainless to the idea of sinless or inability to sin. The Syriac Fathers speak droves regarding the former, nothing regarding the latter. Here is why it is not only difficult but entirely inappropriate and vain to try and infer the IC belief of sinless from the stainless, immaculate nature propagated by the Syriac Fathers:

While this is a huge summation, in general terms Syriac theology (especially Ephrem) uses overpowering imagery and paradox that is not supposed to be deduced by reason or the mind, for these things Ephrem and others taught against. Rather, these prayers and poems were exercises of the heart, and a style of prayer that is both precise and based on Syriac mysticism, that is our interaction with creation is a constant interaction with God, our work being to strive towards lifting the veil (theosis or deification). But for Syriacs this is not just a spiritual process but also a physical one. Creation itself by our practices reveals the Hidden God, the God that is behind the veil and basing creation. This is our sacramental world view that Syriacs are criticized so much for. Mary being stainless and more pure than the highest of angels is an exercise of praise towards her status as a model for us to lift the veil and find the Hidden God, and not a statement of theology meant for the hashing of theological discourse. Ephrem preaches against that, and admonished those who taught so. If we praise Mary for her immaculate and stainless nature, so might we take on those robes of humility and walk in her example.

Bearing in mind this context, it is entirely inappropriate to take this worship and play theology games. Ephrem was not out to defend Mary’s stainless nature or imply an Immaculate Conception, he was out to lift the veil and encounter the Hidden God in the way that Syriac Christians do. If she was sinless, then her status as a human being is unfair to us, for how can we look to something that has become extraordinary in our daily pursuit towards lifting the veil? It makes no sense in the Syriac world view, nor in how we view Mary in her interaction with us and her destiny for man. Ephrem said (I am paraphrasing) that Mary was a part for man’s salvation (not to be taken literally and the Co-Redemptrix argument, remember the Syriac context), it is because she is our immaculate model for being humble and willing to God. Remove that choice and elevate her to something beyond the rest of God’s children and you completely negate her role.

Inferring beliefs into Ephrem’s words is offensive to those of us who carry on his theology and teachings. Furthermore, none of the inheritors of the Syriac tradition teach en masse an IC equivalent found in the West, even in the Catholic communities there is no consensus. Far be it for actual Syriacs to know their own Fathers.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[SFH]

Immaculate Conception, Filoque, would be a start.

U-C

I’m not sure I’d consider the Filioque a “dogma.” I’d consider it a liturgical expression unique to the Latin Rite (and Protestant Churches) that further expresses the Latin Rite’s understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit. I doubt the current Holy Father (or any of the recent Popes) would argue against the fundamental principle that the Father is the sole origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit or suggest that the Son is also the origin of the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, the fundamental principle of the Immaculate Conception – that the Most Blessed Virgin was free from sin from the moment of her conception to the moment of her death – is held as dogma by Latin Rite Catholics and Eastern Rite Catholics. Each Rite may explain the doctrine slightly differently depending on its own unique theology (e.g., original sin in the Latin Rite), but that doesn’t mean the belief underlying the explanation is different.

 

[Ghosty]

Remove that choice and elevate her to something beyond the rest of God’s children and you completely negate her role.

I just want to point out that nothing in the Immaculate Conception implies an inability to sin. Mary still had free will, and was able to choose to serve God or not; that is why her Fiat is so highly revered in the Latin tradition.

Adam and Eve were immaculately conceived, and they sinned, and we are immaculate at Baptism, and we sin. I don’t know where this idea came up that the IC means Mary couldn’t sin.

I am troubled by the implication, regardless of one’s stance on the Immaculate Conception, that Mary was a sinner prior to the Annunciation. I would really like to see some evidence that Mary was viewed as having sinned in her life prior to the Annunciation, as it conflicts with every tradition I’m personally familiar with.

Perhaps that is not an intended implication, but it’s what I glean from statements like:

If she was sinless, then her status as a human being is unfair to us, for how can we look to something that has become extraordinary in our daily pursuit towards lifting the veil?

