How to Eastern Catholics accept the Immaculate Conception?

[Cavaradossi]

Here are the assumptions of the East that I simply don’t understand. It seems to me that the Eastern mind (at least as represented here) is that human nature itself consists of corruption. Otherwise, the objection that Mary having an unfallen human nature makes her “of a different nature from us” makes no sense. In fact, human nature in its natural state is perfect, unfallen, because God did not make it fallen or disordered. Our fallenness is not part of our nature but a disorder/corruption of human nature.

Christ was Adam- he needed to take Adam’s place as the centre of humanity. Possessing perfect human nature does not make him “of a different nature” because that would be tantamount to saying that human nature is properly sinful! Like I like to say, God did not mix in sin along with the dust & breath of life when he made Adam- Fallenness is not part of our nature. Saying that Christ and Mary having unfallen natures like Adam & Eve makes them of a different nature is a false objection to the doctrine of IC.

You see this paragraph by constantine represents perfectly the western theology, but somehow Easterns think that it’s incompatible with our theology :shrug:Everything here is perfectly taught in the western understanding. It certainly is not contingent on holding that Christ & Mary had fallen human natures. :nope: In fact, I believe that in the West, holding that Christ had a fallen human nature, that he experienced temptations of the flesh and lust etc is tantamount to blasphemy.

If Christ could not be tempted, then what was the meaning of him being tempted in the desert? Was it all for show? Christ surely suffered from similar temptations to what we suffer from, because he was fully human. The only difference, is that Christ did not have a gnomic will (because of His omniscience as St. Maximos the Confessor would argue) which would impede His ability to resist temptation, like we do. To say that Christ did not suffer temptations is also contradictory to what scripture has to say on the matter.

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 4:14-16[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 2:10-18[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[dvdjs]

Getting back to the OP, perhaps this will help.

The Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox Church

By Father Lev Gillet

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

---

I. It is generally agreed, I think, that the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception is one of the questions which make a clear and profound
division between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Is this
really the case? We shall try to examine quite objectively what
Orthodox theological history has to teach us on this matter. Leaving
aside the patristic period we shall start on our quest in the time of
the Patriarch Photius.

II. It seems to me that three preliminary observations have to be made.

First, it is an undeniable fact that the great majority of the members
of the Orthodox Church did not admit the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception as it was defined by Pius IX in 1854.

Secondly, throughout the history of Orthodox theology, we find an
unbroken line of theologians, of quite considerable authority, who
have explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin
Mary. Among them I shall refer to Nicephorus Gallistus in the
fourteenth century and Alexander Lebedev in the nineteenth, these two
representing the extremities of a chain with many intermediary links.
There is even an official document written against the Immaculate
Conception: the letter of the Patriarch Anthimus VII, written in 1895;
we shall come later to a discussion of its doctrinal value.

Thirdly, we recognize the fact that Latin theologians very often used
inadequate arguments in their desire to prove that the Immaculate
Conception belonged to the Byzantine theological tradition. They
sometimes forced the sense of the poetic expressions to be found in
the liturgy of Byzantium; at times they misinterpreted what were
merely common Byzantine terms to describe Mary’s incomparable
holiness, as a sign of belief in the Immaculate Conception; on other
occasions they disregarded the fact that certain Byzantines had only a
very vague idea of original sin. Speaking of the Theotokos, Orthodox
writers multiplied expressions such as “all holy”, “all pure”,
“immaculate”. This does not always mean that these writers believed in
the Immaculate Conception. The vast majority – but not all – Orthodox
theologians agreed that Mary was purified from original sin before the
birth of Our Lord. By this, they usually mean that she was purified in
her mother’s womb like John the Baptist. This “sanctification” is not
the Immaculate Conception.

The question must be framed in precise theological terms. We do not
want to know if Mary’s holiness surpasses all other holiness, or if
Mary was sanctified in her mother’s womb. The question is: Was Mary,
in the words of Pius IX, “preserved from all stain of original sin at
the first moment of her conception” (in primo instanti suae
conceptionis)? Is this doctrine foreign to the Orthodox tradition? Is
it contrary to that tradition?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

If Christ could not be tempted, then what was the meaning of him being tempted in the desert? Was it all for show? Christ surely suffered from similar temptations to what we suffer from, because he was fully human. The only difference, is that Christ did not have a gnomic will (because of His omniscience as St. Maximos the Confessor would argue) which would impede His ability to resist temptation, like we do. To say that Christ did not suffer temptations is also contradictory to what scripture has to say on the matter.

