How to Eastern Catholics accept the Immaculate Conception?

[Marybeloved]

Probably the best statement can be found here: newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm

St. Thomas synthesises the Roman and Greek thinking on the issue, and proposes a double purification, with each stage cleansing our Lady from certain defects of human nature.

Note that St. Thomas draws from St. John Damacene, whose preaching remains the bedrock of Greek “opinion” (St. Thomas’s s word) on the matter.

In fact my own understanding of it, as I was taught, is that as she was conceived, she was infused with super-abundant grace in view of Christ’s merits. That super-abundant grace “spilled” onto her flesh due to the union of soul and body and transformed it to original perfection, so that when she conceived, the nature that she passed on to Christ was an ordered nature.

 

[Marybeloved]

Let’s tackle this from yet another angle. Was Christ’s body before the resurrection incorruptible or corruptible?

Christ’s body was corruptible, in that he felt hunger, thirst, heat. We know his body grew from infancy to manhood, which implies that it was subject to the normal effects of growth and the worldly environment. He bled, and ultimately died.

However, his body did not suffer the “war between the parts and the spirit” that St. Paul describes. Christ’s body did not create desire within him like it does in us.

Is this correct?

I don’t know what “corruptible” means here exactly- but the rest of Warrenton’s post is correct.

Q: Why do people assume that capacity to suffer is a strict result of the fall? Are we told that Adam was created “incapable” of suffering or rather, just without suffering? Rather, suffering itself was the result of the fall, not the ability to experience it. I believe that Adam & Eve could suffer, or had the ability/capacity to, but never did because no cause of suffering entered their world (it was made all-good, just like them) until they opened the doors for it by their own sin. It does not mean that their natures were created with incapacity for suffering. We know that their sin:

• Lost grace and God’s intimate friendship
• Caused a dis-order in their very natures, or concupiscence, or rebellion of the lower natures
• Caused a fall in the world itself which is to say all the creation tied to man and made for him as his world.

So Christ could definitely be sinless and with an unfallen nature but still experience suffering as a result of Adam’s sin. What he did not have was concupiscence.

Peace!

 

[Cavaradossi]

What is the Orthodox belief on this - if it’s possible to set it out briefly!!

Much the same. He had a corruptible body before the fall.

 

[Marybeloved]

Of course human nature was meant to be in the image and likeness of God. But the Fall of Man changed that, and that is what Jesus sought to restore, and He did by conquering death by His own death. Christ needed to possess what we have so that he can repair the damage done by Adam. Thus with human nature restored, we can be restored as well. Why do you think Christ had to die?

More so let me add this, Constantine. Christ most certainly did possess what we have (our nature), but certainly not our corruption (what it lacks-lost by sin). He took up our nature but not its disorders.

Another reason I find the Eastern take on this (as represented here by you) to be bizarre is the fact that you present a strange paradox. You equate the restoration of human nature to salvation itself and then insist that Christ himself (the savior!) was also likewise fallen!- You basically say that Christ himself was in need of salvation! That when he saved us on the Cross, he likewise saved himself! Does that not strike you as bizarre?

Blessings!

 

[Warrenton]

In fact my own understanding of it, as I was taught, is that as she was conceived, she was infused with super-abundant grace in view of Christ’s merits. That super-abundant grace “spilled” onto her flesh due to the union of soul and body and transformed it to original perfection, so that when she conceived, the nature that she passed on to Christ was an ordered nature.

I’m not suggesting that this isn’t correct. As a Catholic, I must accept the IC as formulated by the pope. I understand that my freedom to dissent from the dogmatic articulation of the IC is abrogated.

However, I still am allowed to trace the development of the doctrine that I am bound to accept.

I like St. Thomas’s explanation in the Summa, because it predates the expression we use by at least 100 years. We follow Duns Scotus. St. Thomas, writing before Duns Scotus, draws on the developing concepts of the IC and compares then to earlier teachings of the Fathers. He concludes that there are several different “opinions” on the matter. One opinion goes in the direction Duns Scotus, and later all the Catholic Church would take. The other is older, and focuses on the idea that (1) Mary was conceived in the ordinary way; (2) conception is what makes us susceptible to sinfulness; and (3) the Fathers speak of Mary’s sinlessness as occurring at birth rather than at conception. St. Thomas noted that if St. Mary were conceived sinless, it would be problematic in claiming that she “needed” Christ to save her.

