Immaculate Conception in Eastern Catholicism

[TRH1292]

From the Melkite Eparchy of Newton’s website:

The “stain of original sin” was described by the 16th century Council of Trent as “the privation of righteousness that each child contracts at its conception.” There is no such understanding in Eastern theology and so to say that Mary was free of it has little meaning in the East. Perhaps this is why many Eastern Catholics, when they hear of “the Immaculate Conception” assume that it refers to the conception of Christ.

East and West agree that, the Theotokos was fully human like the rest of us: what Fr Thomas Hopko calls “mere human” unlike her Son who is a “real human” but not a mere human because He is the Word of God incarnate. In his book The Winter Pascha he writes, “We are all born mortal and tending toward sin. But we are not born guilty of any personal sin, certainly not one allegedly committed ‘in Adam.’ Nor are we born stained because of the manner in which we are conceived by the sexual union of our parents.”

The Byzantine Churches celebrate the fact of Mary’s conception on December 9, but commemorate her holiness on another feast: that of her Entrance into the Temple (November 21) In the kondakion for that feast we sing “The most pure Temple of our holy Savior, and the most precious and bright bridal chamber, the Virgin, sacred treasury of the glory of God, openly appears today in the Temple of the Lord, bringing with her the grace of the Most Holy Spirit. Wherefore, the angels of God are singing: This is the heavenly Tabernacle!” She did not become holy in the temple – she brought the grace of God with her. When and how did she acquire it? Human reasoning does not help us there. Nevertheless we ceaselessly proclaim her as our “all-holy, immaculate, most highly blessed and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary.
Source: melkite.org/faith/sunday-scriptures/the-burning-bush-now-blossoms

Friend,

The article you posted a link to says "All the Churches of East and West have always believed that the Virgin Mary was, from her conception, filled with every grace of the Holy Spirit in view of her calling as the Mother of Christ our God. " And “it was generally believed that the Theotokos was filled with divine grace from her conception”.

This is what I was attempting to get you to affirm before. That regardless of some Latin view of original sin, that Mary was, well, Immaculate from the point of Her conception, being filled with every divine grace.

 

[Zekariya]

Friend,

The article you posted a link to says "All the Churches of East and West have always believed that the Virgin Mary was, from her conception, filled with every grace of the Holy Spirit in view of her calling as the Mother of Christ our God. " And “it was generally believed that the Theotokos was filled with divine grace from her conception”.

This is what I was attempting to get you to affirm before. That regardless of some Latin view of original sin, that Mary was, well, Immaculate from the point of Her conception, being filled with every divine grace.

This still has nothing to do with being cleansed from original sin in Byzantine theology. If I knew that you just wanted to hear that we teach that she was full of grace and immaculate from conception, I would have posted this earlier. The Eastern Orthodox believe the same.

 

[twf]

This still has nothing to do with being cleansed from original sin in Byzantine theology. If I knew that you just wanted to hear that we teach that she was full of grace and immaculate from conception, I would have posted this earlier. The Eastern Orthodox believe the same.

Our Lady wasnt cleansed of anything. She had no need to be cleansed. Such terminology is highly problematic as it suggests She was at some point “impure” and in need of cleansing. Rather, Our Lady, by the power of the Holy Spirit, was preserved from the “stain” of original sin with which the rest of us are conceived. By the “stain” of original sin the Catechism and other Magisterial teachings are clear that there is no personal guilt involved nor a mysterious “substance” as many Orthodox seem to assume. The “stain” isn’t the presence of something, it’s the ABSENSE of something: the divine life of the Trinity in the soul (sanctifying grace). The teaching of the Immaculate Conception simply affirms that Our Lady was filled with the divine life of the Trinity, with sanctifying grace, from the moment of her conception- while most of us are conceived deprived of this divine life until baptism.

 

[Zekariya]

Forgive me. I should have said, “preserved”. Again, we Byzantines have no teaching of a sanctifying grace that Adam lost at the Fall.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrewstx,

I have never been to an Eastern Catholic church for reasons of extreme distance, but I want to learn and would like to be an Eastern Catholic perhaps.

Do Eastern Catholics have the same doctrine as the Roman Catholics about Original Sin

Eastern Catholics do not have the same doctrine as Roman Catholics about Original Sin. “Original Sin” and “Ancestral Sin” are in fact two different concepts, and one should not confuse the two terms.

