Ethiopian Orthodox and the Immaculate Conception

[mardukm]

Something of interest for our Oriental Catholic (and Eastern Catholic) brethren:

A bishop of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church recently discplined a priest for denying the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos.

The Kibre Negest (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebra_Nagast) of the Ethiopian Church states: “But in His mercy God the Father created the pearl in the body of Adam; he cleansed Eve’s body and sanctified it and made it into a dwelling for Adam’s salvation. Thus Mary was born without blemish, for He made Her pure without pollution.”

Of course, this is nothing new, as far as the first millenium Church is concerned about the Immaculate Conception.

There is talk on the Net over the matter, if anyone cares to look (my search engine has gone haywire the past two days, otherwise, I’d provide some links). Of course, some Eastern Orthodox are up in arms about this seeming acceptance of the “RC” doctrine. When are our EO brethren going to learn that the teaching of the IC came from the Eastern Church, not the Latin Church? There are those who claim the IC is a heresy, but it’s not, and never has been (though some EO wish it was).

Blessings

 

[Seamus_L]

I believe Bishop Kallistos Ware stated that it would not be heretical for an Orthodox Christian to believe in the Immaculate Conception.

 

[marlo]

could not find the news any link?

Something of interest for our Oriental Catholic (and Eastern Catholic) brethren:

A bishop of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church recently discplined a priest for denying the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos.

The Kibre Negest (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebra_Nagast) of the Ethiopian Church states: “But in His mercy God the Father created the pearl in the body of Adam; he cleansed Eve’s body and sanctified it and made it into a dwelling for Adam’s salvation. Thus Mary was born without blemish, for He made Her pure without pollution.”

Of course, this is nothing new, as far as the first millenium Church is concerned about the Immaculate Conception.

There is talk on the Net over the matter, if anyone cares to look (my search engine has gone haywire the past two days, otherwise, I’d provide some links). Of course, some Eastern Orthodox are up in arms about this seeming acceptance of the “RC” doctrine. When are our EO brethren going to learn that the teaching of the IC came from the Eastern Church, not the Latin Church? There are those who claim the IC is a heresy, but it’s not, and never has been (though some EO wish it was).

Blessings

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Of course, some Eastern Orthodox are up in arms about this seeming acceptance of the “RC” doctrine. When are our EO brethren going to learn that the teaching of the IC came from the Eastern Church, not the Latin Church? There are those who claim the IC is a heresy, but it’s not, and never has been (though some EO wish it was).

I would venture to say that it’s not so much the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception itself that many Eastern Orthodox Christians reject, but that it was proclaimed or defined a dogma by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, and not an Ecumenical Council. Since the EO don’t believe in papal infallibility, defining the IC as dogma would required (according to them) an Ecumenical Council.

 

[gamesport]

I would venture to say that it’s not so much the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception itself that many Eastern Orthodox Christians reject, but that it was proclaimed or defined a dogma by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, and not an Ecumenical Council. Since the EO don’t believe in papal infallibility, defining the IC as dogma would required (according to them) an Ecumenical Council.

I was reading this summary, of the 8 councils by John Chapman. You might find it interesting

 

[Ad_Gentes]

I was reading this summary, of the 8 councils by John Chapman. You might find it interesting

I started reading this “summary”, but failed to see what you were pointing to. If you were attempting to prove papal infallibility to me, then just look at my profile and you will see that I am a Catholic. If on the other hand you were trying to prove that Eastern Orthodox accepted papal infallibility prior to the Great Schism or to Photios patriarchate, for matter, I would have to say that Orthodox Christians would most likely disagree with that. To start, the book was written by a Roman Catholic. That in itself does not mean the information is not reliable, but it would probably raise suspicion from our Orthodox brethren. That is evident by the title, The First Eight General Councils (emphasis mine), since the Eastern Orthodox only accept the first seven and the Oriental Orthodox the first three. That being said, I am not an Eastern Orthodox Christian and do not pretend to know all about their believes. But I have read enough to know (or at least to conclude) that papal infallibility (the way it was defined in Vatican I) was never accepted in the East. Now, papal infallibility has been discussed extensively in other threads and, while related to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, should probably be discussed separately. Again, I only wanted to point out that many Eastern Orthodox reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not because of the dogma itself, but because it was defined ex cathedra by the Pope and not an Ecumenical Council.