Until this thread, I had not read St. Thomas’s writings on our Lady’s nature. They are most interesting and inspiring, and I highly recommend them - they are not hard to understand. As I read them, I thought St. Thomas is uniquely positioned to reconcile modern Catholic dogma and Orthodox belief.

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m not suggesting that this isn’t correct. As a Catholic, I must accept the IC as formulated by the pope. I understand that my freedom to dissent from the dogmatic articulation of the IC is abrogated.

However, I still am allowed to trace the development of the doctrine that I am bound to accept.

I like St. Thomas’s explanation in the Summa, because it predates the expression we use by at least 100 years. We follow Duns Scotus. St. Thomas, writing before Duns Scotus, draws on the developing concepts of the IC and compares then to earlier teachings of the Fathers. He concludes that there are several different “opinions” on the matter. One opinion goes in the direction Duns Scotus, and later all the Catholic Church would take. The other is older, and focuses on the idea that (1) Mary was conceived in the ordinary way; (2) conception is what makes us susceptible to sinfulness; and (3) the Fathers speak of Mary’s sinlessness as occurring at birth rather than at conception. St. Thomas noted that if St. Mary were conceived sinless, it would be problematic in claiming that she “needed” Christ to save her.

But St. Thomas was definitely wrong on this reasoning and that’s what the church clarified in the IC definition. In view of Christ’s merits, is the crucial line. God gave Mary Grace just as he gives us, by Christ’s merits.

I always use this example: Superman flies in to rescue two women. One has fallen into a mine/cave-in, the other is just stepping into the hole unable to pull back or stop herself. The latter, he holds back from falling, the former he retrieves from the hole- Was any one of them any less in need of salvation? Any one less in need of Super-man’s intervention?

Peace!

 

[Warrenton]

But St. Thomas was definitely wrong on this reasoning

Good analogies, and I understand them.

I am not certain St. Thomas was wrong, however. He expressed several views in his works. Summa does not seem to condemn what would eventually be the Catholic dogmatic statement, but rather as pointing out what needs to be clarified there. I expect Duns Scotus was familar with St. Thomas’s work, and that his articulation of the IC addresses the concerns St. Thomas noted.

 

[Vico]

Unfortunately, my catechesis growing up was subpar to say the least. I’m largely self-taught on that particular issue. What you mention seems reflected in the Catechism (cf. #1996ff). Different terms are used interchangeably sometimes too. Like baptismal grace will be called “sanctifying grace.” Or prevenient grace might be equated to an “actual” grace (#2000). I derived much of my understanding of prevenient grace from the Council of Trent’s session on Justification and a bit from the concluding paragraphs of the Council of Orange. I’m pretty sure St. Thomas Aquinas talks about this too, but if I remember right, the last time I read that section of his, I didn’t understand it. Maybe I would now.

That makes sense. I was catechised the first time using the Baltimore Catechism series. Later I received the eastern Catholic catechesis. I found that one book was easy to read and certainly covers the basics of grace from the Latin theology: The Faith Explained (3rd Edition) by Leo J. Trese, Paperback, 580 pp.

Fr. Hardon History and Theology of Grace is a good review:
therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_013.htm

The eastern theology has not broken grace down into categories so much but rather simply it is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that nutures us bringing about, with out cooperation, Theosis. I like the simplicity. Yet, St. John Chrysostom identified ten effects of infant baptism. That does seem quite detailed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

More so let me add this, Constantine. Christ most certainly did possess what we have (our nature), but certainly not our corruption (what it lacks-lost by sin). He took up our nature but not its disorders.

Another reason I find the Eastern take on this (as represented here by you) to be bizarre is the fact that you present a strange paradox. You equate the restoration of human nature to salvation itself and then insist that Christ himself (the savior!) was also likewise fallen!- You basically say that Christ himself was in need of salvation! That when he saved us on the Cross, he likewise saved himself! Does that not strike you as bizarre?

Blessings!