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 4:14-16[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 2:10-18[/BIBLEDRB]

Just because Christ could be tempted doesn’t mean that he had concupiscience. Adam and Eve didn’t have it, yet they were tempted by the devil.

I think what Marybeloved meant was that it would be blasphemy to believe that Christ could give in to those temptations, because Christ is God, the second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Getting back to the OP, perhaps this will help.

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

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

No, it did not. Because she still had to pass through death in this life (Dormition) before she was perfected and received her Glorified Body and then assumed into heaven.

But Jesus experienced death as well, and he certainly didn’t have a fallen nature, so that point doesn’t relate to my question at all. The fact that she experienced death does not NECESSARILY mean she had a fallen human nature, for her dormition could have been another example of her following Christ so closely.

No. Adam and Eve brought us from paradise to The Fall. Christ and Mary brought us from The Fall to paradise. Christ needed to partake of our nature so that by introducing his divine nature to our nature restored us and perfected us to that before The Fall. This is why Christ needed to be human to save us. An angel or a prophet could have easily brought us teachings, laws and even help institute the Sacraments (John baptized before Christ, but his baptism is not the same as Christ’s baptism). But in the Eastern praxis we teach “Christ conquered death by death.” Christ shared in our nature so that we may share in His nature. This is why Theosis is such a big part of the Eastern praxis. We see that what saves us is not what we do, but by us sharing in the nature of God. What we do brings us there, but its not by itself is what saves us.

Yes, that’s all absolutely correct, agrees totally with Catholic teaching, and doesn’t contradict at all what I had already said.

Let attack this from another angle: do the Orthodox believe that Mary suffered the pains of childbirth or not?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Let attack this from another angle: do the Orthodox believe that Mary suffered the pains of childbirth or not?

God said that he would increase the pains of childbirth, which doesn’t necessarily mean that there would’ve been absolutely no pain without original sin.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here are the assumptions of the East that I simply don’t understand. It seems to me that the Eastern mind (at least as represented here) is that human nature itself consists of corruption. Otherwise, the objection that Mary having an unfallen human nature makes her “of a different nature from us” makes no sense. In fact, human nature in its natural state is perfect, unfallen, because God did not make it fallen or disordered. Our fallenness is not part of our nature but a disorder/corruption of human nature.

Christ was Adam- he needed to take Adam’s place as the centre of humanity. Possessing perfect human nature does not make him “of a different nature” because that would be tantamount to saying that human nature is properly sinful! Like I like to say, God did not mix in sin along with the dust & breath of life when he made Adam- Fallenness is not part of our nature. Saying that Christ and Mary having unfallen natures like Adam & Eve makes them of a different nature is a false objection to the doctrine of IC.

You see this paragraph by constantine represents perfectly the western theology, but somehow Easterns think that it’s incompatible with our theology :shrug:Everything here is perfectly taught in the western understanding. It certainly is not contingent on holding that Christ & Mary had fallen human natures. :nope: In fact, I believe that in the West, holding that Christ had a fallen human nature, that he experienced temptations of the flesh and lust etc is tantamount to blasphemy.

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?

You post actually shows a lack of understanding of the Eastern praxis. First of all the difference in understanding on what “nature” is between the Latins and the Greeks. Also the difference itself in the understanding how The Fall has affected mankind and how its effect is passed from one generation to the next. Because we do not view that there is an “original sin” that is passed from one generation to the next, thus there is nothing to exempt Mary from. That is why IC is not compatible with Eastern theology. In fact, everything else in the dogma of the IC fits perfectly with the East, except for “exemption from original sin” because there is no “original sin” in Eastern doctrine.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But Jesus experienced death as well, and he certainly didn’t have a fallen nature, so that point doesn’t relate to my question at all. The fact that she experienced death does not NECESSARILY mean she had a fallen human nature, for her dormition could have been another example of her following Christ so closely.

Jesus sought to fix everything wrong in our nature, including death. Death is a result of sin. So when Christ himself died, He conquered death. In doing so, our own deaths have been conquered. That is why Christ had to be at our level.