The Eastern “Ancestral Sin” primarily focuses on the physical consequences of the first Sin (i.e., physical death and corruption), and the soteriology moves from that premise; on the other hand, the Western “Original Sin” primarily focuses on the spiritual consequences of the first Sin (i.e., spiritual separation from God), and proceeds from that different premise.

Once you understand this difference, perhaps you can begin to understand that the Eastern concerns about “Ancestral Sin” do not really touch upon the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

In Eastern terms, the dogma of the IC would be stated simply as “there was not a moment during the existence of Mary when she was spiritually separated from God.” If you understand that this is the only thing meant by the Westerns when they say “Mary did not have any stain of Original Sin from the moment of conception” perhaps you can accept the orthodoxy of the IC. You can easily verify this if you check the old Catholic Encyclopedia, which concisely explains that the dogma of the IC refers not to the physical nature of Mary, but her spiritual nature.

As an aside, Oriental soteriology is a little closer to Western soteriology than Eastern soteriology in this regard. In all Oriental manuals I have investigated (Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Indian, Ethiopian), the consequence of Original Sin is deprivation of Justice and Holiness. The IC is easier to understand and accept from an Oriental pov than from an Eastern pov.

However, please be aware that there are Eastern sources which do claim that Eastern and Western soteriologies were Traditionally much closer to each other on the matter of Original Sin, and that the “divergence” only occurred within the past (perhaps) century-and-a-half. Others have noted these sources in other threads.

and the Immaculate Conception?

Please be aware of the difference between dogma and doctrine. Dogma is what must be believed, while doctrine is how that belief is taught/expressed. The IC is expressed in Latin doctrinal theology, and is often difficult for Easterns to understand and accept. However, the belief that there was not a single moment of Mary’s existence when she was spiritually separated from God is the dogma that binds and unites all Catholics - from the time of the Apostles down to our day - on this particular matter.

I hope that helps. I also have some comments below for our Latin brother TRH1292, which might also aid in the cause of mutual understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Zekariya]

Marduk, I would say that the spiritual aspect of the soul being placed in hades is part of the Byzantine teaching of ancestral sin as well.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother TRH1292,

When a normal human being is born, from a byzantine perspective, are they not lacking something? Is it not the case that a person is born without being filled with the Grace of Christ, Grace which we have to get in Baptism.

The reason you might not immediately be obtaining the answer you want is that you are working off of a different premise than our Eastern brethren. Latins have categories of Grace (prevenient, actual, sanctifying, etc.), but Easterns do not. To Easterns, Grace is Grace is Grace.

Perhaps the following translation might help your understanding on the matter.

You insist, “Grace was lost,” but you know you don’t really mean “ALL Grace.” Latin soteriology does not teach that all Grace was lost by the creature, even one born “in Original Sin.” Latin soteriology teaches that what was lost was Sanctifying Grace. But Latin soteriology admits that Prevenient Grace has always remained in man. If you can divest yourself of the categorizations for a moment, then you might be able to understand where your Eastern brethren are coming from.

When Easterns say “There was no deprivation of Grace,” they are not thinking in terms of categories, as you - a Latin - would. Grace is Grace is Grace to the Eastern mind. So while you might be thinking of “Sanctifying Grace” versus “Prevenient Grace,” such distinctions do not exist in the Eastern paradigm. If you want to make a comment here in the Eastern Catholic Forum, it should be your responsibility to understand the non-Latin perspective, not try to get a non-Latin to admit something according to your own Latin theological perspective or language. I say that will all due respect.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

… Please be aware of the difference between dogma and doctrine. Dogma is what must be believed, while doctrine is how that belief is taught/expressed. The IC is expressed in Latin doctrinal theology, and is often difficult for Easterns to understand and accept. However, the belief that there was not a single moment of Mary’s existence when she was spiritually separated from God is the dogma that binds and unites all Catholics - from the time of the Apostles down to our day - on this particular matter.

As I see it, the problem with the IC is not, and never was, in the doctrine, but in the unilateral and totally unnecessary proclamation of dogma. Not so much because of the dogma itself – as you say, the concept was accepted from the earliest times – but in the way the dogma was defined: in Latin (Scholastic) theological terms. What was the point of defining something that was accepted and believed?