Where did I say Christ needed salvation? You’re adding your personal interpretation to my statements and making them my statements. I never said that. Yes, the restoration of human nature is salvation itself. That is why the objective of Orthodox (which includes Eastern Catholics) is Theosis. Christ did not become man, died and resurrected to make evil men good. Christ did so to make dead men live. Christ had to take the imperfection of man and make it perfect by adding His perfection as God. Remember, Christ said, “be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.” That is impossible to do, no one can be perfect as God is. Unless of course we unite ourselves to Christ. That is why Christ said, “those who follow my commandments live in me and I in them, as I live in the Father and He in me.” So by living in Christ, we live in the Father through Christ. That is Theosis. That is the path to salvation in the Eastern praxis. We are not saved by doing good, we are saved by partaking in the life of God.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Christ came to reconcile humanity to God. He became one of us, a biological descendant of Adam, and took Adam’s place at the center of our race, becoming the 2nd Adam. He offered a free and perfect gift of himself, a sacrifice of love on the cross, as the perfect and spotless lamb without blemish. Because he was God, his gift of self was infinite in worth. Because he was both man and the new Adam, he could offer himself as the representative and Priest for mankind, so that his perfect sacrifice was mankind’s sacrifice. Love is paid only with love, God responded to Christ’s self-gift with an outpouring or self-gift of God and grace infinite was showered on Christ by merit of love, so God the Holy Spirit was “given” to Christ and grace infinite. And because we are joined to him as new Adam, just as he offered us to God in himself as our priest and representative, he receives the gifts for us, and the grace restores us. His sacrifice accomplished:

This is where East and West diverge. East sees the problem that humanity has a wounded nature that needs to be healed. That is why we see sin as an affliction, a sickness, rather than an offense that gets punished. The Western theology is that of a legalistic approach to theology. We offended God and thus need to make amends lest we pay the consequences.

• In Christ, Mankind makes a perfect act of worship to his creator
• In doing so, he made satisfaction for Adam’s rebellion and all our sin, by overriding it or “paying for it” with his own perfect love as our representative.
• God answers by equal love so that the relationship is repaired and raised higher according to the self-surrender of Christ, thus mankind is reconciled to its maker in Christ.

This is just the perpetuation of the same old misrepresentation of Western theology. Original sin means two things: 1) Absence of grace in the soul till baptism
2) fallen nature. So saying you don’t believe in original sin means you believe that children are born with grace and perfect natures and don’t participate in Adam’s fallen state

So let me ask:
Q: Do you believe that man is born in the state of friendship with God?
Q: Do you believe that man is born in the state of grace?
Q: Do you believe in the necessity of grace for man’s communion with the Blessed Trinity? For holiness?

These questions have been addressed earlier in this thread. I suggest reading what I have already posted.

Again, let me ask,
Q: Do you believe that Mary was without grace at any point in her life?
Q: If not, when and by what process did she receive it considering she had no access to the sacraments?

Peace!

Same here, I have already answered this. No need to argue in circles.

 

[Marybeloved]

Where did I say Christ needed salvation? You’re adding your personal interpretation to my statements and making them my statements. I never said that. Yes, the restoration of human nature is salvation itself.

Constantine, I really am only just following the truths/principles you’ve presented to their logical conclusion in order to show why I myself disagree. I have no intention of misrepresenting them.

I myself believe that your bolded statement above is 100% true. But unlike you, I do not believe that Jesus’ human nature needed any such restoration because I hold that it was not fallen. You’re the one who says that Jesus took on the fallen nature in order to restore it, and the restoration is salvation. This is not a difficult conclusion to draw from the theology you presented.

1. Salvation is restoration of human nature
2. Jesus’ nature was fallen like ours
3. Therefore, Jesus’ nature itself needs the restoration that we all need!

-Unless you want to say that Christ’s nature remains fallen still, the above conclusion is a direct consequence of the theory you presented.

I, myself hold that:

1. Salvation begins with Reconciliation with God through infusion of sanctifying Grace
2. It continues in Restoration of human nature through sanctifying grace now active in the believer
3. Glorification is the crowning of human nature by God.

I do not believe that Christ’s nature needed any restoration, only Glorification. Adam himself was perfect in his human nature and in the state of Grace, but not Glorified.

Blessings!

 

[Marybeloved]

This is where East and West diverge. East sees the problem that humanity has a wounded nature that needs to be healed. That is why we see sin as an affliction, a sickness, rather than an offense that gets punished. The Western theology is that of a legalistic approach to theology. We offended God and thus need to make amends lest we pay the consequences.

No Constantine, this is not true of western theology, at all. Western Catholic theology is clear- Man is restored in stages:
-First sanctifying grace justifies, restores a communion with the Blessed Trinity at Baptism.
-Then this sanctifying grace and the life of the Blessed Trinity in the soul restores the soul gradually. This precipitates a war with the fallen nature which is struggled against. The life of God in you is increased by participating in the sacraments, prayer and asceticism, co-operating with God the Holy Spirit working to restore you. A saint is a person in whom this perfection has been done, and the disorder (concupiscence) has been healed.
-After all, Glorification is what God crowns you with. At the end of time, even the body is glorified.