Peace and God bless!

 

[dvdjs]

I
I am troubled by the implication that Mary was a sinner prior to the Annunciation. I would really like to see some evidence that Mary was viewed as having sinned in her life prior to the Annunciation, as it conflicts with every tradition I’m personally familiar with.

In the Byzantine tradition, the liturgical texts of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple are unambiguous: she is called immaculate, long before the annunciation, and is viewed with amazement by the very angels in heaven. What do texts used in the Syrian tradition say?

We also routinely refer to her as, indeed, above all creatures. Is this term of veneration absent from other traditions?

She is exceptional. She, unlike all others, is Theotokos.

 

[yeshua]

I just want to point out that nothing in the Immaculate Conception implies an inability to sin. Mary still had free will, and was able to choose to serve God or not; that is why her Fiat is so highly revered in the Latin tradition.

Adam and Eve were immaculately conceived, and they sinned, and we are immaculate at Baptism, and we sin. I don’t know where this idea came up that the IC means Mary couldn’t sin.

I am troubled by the implication, regardless of one’s stance on the Immaculate Conception, that Mary was a sinner prior to the Annunciation. I would really like to see some evidence that Mary was viewed as having sinned in her life prior to the Annunciation, as it conflicts with every tradition I’m personally familiar with.

Perhaps that is not an intended implication, but it’s what I glean from statements like:

Peace and God bless!

I am not asserting that Mary was a sinner prior to the Annunciation. My assertions, like the following:

If she was sinless, then her status as a human being is unfair to us, for how can we look to something that has become extraordinary in our daily pursuit towards lifting the veil?

Are are not in response to her free will but her status as being concieved from the implication of original sin, and thus elevated to a nature different than our own, and then the consequences it has on Syriac theology (thus the veil comment). It does not make sense for a Syriac to venerate and see Mary as an example when her condition is different than ours in the first place…keeping in mind how a Syriac sees his interaction with Creation and God. Mary is our humble and immaculate role model, elevate her nature to something other than than ours then our paradigm is broken and Ephrem’s statements such as Mary having a destiny for man are left without stock in lieu of with how we see the world.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Are are not in response to her free will but her status as being concieved from the implication of original sin, and thus elevated to a nature different than our own, and then the consequences it has on Syriac theology (thus the veil comment).

Adam and Eve were both came into existence without any type of Original Sin/Guilt on their souls, and we all share the same nature. So if you claim that Mary actual “nature” was actually different than ours, then we are not descendants of Adam and Eve, since all three of them, including Christ’s human nature, did not suffer from Original Sin. I think this approach is definitely erroneous since we now have to distinguish natures between Baptized and non-Baptized persons.

 

[Ghosty]

In the Byzantine tradition, the liturgical texts of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple are unambiguous: she is called immaculate and is viewed with amazement by the very angels in heaven. What do texts tused in the Syrian tradition say?

That’s what bugs me. I’m familiar with the Latin, Byzantine, and Ethiopian traditions on Mary, and they are all unambiguous about her sinlessness prior to the Annunciation. Even putting aside the question of the Immaculate Conception, that Mary was specially Graced from her first moment of existence, we’re left with what seems to be an unquestionable point of Apostolic Tradition that she was sinless.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Yeshua: I second Chaldean Rite’s post. Her nature can’t be different from ours if Adam and Eve have our nature and were immaculate. I think the whole issue of “different nature” misses the point of the Immaculate Conception entirely, and raises difficulties that aren’t actually there.

When we are Baptized, we have the same human nature, but it is also Graced. We don’t say that the Baptized, who are immaculate (initially) , and the un-Baptized have different natures. We don’t say that the Baptized, despite having no sin, are fundamentally different than the un-Baptized except in God’s Grace.