 

[Aramis]

I believe Bishop Kallistos Ware stated that it would not be heretical for an Orthodox Christian to believe in the Immaculate Conception.

His Excellency Bishop Kallistos is NOT the definitive speaker for his synod.

And further, the Tehwado church isn’t part of the Eastern Orthodox Communion, but the Oriental Orthodox Communion. Union with the Coptic Pope of Alexandria… not communion with the Sees of Moscow and Constantinople.

 

[mardukm]

His Excellency Bishop Kallistos is NOT the definitive speaker for his synod.

On the other hand, Father Laurent Cleenewerck (apparently a member of the same local Church as Bishop Ware), in his book “His Broken Body”, notes that his Synod has never repudiated Bishop Kallistos’ statements.

books.google.com/books?id=oeKOUb6OcG4C&pg=PA404&lpg=PA404&dq=Eastern+Orthodox+synod+immaculate+conception&source=bl&ots=pqYYiVzae6&sig=koTLCNjBjNvvYIF-DsFJHIbN9BM&hl=en&ei=2JLZSsvBJI3KsQP36vCxCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Eastern%20Orthodox%20synod%20immaculate%20conception&f=false

Blessings

 

[Aramis]

On the other hand, Father Laurent Cleenewerck (apparently a member of the same local Church as Bishop Ware), in his book “His Broken Body”, notes that his Synod has never repudiated Bishop Kallistos’ statements.

books.google.com/books?id=oeKOUb6OcG4C&pg=PA404&lpg=PA404&dq=Eastern+Orthodox+synod+immaculate+conception&source=bl&ots=pqYYiVzae6&sig=koTLCNjBjNvvYIF-DsFJHIbN9BM&hl=en&ei=2JLZSsvBJI3KsQP36vCxCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Eastern%20Orthodox%20synod%20immaculate%20conception&f=false

Blessings

Nor have they confirmed them.

The Eastern Orthodox generally don’t repudiate individual bishops opinions unless it’s creating a schism, or it’s clearly heretical.

If anything, the EO, as a rule, only hold united a belief in what they themselves have decalred dogmatic in the 7 Ecumenical Councils, and what they deem doctrinal from the couple of pan-orthodox councils. They have not, as a body, repudiated the Immaculate Conception. They have held that, at some point in her life, she became holy. They just don’t pin it to her conception. Some deny it could be, like HE Kallistos. Others don’t.

 

[mardukm]

Nor have they confirmed them.

The Eastern Orthodox generally don’t repudiate individual bishops opinions unless it’s creating a schism, or it’s clearly heretical.

If anything, the EO, as a rule, only hold united a belief in what they themselves have decalred dogmatic in the 7 Ecumenical Councils, and what they deem doctrinal from the couple of pan-orthodox councils. They have not, as a body, repudiated the Immaculate Conception. They have held that, at some point in her life, she became holy. They just don’t pin it to her conception. Some deny it could be, like HE Kallistos. Others don’t.

Which only proves Bishop Ware’s whole point - that the IC is a valid theologoumenon in the EOC, correct?

Blessings

 

[Aramis]

Which only proves Bishop Ware’s whole point - that the IC is a valid theologoumenon in the EOC, correct?

Blessings

Not being EO myself…

What it proves is that the IC might be valid or invalid as a theologumenon, and the EOC hasn’t had reason to force a decision.

Until the EO are in formal communion with a church that has the IC as doctrine, it’s still up in the air. Several EO theologians reject the IC.