What Christ did on the Cross is not legalistic per Western theology- you’re not really getting the actual point being made. Christ made a gift of himself to God- that’s what a sacrifice is- This beautiful gift provoked a response of equal love and outpouring of God on Christ. We being joined to him access the same self-giving and the same participation in the Divine life that Christ himself enjoys in his humanity.

Does Eastern theology teach that Christ did not give himself perfectly to his father in love on the cross?
Does it teach that this act of love did not make up for man’s rebellion?
Does it teach that God did not also love the son in return?

-Christ’s free and perfect love merited God’s out-pouring on him and through him, on us, as equal love for love, we don’t merit any of it. Not the best of us, not the Blessed Virgin herself- nobody but the God-man. It’s the divine life! This life is then what vivifies us and restores us and crowns us.

Peace!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well the death of Christ on the cross is seen in the Western praxis as payment for the debt of mankind, the debt of sin. Basically, we did something wrong (original sin) that we cannot pay for it, and only the perfect sacrifice of the Son of God can ever repay this debt.

 

[Marybeloved]

Well the death of Christ on the cross is seen in the Western praxis as payment for the debt of mankind, the debt of sin. Basically, we did something wrong (original sin) that we cannot pay for it, and only the perfect sacrifice of the Son of God can ever repay this debt.

This is just a gross distortion. I’ve already presented an understanding that spans the meaning and purpose of Christ’s perfect love that is much deeper than you present.

To the West, the sacrifice of Christ was so perfect and infinite due to the fact that it was a God-man’s love and gift of self, not an incarnating angel or a new perfect man. It was perfect worship, it merits God’s own self-gift and outpouring on us (in Christ) and also by far overrides any sin by mankind due to its infinite love-just like the scriptures say. By Christ’s act of love- mankind loves God as opposed to rejecting him (in Adam and our own sin), so Christ by perfect love overrides the sin of Adam infinitely. In him, makind is not the fallen race, but God’s own race!

You are reducing the Western understanding to a caricature when it’s much deeper than that. You’re painting it as legalistic when it’s based entirely on love- God’s love, Christ’s love, mankind’s love- That’s what I’m objecting to.

And about debt- I have one Q: When you sin, you fail in charity of your God, do you feel there’s no debt of the love you failed to give? We hold that there’s a debt of love- not like some legalistic punishment, but definitely by justice. We also hold that we get God’s own love (charity) with which we can love him, because ours is too small- not just because we’re sinners, but because to love an infinite being, you need infinite love- This infinite love is a gift we get simply because of Christ and cannot be merited but only accepted and co-operated with.

 

[Marybeloved]

Well the death of Christ on the cross is seen in the Western praxis as payment for the debt of mankind, the debt of sin. Basically, we did something wrong (original sin) that we cannot pay for it, and only the perfect sacrifice of the Son of God can ever repay this debt.

This is just a gross distortion. I’ve already presented an understanding that spans the meaning and purpose of Christ’s perfect love that is much deeper than you present.

To the West, the sacrifice of Christ was so perfect and infinite due to the fact that it was a God-man’s love and gift of self, not an incarnating angel or a new perfect man. It was perfect worship, it merits God’s own self-gift and outpouring on us (in Christ) and also by far overrides any sin by mankind due to its infinite love-just like the scriptures say. By Christ’s act of love- mankind loves God as opposed to rejecting him (in Adam and our own sin), so Christ by perfect love overrides the sin of Adam infinitely.

You are reducing the Western understanding to a caricature when it’s much deeper than that. It’s all about true *self-gift *in relationship and participation in each-other (union). You’re painting it as legalistic when it’s based entirely on love- God’s love, Christ’s love, mankind’s love. That’s what I’m objecting to.

And about debt- I have one Q: When you sin, you fail in charity of your God, do you feel there’s no debt of the love you failed to give? We hold that there’s a debt of love- not like some legalistic punishment, but definitely by justice. We also hold that we get God’s own love (charity) with which we can love him, because ours is too small- not just because we’re sinners, but because to love an infinite being, you need infinite love- This infinite love is a gift we get simply because of Christ and cannot be merited but only accepted and co-operated with.

 

[Marybeloved]

Well the death of Christ on the cross is seen in the Western praxis as payment for the debt of mankind, the debt of sin. Basically, we did something wrong (original sin) that we cannot pay for it, and only the perfect sacrifice of the Son of God can ever repay this debt.