That being said, I agree with you that Syriac writings can’t necessarily be used to prove or support the Immaculate Conception. I would just add that, in the same vein, they can’t be used to attack it either. Since there is no question that Mary had the same nature as ours, the point about her needing to be a model is irrelevant; she is our model of living in Grace, which she always did.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

yeshua, that was a great post. I was trying to figure out how to say it but wasn’t sure.

Mary was the new Eve. Like Eve was brought forth from Adam without sin so Mary was born without sin so that she could be the mother of our Savior and mother to us all the New EVE. The whole argument over the this issue appears to me to be nothing more than away to divide Gods people and Christ Church.

It also appears to be more of a topic to of discussion between Catholic and Orthodox tan between East and West. Now if there is a difference on this between Eastern Rites Churches and the Western Church that would be worth talking about to increase understanding among Catholics of all your brethren.

The concept of the New Eve is imagery. Read yeshua’s great post to get a concept of how the Syriacs think. This imagery is not meant to give a dogmatic proclamation about Mary. St. Ephrem also makes comparisons between the earth and Mary. Like Adam was taken from the virgin earth Christ was taken from the virgin Mary.

Ghosty, in Ephrem’s theology Mary is always taken in relation to the incarnation. She is never spoken of apart from it. When you speak of the words of Ephrem about Mary they are always in relation to the incarnation of Christ. It is a mistake to take his statements of Mary after the incarnation and apply them to her prior to it.

You are right about purity being in relation to Christ. I can not argue about that. But I think that it takes some stretching to say that Ephrem is using the term without there being any impurities to reference.

Ephrem does speak of Mary recieving baptism when Christ was in her womb. And Ephrem is not thinking of simply the pouring of water. He is thinking of the Holy Spirit. Look at this following passage.
“The Son of the Most High came and dwelt in me, and I became his mother. As I gave birth to him, - his second brith - so too he gave birth to me a second time. He put on his mother’s robe - his body; I put on his glory. (H. Nativ.XVI,11)”

In this passage it is Mary who is speaking. The robe of glory is a symbol used by the Syriac fathers to explain the state of purity that was enjoyed by Adam and Eve before the fall. After the fall it was lost and they put on clothing of skins. At baptism we put on the robe of glory. Here Ephrem speaks of Mary puting on the robe of glory.

 

[jimmy]

I just want to point out that nothing in the Immaculate Conception implies an inability to sin. Mary still had free will, and was able to choose to serve God or not; that is why her Fiat is so highly revered in the Latin tradition.

Adam and Eve were immaculately conceived, and they sinned, and we are immaculate at Baptism, and we sin. I don’t know where this idea came up that the IC means Mary couldn’t sin.

I am troubled by the implication, regardless of one’s stance on the Immaculate Conception, that Mary was a sinner prior to the Annunciation. I would really like to see some evidence that Mary was viewed as having sinned in her life prior to the Annunciation, as it conflicts with every tradition I’m personally familiar with.

Perhaps that is not an intended implication, but it’s what I glean from statements like:

Peace and God bless!

I am also interested by your use of the word immaculate in relation to us because that is what I am trying to say. Just because Mary is called immaculate by St. Ephrem does not necessarily mean she never sinned. As you said, we are made immaculate through our baptism. When Christ was in Mary’s womb she recieved baptism and was made immaculate. She put on the robe of glory and was returned to the paradise which Adam and Eve lost.

Yeshua: I second Chaldean Rite’s post. Her nature can’t be different from ours if Adam and Eve have our nature and were immaculate. I think the whole issue of “different nature” misses the point of the Immaculate Conception entirely, and raises difficulties that aren’t actually there.

When we are Baptized, we have the same human nature, but it is also Graced. We don’t say that the Baptized, who are immaculate (initially) , and the un-Baptized have different natures. We don’t say that the Baptized, despite having no sin, are fundamentally different than the un-Baptized except in God’s Grace.