It not being a heresy is not the same as being acceptable, either.

 

[mardukm]

Not being EO myself…

What it proves is that the IC might be valid or invalid as a theologumenon, and the EOC hasn’t had reason to force a decision.

On what authority would they base such a decision (I mean, to declare it heresy)? There is too much Eastern testimony to belief in the IC prior to the mid-19th century.

I suppose given the down-up ecclesiology of the EOC, it is possible, though, and that would be sad. So much for all the EO knocks on the “development of doctrine.”

Blessings

P.S. I will be away for at least two weeks beginning today.

 

[gamesport]

I started reading this “summary”, but failed to see what you were pointing to. If you were attempting to prove papal infallibility to me, then just look at my profile and you will see that I am a Catholic.

I actually saw your profile before posting it, and i believe its of no relevance in this discussion. I don’t need to prove anything to you.

If on the other hand you were trying to prove that Eastern Orthodox accepted papal infallibility prior to the Great Schism or to Photios patriarchate, for matter, I would have to say that Orthodox Christians would most likely disagree with that.

Agreed, and thats one of the reasons why i posted it

To start, the book was written by a Roman Catholic. That in itself does not mean the information is not reliable, but it would probably raise suspicion from our Orthodox brethren.

This is of no relevance, to the point of me posting the article

That is evident by the title, The First Eight General Councils (emphasis mine), since the Eastern Orthodox only accept the first seven and the Oriental Orthodox the first three. That being said, I am not an Eastern Orthodox Christian and do not pretend to know all about their believes. But I have read enough to know (or at least to conclude) that papal infallibility (the way it was defined in Vatican I) was never accepted in the East. Now, papal infallibility has been discussed extensively in other threads and, while related to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, should probably be discussed separately. Again, I only wanted to point out that many Eastern Orthodox reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not because of the dogma itself, but because it was defined ex cathedra by the Pope and not an Ecumenical Council.

If you really read the “article” you would see that my “point” in posting that is showing you that Popes have been making Ex Cathedra statements, long before the break between East and West calcified. Including those statments or formulas of belief that were sent By St. Leo, St. Hormisdas, and St Agatho, to the Councils before they were accepted by the Council. Those were Ex Cathedra statements whether or not the councils eventually accepted them. i.e. they would have remained Ex Cathedra even if those councils rejected them. The modern rejection of Ex Cathedra statement of Popes is itself a “development” (to put it nicely) in the East.

 

[narrowpath]

Here’s a thread on the same subject in an Orthodox forum, if anyone’s interested. We have some Ethiopian Orthodox posting.

orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23741.0.html

Also, remember that the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) have a different understanding of Ancestral sin than the western Original Sin. IF this is indeed the case, then the Ethiopians would undoubtedly mean this purity in a manner holding to the Orthodox teaching, and would not be exactly like the Roman Immaculate conception.

 

[gamesport]

Here’s a thread on the same subject in an Orthodox forum, if anyone’s interested. We have some Ethiopian Orthodox posting.

orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23741.0.html

Also, remember that the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) have a different understanding of Ancestral sin than the western Original Sin. IF this is indeed the case, then the Ethiopians would undoubtedly mean this purity in a manner holding to the Orthodox teaching, and would not be exactly like the Roman Immaculate conception.

Thanks for the link. You might be interested in this:
razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-vs-original-sin-false.html

 

[mardukm]

Dear narrowpath,

Here’s a thread on the same subject in an Orthodox forum, if anyone’s interested. We have some Ethiopian Orthodox posting.

orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23741.0.html

Also, remember that the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) have a different understanding of Ancestral sin than the western Original Sin. IF this is indeed the case, then the Ethiopians would undoubtedly mean this purity in a manner holding to the Orthodox teaching, and would not be exactly like the Roman Immaculate conception.

Despite having little time, I had to take the time to respond to this when I read this.