As an aside, Oriental soteriology is a little closer to Western soteriology than Eastern soteriology in this regard. In all Oriental manuals I have investigated (Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Indian, Ethiopian), the consequence of Original Sin is deprivation of Justice and Holiness. The IC is easier to understand and accept from an Oriental pov than from an Eastern pov.

That’s true, but the matter of the unilateral declaration of dogma by Rome, and how that dogma was expressed, isn’t particularly acceptable to the Orientals either. IOW, it’s not the belief, but how it was imposed.

However, please be aware that there are Eastern sources which do claim that Eastern and Western soteriologies were Traditionally much closer to each other on the matter of Original Sin, and that the “divergence” only occurred within the past (perhaps) century-and-a-half. Others have noted these sources in other threads.

Yes sir, which is why I said unnecessary declaration of dogma. A certain Pio Nono just had to have it his way in order to try to thwart the nascent “risorgiomento” movement in Italy that threatened his temporal power. A prelude to your favorite Vatican I?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Zekariya,

Marduk, I would say that the spiritual aspect of the soul being placed in hades is part of the Byzantine teaching of ancestral sin as well.

From the source you gave, I understood the “placing in Hades” to occur at death. It doesn’t really have any relation to the topic of original/ancestral sin at the moment the person is conceived. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TRH1292]

This still has nothing to do with being cleansed from original sin in Byzantine theology. If I knew that you just wanted to hear that we teach that she was full of grace and immaculate from conception, I would have posted this earlier. The Eastern Orthodox believe the same.

Friend,

That is entirely what I was attempting to work towards, yes. Regardless of any latin-specific terminology that is not essential to the understanding of the dogma, I consider us to be in full agreement on the matter.

As I see it, the actual meaning of the dogma does not rely on western specific terminology surrounding original sin, but merely that Mary was Immaculate from the point of her conception, as you have said. That there was never a moment when she was not full of God’s Grace.

Clearly, this is not the situation we are born into. That doesn’t necessitate a western understanding of original sin or any Latin specific language, but it does show that there is something special about Mary, and affirm the real core of the Dogma of the immaculate conception.

 

[Zekariya]

Dear brother Zekariya,

From the source you gave, I understood the “placing in Hades” to occur at death. It doesn’t really have any relation to the topic of original/ancestral sin at the moment the person is conceived. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something?

Blessings,
Marduk

I see what you mean now. I love reading your posts. You are far more precise and eloquent than I am.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother malphono,

As I see it, the problem with the IC is not, and never was, in the doctrine, but in the unilateral and totally unnecessary proclamation of dogma. Not so much because of the dogma itself – as you say, the concept was accepted from the earliest times – but in the way the dogma was defined: in Latin (Scholastic) theological terms. What was the point of defining something that was accepted and believed?

That’s true, but the matter of the unilateral declaration of dogma by Rome, and how that dogma was expressed, isn’t particularly acceptable to the Orientals either. IOW, it’s not the belief, but how it was imposed.

The IC was anything but a unilateral declaration by the Pope. On that point I’ll disagree with you. On the other hand, if you mean that this was primarily a Latin preoccupation, I’ll agree.

A certain Pio Nono just had to have it his way in order to try to thwart the nascent “risorgiomento” movement in Italy that threatened his temporal power. A prelude to your favorite Vatican I?

Oh, you and your Pio Nono theories.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TRH1292]

Dear brother Andrewstx,

Eastern Catholics do not have the same doctrine as Roman Catholics about Original Sin. “Original Sin” and “Ancestral Sin” are in fact two different concepts, and one should not confuse the two terms.

The Eastern “Ancestral Sin” primarily focuses on the physical consequences of the first Sin (i.e., physical death and corruption), and the soteriology moves from that premise; on the other hand, the Western “Original Sin” primarily focuses on the spiritual consequences of the first Sin (i.e., spiritual separation from God), and proceeds from that different premise.

Once you understand this difference, perhaps you can begin to understand that the Eastern concerns about “Ancestral Sin” do not really touch upon the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

In Eastern terms, the dogma of the IC would be stated simply as “there was not a moment during the existence of Mary when she was spiritually separated from God.” If you understand that this is the only thing meant by the Westerns when they say “Mary did not have any stain of Original Sin from the moment of conception” perhaps you can accept the orthodoxy of the IC. You can easily verify this if you check the old Catholic Encyclopedia, which concisely explains that the dogma of the IC refers not to the physical nature of Mary, but her spiritual nature.