That being said, I agree with you that Syriac writings can’t necessarily be used to prove or support the Immaculate Conception. I would just add that, in the same vein, they can’t be used to attack it either. Since there is no question that Mary had the same nature as ours, the point about her needing to be a model is irrelevant; she is our model of living in Grace, which she always did.

Peace and God bless!

Mary isn’t really a model for us though because she never recieved the temptations which we recieve. She was preserved from all sin and consequently the orientations toward sin which we are subject to. Why would we look to her as a model?

 

[jimmy]

Adam and Eve were both came into existence without any type of Original Sin/Guilt on their souls, and we all share the same nature. So if you claim that Mary actual “nature” was actually different than ours, then we are not descendants of Adam and Eve, since all three of them, including Christ’s human nature, did not suffer from Original Sin. I think this approach is definitely erroneous since we now have to distinguish natures between Baptized and non-Baptized persons.

We all share the same consequences for the sin which they committed as well. These consequences touch on our very nature. yeshua is not saying that she is no longer human but that you have seperated her from the rest of humanity. You have put her into a position where she can’t even understand us and vice versa because she hasn’t even really experienced the fall. She is not a model for living the Christian life and seeking God because she was concieved with everything already given to her.

 

[yeshua]

Yeshua: I second Chaldean Rite’s post. Her nature can’t be different from ours if Adam and Eve have our nature and were immaculate. I think the whole issue of “different nature” misses the point of the Immaculate Conception entirely, and raises difficulties that aren’t actually there.

It misses the point because of it’s incongruence in Syriac Tradition. You can’t have the expectation of it’s understanding when you are dealing with two conflicting theological environments. Yes, we are inheritors of Adam and Eve’s changed nature after the fall, the same nature that Mary inherited. If the IC is true then there is a change separate from the rest of humanity at her conception, creating her as something greater than the inheritors of Adam and Eve’s changed state. This does not fit in the Syriac experience, as Mary’s role is pivotal in that she is an immaculate example of a human being, not an exception to a human being.

That being said, I agree with you that Syriac writings can’t necessarily be used to prove or support the Immaculate Conception. I would just add that, in the same vein, they can’t be used to attack it either.

Attack? The IC is a doctrine created centuries after the Syriac tradition had been flourishing. Then, our saints are looked on retroactively and used to support this 15th century proclamation. And we are attacking? I would say that violence comes when people takes advantage of our Saints’ words and abuses our ancestors beliefs. Forgive me for defending my people from being taken advantage of.

Since there is no question that Mary had the same nature as ours, the point about her needing to be a model is irrelevant; she is our model of living in Grace, which she always did.

Mary does have the same nature as us, thus her exception from the rest of humanity at the moment of her creation affects her role in a Syriac’s practice and theology, which is why the tradition and the IC are incompatible.

Peace and God bless!

 

[yeshua]

Mary isn’t really a model for us though because she never recieved the temptations which we recieve. She was preserved from all sin and consequently the orientations toward sin which we are subject to. Why would we look to her as a model?

Though she was immaculate and pure she was human, with our shared nature and free will to sin. Despite that, it is her humility towards God’s will that is a paramount paradigm for Syriacs (“Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word”). Living in the Creation of the Hidden God, where he reveals himself through his Creation, humility towards his revealed will and acceptance of what is needed to lift the veil is a great archetype. This is why Mary’s reverence is not just because she is the God-Bearer, it’s because she is what it means to be an immaculate human being, as reflected in Mar Ephrem’s words.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[jimmy]

Though she was immaculate and pure she was human, with our shared nature and free will to sin. Despite that, it is her humility towards God’s will that is a paramount paradigm for Syriacs (“Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word”). Living in the Creation of the Hidden God, where he reveals himself through his Creation, humility towards his revealed will and acceptance of what is needed to lift the veil is a great archetype. This is why Mary’s reverence is not just because she is the God-Bearer, it’s because she is what it means to be an immaculate human being, as reflected in Mar Ephrem’s words.

Peace and God Bless.

In that statement I was approaching it from the perspective that she has been immaculately conceived.