Your statement is simply not true. The Oriental and Western understanding of original sin are much closer to each other than to the Eastern Orthodox understanding (or what passes for such nowadays). What happens is that certain EO polemicists have created a caricature of the Western teaching on original sin, and certain OO, wishing Orthodox unity, prefer to listen to the cow tell about the horse, than the horse tell about the horse. I wish I had time to explain this further.

Please read this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5748606&postcount=5

Also, please do take the time to read the link given by gamesport.

As far as the link to the orthodoxchristianity website, no one there has yet been able to explain exactly what it is about the Catholic teaching that is objectionable (much less, heretical). All objections so far (in other threads on that website) have been demostrated to be based on misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the teaching.

Blessings

 

[Harpazo]

Something of interest for our Oriental Catholic (and Eastern Catholic) brethren:

A bishop of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church recently discplined a priest for denying the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos.

The Kibre Negest (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebra_Nagast) of the Ethiopian Church states: “But in His mercy God the Father created the pearl in the body of Adam; he cleansed Eve’s body and sanctified it and made it into a dwelling for Adam’s salvation. Thus Mary was born without blemish, for He made Her pure without pollution.”

Of course, this is nothing new, as far as the first millenium Church is concerned about the Immaculate Conception.

There is talk on the Net over the matter, if anyone cares to look (my search engine has gone haywire the past two days, otherwise, I’d provide some links). Of course, some Eastern Orthodox are up in arms about this seeming acceptance of the “RC” doctrine. When are our EO brethren going to learn that the teaching of the IC came from the Eastern Church, not the Latin Church? There are those who claim the IC is a heresy, but it’s not, and never has been (though some EO wish it was).

Blessings

I’m confused why you are perpetuating this claim, however well-intentioned it is. I know exactly where you got the idea to start the thread, as narrowpath linked to. If you read the rest of the postings from the other Ethiopian Tewahedo members, they said their understanding is much closer to the Chalcedonian Orthodox position than the RC.

It also begs this question: where is the reaction to it from the other Patriarchs in the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Church? The Armenian Church and Coptic Churches both explicitly teach that they do NOT belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos. I’m sorry, but this thread smacks of triumphalism and arrogance. It’s similar to when Orthodox say to Eastern Catholics “You really believe as we do about the Pope, but you don’t know it yet.” How completely ridiculous for either side to say that!

Please stop pushing these claims that the Orthodox believe in Roman Catholic dogmas. They don’t.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

I’m confused why you are perpetuating this claim, however well-intentioned it is. I know exactly where you got the idea to start the thread, as narrowpath linked to.

I started this thread to show that belief in the IC is not averse to the Oriental Tradition (it’s already a given in the Eastern Tradition, though modern EO deny it for some reason). I have expressed in other threads in the past that the IC is easier to accept by OO rather than EO because the OO concept of original sin is closer to the Latin understanding.

If you read the rest of the postings from the other Ethiopian Tewahedo members, they said their understanding is much closer to the Chalcedonian Orthodox position than the RC.

A claim without foundation, IMHO. Just ask those Ethiopian Christians what they think the Catholic Church teaches about the IC. Some Ethiopians look to HH Pope Shenoute for guidance on the matter, but if you’ve read the other large IC thread at that website, as well as the links Father Ambrose gave, you’ll see that the Pope unfortunately has a misunderstanding of the dogma. The two reasons that the Pope has given why the Copts do not believe in the IC are: 1) It teaches that Mary did not have a natural birth from a mother and father; 2) it teaches that Mary did not have God as her savior. Since you were Catholic, I’m sure you already know that those have no part in the teaching of the IC (the first claim was explicitly condemned by the Pope of Rome in the 17th century; the second is explicitly refuted by the dogma itself which states positively that it is God who saved Mary from original sin). If these Ethiopians have imbibed HH’s own misunderstanding of the IC, then we can see where they are coming from - and it is a place which has no basis for rejecting the Catholic teaching.