Yes, that’s all absolutely correct, agrees totally with Catholic teaching, and doesn’t contradict at all what I had already said.

Let attack this from another angle: do the Orthodox believe that Mary suffered the pains of childbirth or not?

No. And Dormition itself means that her death was not a painful one (death is viewed as a violent process as the soul separates from the body) but instead she had a light falling asleep.

 

[Warrenton]

Let attack this from another angle: do the Orthodox believe that Mary suffered the pains of childbirth or not?

They do not believe she did.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

They do not believe she did.

Is there an official teaching from the 7 councils t? If so, can I see it?

 

[Warrenton]

Do you know which verse this is? I didn’t find it searching those words.

My bad - St. Matthew 5:45, The words are our Lord’s own.

 

[Warrenton]

Is there an official teaching from the 7 councils t? If so, can I see it?

I have beside me my copy of “Our Lady the Theotokos” by Rev George Dimopoulos.

The publishers are Christian Orthodox Editions. I found my copy at a local Greek church festival. I recommend the book, but it’s probably best for mature Catholics since it does take issue with some Catholic teachings rather explicitly. But is contains lots of information about our Lady that is not readily available in Catholic sources. But don’t get me started…

The good Father quotes Gregory of Nyssa: “When God became known to us in the flesh, HE neither received the passions of human nature, nor did the Virgin Mary suffer pain…”
He goes on to state that the teaching is clear that the birth left our Lady virgo intacta, and that this was also considered miraculous, all being accomplished by the Holy Ghost.

The citation is to Gregory’s “Against Eunomious.” I looked this up on our own "Catholic Encyclopedia - and learned he lived in the mid 4th century.

Father Dimopoulos describes the pangless birth as “an article of faith.” Other citations in the chapeter (yes- there is a chapter on the painless birth!) source to St. John Damacene, Hesychios, and other fathers of the Church, not to mention Bishop Bossuet (court preacher to none other than the Sun King).

As I said earlier, they throw a fast pitch, those Greeks!

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

 

[Warrenton]

Here are the assumptions of the East that I simply don’t understand. It seems to me that the Eastern mind (at least as represented here) is that human nature itself consists of corruption. Otherwise, the objection that Mary having an unfallen human nature makes her “of a different nature from us” makes no sense. In fact, human nature in its natural state is perfect, unfallen, because God did not make it fallen or disordered. Our fallenness is not part of our nature but a disorder/corruption of human nature.

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.

 

[Warrenton]

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?

 

[Cavaradossi]

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 was just trying to find what the Latin belief is on this, hence there’s no right answer to me, since I can’t judge that.

 

[Warrenton]

I was just trying to find what the Latin belief is on this, hence there’s no right answer to me, since I can’t judge that.

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

 

[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?

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:

• 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.

Because we do not view that there is an “original sin” that is passed from one generation to the next, thus there is nothing to exempt Mary from.

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?

That is why IC is not compatible with Eastern theology. In fact, everything else in the dogma of the IC fits perfectly with the East, except for “exemption from original sin” because there is no “original sin” in Eastern doctrine.

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!

 

[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?

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:

• 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.

Because we do not view that there is an “original sin” that is passed from one generation to the next, thus there is nothing to exempt Mary from.

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?

That is why IC is not compatible with Eastern theology. In fact, everything else in the dogma of the IC fits perfectly with the East, except for “exemption from original sin” because there is no “original sin” in Eastern doctrine.

Again, let me ask,
Q: Do you believe that Mary was without grace?
Q: If she had grace, when did she receive it and by what process considering she had no access to the sacraments?

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

If Christ could not be tempted, then what was the meaning of him being tempted in the desert? Was it all for show? Christ surely suffered from similar temptations to what we suffer from, because he was fully human. The only difference, is that Christ did not have a gnomic will (because of His omniscience as St. Maximos the Confessor would argue) which would impede His ability to resist temptation, like we do. To say that Christ did not suffer temptations is also contradictory to what scripture has to say on the matter.

Your objection is nullified by your own admission of Christ’s gnomic will or inability to choose sin. Either way you look at it, Jesus was never tempted from his own nature, or the rebellion of his own nature, as it was never possible for him. All his temptations resembled the snake with Eve at the Garden, all external, never within him.

Peace!