I’m also curious how the Eastern praxis as you present it, understands this scripture and others like it

"“In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins.” 1 Jn 4

 

[dvdjs]

What do you think of that excerpt you posted? Is it an accurate assessment, in your own opinion?

I didn’t realize that the rest of the article didn’t post. Here it is.

III. I shall begin by quoting several phrases which cannot be said with absolute certainty to imply a belief in the Immaculate Conception but in which it is quite possible to find traces of such a belief.

First of all – the patriarch Photius. In his first homily on the Annunciation, he says that Mary was sanctified ek Brephous. This is not an easy term to translate; the primary meaning of Brephos is that of a child in the embryonic state. Ek means origin or starting point. The phrase seems to me to mean not that Mary was sanctified in the embryonic state, that is to say, during her existence in her mother’s womb, but that she was sanctified from the moment of her existence as an embryo, from the very first moment of her formation – therefore – from the moment of her conception. (1)

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. (2)

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)

Let us now turn to more explicit evidence.

(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”. (4)

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)

Gerasimo. patriarch of Alexandria (+1636) taught at the same time. according to the Chronicle of the Greek, Hypsilantis, that the Theotokos “was not subject to the sin of our first father” (ouk npekeito to propatopiko hamarte mati); and a manual of dogmatic theology of the same century, written by Nicholas Coursoulas (+1652) declared that “the soul of the Holy Virgin was made exempt from the stain of original sin from the first moment of its creation by God and union with the body.” (8)

I am not unaware that other voices were raised against the Immaculate Conception. Damascene the Studite, in the sixteenth century, Mitrophanes Cristopoulos, patriarch of Alexandria and Dosithes, patriarch of Jerusalem in the seventeenth century, all taught that Mary was sanctified only in her mother’s womb. Nicephorus Gallistus in the fourteenth century and the Hagiorite in the eighteenth century taught that Mary was purified from original sin on the day of the Annunciation. But the opinions that we have heard in favour of the Immaculate Conception are not less eminent or less well qualified.

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”. (9)

 

[dvdjs]

But it was not until 1896 that we find an official text classing the Immaculate Conception among the differences between Rome and the Orthodox East. This text is the synodal letter written by the Oecumenical Patriarch, Anthimes VII, in reply to the encyclical Piaeclara Gratulationis addressed by Leo XIII to the people of the Eastern Churches. Moreover, from the Orthodox point of view, the Constantinopolitan document has only a very limited doctrinal importance. Although it should be read with respect and attention, yet it possesses none of the marks of infallibility, nor does ecclesiastical discipline impose belief in its teachings as a matter of conscience. and it leaves the ground quite clear for theological and historical discussions on this point.

IV. Let us now consider more closely the attitude of the Russian Church towards the question of the Immaculate Conception.

Every Russian theological student knows that St Dmitri, metropolitan of Rostov (17th century), supported the Latin “theory of the epiklesis” (10); but young Russians are inclined to consider the case of Dmitri as a regrettable exception, an anomoly. If they knew the history of Russian theology a little better they would know that from the middle ages to the seventeenth century the Russian Church has, as a whole, accepted belief in the Immaculate Conception (11).

The Academy of Kiev, with Peter Moghila, Stephen Gavorsky and many others, taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology. A confraternity of the Immaculate Conception was established at Polotsk in 1651. The Orthodox members of the confraternity promised to honour the Immaculate Conception of Mary all the days of their life. The Council of Moscow of 1666 approved Simeon Polotsky’s book called The Rod of Direction, in which he said: “Mary was exempt from original sin from the moment of her conception”. (12)

All this cannot be explained as the work of Polish Latinising influence. We have seen that much was written on the same lines in the Greek East. When as a result of other Greek influences, attacks were launched in Moscow against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, a protest was made by the Old Believers – a sect separated from the official Church by reason of its faithfulness to certain ancient rites. Again in 1841, the Old Believers said in an official declaration that “Mary has had no share in original sin”. (13) To all those who know how deeply the Old Believers are attached to the most ancient beliefs and traditions, their testimony has a very special significance. In 1848, the “Dogmatic Theology” of the Archimandrite Antony Amphitheatroff, approved by the Holy Synod as a manual for seminaries, reproduced Palamas’ curious theory of the progressive purification of the Virgin’s ancestors, a theory which has already been mentioned and which proclaims Mary’s exemption from original sin. Finally, we should notice that the Roman definition of 1854 was not attacked by the most representative theologians of the time, Metropolitan Philaretes of Moscow and Macarius Boulgakov.