It also begs this question: where is the reaction to it from the other Patriarchs in the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Church? The Armenian Church and Coptic Churches both explicitly teach that they do NOT belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos. I’m sorry, but this thread smacks of triumphalism and arrogance. It’s similar to when Orthodox say to Eastern Catholics “You really believe as we do about the Pope, but you don’t know it yet.” How completely ridiculous for either side to say that!

Please stop pushing these claims that the Orthodox believe in Roman Catholic dogmas. They don’t.

I’m sorry that you feel it is triumphalistic. On the other hand, I simply don’t understand why you would feel the Orthodox faith would be threatened at the thought that the IC was and is believed by some Orthodox. It was certainly explicitly taught by Eastern and Oriental Fathers since the 5th century. For example, St. Proclus of Constantinople taught: “As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.”

Blessings

 

[gamesport]

D For example, St. Proclus of Constantinople taught: “As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.”

Blessings

Thats just the tip of the iceberg. These quotes are take from Eirenikon(Links Below). Which posted an article By Father Lev Gillet

From Chrysostom, Vol. VI, No. 5 (Spring 1983), pp. 151-159.

—A contemporary and opponent of Photius, the monk Theognostes, wrote in a homily for the feast of the Dormition, that Mary was conceived by “a sanctifying action”, ex arches - from the beginning. It seems to me that this ex arches exactly corresponds to the “in primo instanti“ of Roman theology. "

– St Euthymes, patriarch of Constantinople (+917), in the course of a homily on the conception of St Anne (that is to say, on Mary’s conception by Anne and Joachim) said that it was on this very day (touto semerou) that the Father fashioned a tabernacle (Mary) for his Son, and that this tabernacle was “fully sanctified” (kathagiazei). There again we find the idea of Mary’s sanctification in primo instanti conceptionis. (3)"

–(St) Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of the hesychasm (+1360) in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand, Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans conceptionis“, and on the other, he states quite as categorically as any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”.

–The Emperor Manuel II Paleologus (+1425) also pronounced a homily on the Dormition. In it, he affirms in precise terms Mary’s sanctification in primo instanti. He says that Mary was full of grace “from the moment of her conception” and that as soon as she began to exist … there was no time when Jesus was not united to her”. We must note that Manuel was no mere amateur in theology. He had written at great length on the procession of the Holy Spirit and had taken part in doctrinal debates during his journeys in the West. One can, therefore, consider him as a qualified representative of the Byzantine theology of his time. (5)

–George Scholarios (+1456), the last Patriarch of the Byzantine Empire, has also left us a homily on the Dormition and an explicit affirmation of the Immaculate Conception. He says that Mary was “all pure from the first moment of her existence” (gegne theion euthus). (6)

– It is rather strange that the most precise Greek affirmation of the Immaculate Conception should come from the most anti-Latin, the most “Protestantizing” of the patriarchs of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris (+1638). He too gave a sermon on the Dormition of Our Lady. He said that Mary “was wholly sanctified from the very first moment of her conception (ole egiasmene en aute te sullepsei) when her body was formed and when her soul was united to her body”; and further on he writes: “As for the Panaghia, who is there who does not know that she is pure and immaculate, that she was a spotless instrument, sanctified in her conception and her birth, as befits one who is to contain the One whom nothing can contain?” (7)Panaghia, who is there who does not know that she is pure and immaculate, that she was a spotless instrument, sanctified in her conception and her birth, as befits one who is to contain the One whom nothing can contain?” (7)

**It was after the Bull of Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, of 8 December, 1854, that the greater part of the Greek Church seems to have turned against belief in the Immaculate Conception. Yet, in 1855, the Athenian professor, Christopher Damalas, was able to declare:

“We have always held and always taught this doctrine. This point is too sacred to give rise to quarrels and it has no need of a deputation from Rome**”.

Read the fascinating 4 part article here

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

 

[crowcounty]

maybe he thought the priest was inspiring friction over non dogmatic matters