It was in 1881 that the first important writing appeared in Russian literature in opposition to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It was written by Professor A. Lebedev of Moscow who held the view that the Virgin was completely purified from original sin at Golgotha. (14) In 1884, the Holy Synod included the question of the Immaculate Conception in the programme of “polemical”, that is to say, anti-Latin theology. Ever since then, official Russian theology has been unanimously opposed to the Immaculate Conception.

This attitude of the Russians has been strengthened by a frequent confusion of Mary’s immaculate conception with the virgin birth of Christ. This confusion is to be found not only among ignorant people, but also among many theologians and bishops. In 1898, Bishop Augustine, author of a “Fundamental Theology”, translated “immaculate conception” by “conception sine semine”. More recently still, Metropolitan Anthony then Archbishop of Volkynia, wrote against the “impious heresy of the immaculate and virginal conception of the Most Holy Mother of God by Joachim and Anne.” It was a theologian of the Old Believers, A. Morozov, who had to point out to the archbishop that he did not know what he was talking about. (15)

 

[dvdjs]

Footnotes:

1. Photius, homil. I in Annunt., in the collection of St. Aristarchis, Photiou logoi kai homiliai, Constantinople 1901, t. II, p. 236.
2. Theognostes, hom. in fest. Dormitionis, Greek Cod. 763 of the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, fol. 8. v.
3. Euthemius, hom. in concept. S. Annae, Cod. laudianus 69 of the Bodleian Library, fol. 122-126.
4. Photius, In Praesentat. Deiparae, in the collection of Sophoclis Grigoriou tou Palama homiliai kb’, Athens 1861.
5. Manuel Paleologus, orat. in Dormit., Vatic. graecus 1619. A Latin translation is to be found in Migne P.G. t. CLVI, 91-108.
6. Scholarios, hom. in Dormit., Greek Cod. 1294 of the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, fol. 139 v.
7. Lukaris, hom. in Dormit., Cod. 263 of the Metochion of the Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople, fol. 612-613, and hom. in Nativ., Cod. 39

of the Metochion, fol. 93.

1. Hypsilantis, Ta meta ten alosin, Constantinople, 1870, p. 131. Coursoulas, Sunopsis ten ieras Theologias, Zante, 1862, vol. I, pp. 336-342.
2. Quoted by Frederic George Lee, in The sinless conception of the Mother of God, London 1891, p. 58.
3. See Chiliapkin, St Dmitri of Rostov and his times (Russian), in the Zapiski of the Faculty of history and philology of the University of St. Petersberg, t. XXIV, 1891, especially pp. 190-193.
4. See J. Gagarin, L’Eglise russe et L’immaculee conception, Paris 1876.
5. See Makary Bulgakov, History of the Russian Church (Russian) 1890, t. XII, p. 681. On the Polotsk brotherhood, see the article by Golubiev, in the Trudv of the Academy of Kiev, November 1904, pp. 164-167.
6. See N. Subbotin, History of the hierarchy of Bielo-Krinitza (Russian), Moscow, 1874, t. I, p. xlii of the Preface.
7. An article by M. Jugie, Le dogme de l’immaculee conception d’apres un theologien russe, in Echos d’Orient, 1920, t. XX, p. 22, gives an analysis of Lebedev’s monography.
8. Letter of Archbishop Anthony of Volhynia to the Old Believers, in the organ of the Russian Holy Synod, The Ecclesiastical News of 10 March 1912, p. 399. Morozov’s reply is contained in the same periodical on 14 July 1912, pp. 1142-1150.

 

[Vico]

Marybeloved
“In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins***.***” 1 Jn 4
Atonement, necessary because we are in bondage to Satan.

St. Athanasius, “Incarnation of the Word,” Chp. 20, writes:
“But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have already said , it was owing that all should die”
St. John Chrysostom, 6th homily on Colossians:
“…he means that the devil held possession of it, the bond which God made for Adam, saying, “In the day thou eatest of the tree, thou shalt die.” (Genesis 2:17.) This bond then the devil held in his possession. And Christ did not give it to us, but Himself tore it in two, the action of one who remits joyfully.”
Christ, by his death, has conquered Death. We see Christ pulling Adam and Eve from the grave in one popular icon.