As an aside, Oriental soteriology is a little closer to Western soteriology than Eastern soteriology in this regard. In all Oriental manuals I have investigated (Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Indian, Ethiopian), the consequence of Original Sin is deprivation of Justice and Holiness. The IC is easier to understand and accept from an Oriental pov than from an Eastern pov.

However, please be aware that there are Eastern sources which do claim that Eastern and Western soteriologies were Traditionally much closer to each other on the matter of Original Sin, and that the “divergence” only occurred within the past (perhaps) century-and-a-half. Others have noted these sources in other threads.

Please be aware of the difference between dogma and doctrine. Dogma is what must be believed, while doctrine is how that belief is taught/expressed. The IC is expressed in Latin doctrinal theology, and is often difficult for Easterns to understand and accept. However, the belief that there was not a single moment of Mary’s existence when she was spiritually separated from God is the dogma that binds and unites all Catholics - from the time of the Apostles down to our day - on this particular matter.

I hope that helps. I also have some comments below for our Latin brother TRH1292, which might also aid in the cause of mutual understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

I am in full agreement with the way you stated things here, and agree fully that the meaning of the Dogma is “that there was not a moment in the existence of Mary in which she was separated from God.”
The fact that the east and west can retain there own traditional emphasis and yet agree on the substance of this dogma was my original intention in posting.

 

[mardukm]

Thanks for the explanation, brother. Forgive me if I was a little tough in one of my previous posts to you.

Blessings,
Marduk

I am in full agreement with the way you stated things here, and agree fully that the meaning of the Dogma is “that there was not a moment in the existence of Mary in which she was separated from God.”
The fact that the east and west can retain there own traditional emphasis and yet agree on the substance of this dogma was my original intention in posting.

 

[malphono]

The IC was anything but a unilateral declaration by the Pope. On that point I’ll disagree with you. On the other hand, if you mean that this was primarily a Latin preoccupation, I’ll agree.

Whether there was “consultation” or not is immaterial to me. And I wouldn’t say “primarily” Latin, but rather strictly Latin. Whatever, though, the declaration was absolutely 100% unnecessary. So do we agree?

Oh, you and your Pio Nono theories.

Yep me and my Pio Nono theories. There’s really only one, albeit that it has several manifestations. Whereas you have, in the past, argued about the Vatican I manifestations, I don’t see you arguing too much about this manifestation.

 

[TRH1292]

Dear brother TRH1292,

The reason you might not immediately be obtaining the answer you want is that you are working off of a different premise than our Eastern brethren. Latins have categories of Grace (prevenient, actual, sanctifying, etc.), but Easterns do not. To Easterns, Grace is Grace is Grace.

Perhaps the following translation might help your understanding on the matter.

You insist, “Grace was lost,” but you know you don’t really mean “ALL Grace.” Latin soteriology does not teach that all Grace was lost by the creature, even one born “in Original Sin.” Latin soteriology teaches that what was lost was Sanctifying Grace. But Latin soteriology admits that Prevenient Grace has always remained in man. If you can divest yourself of the categorizations for a moment, then you might be able to understand where your Eastern brethren are coming from.

When Easterns say “There was no deprivation of Grace,” they are not thinking in terms of categories, as you - a Latin - would. Grace is Grace is Grace to the Eastern mind. So while you might be thinking of “Sanctifying Grace” versus “Prevenient Grace,” such distinctions do not exist in the Eastern paradigm. If you want to make a comment here in the Eastern Catholic Forum, it should be your responsibility to understand the non-Latin perspective, not try to get a non-Latin to admit something according to your own Latin theological perspective or language. I say that will all due respect.

Blessings,
Marduk

Friend,

With all due respect, I think you are inventing things in my postings that are not actually present in reality. My whole point in posting here is to bring out the substantial agreement between east and west, aside from the particular emphasis of each. Just because I didn’t consult a theological dictionary for six hours before I decided to post here doesn’t mean that I am not understanding of the east or of eastern categories. The insinuation that I was trying to get Eastern Christians to accept particular Latin theological languages is something that I find extremely insulting, as well as the insinuation that I am not able to “divest my mind from categories” to understand others. As you can see from my above posts, I am very much enthusiastically in agreement with the statements of this teaching from an eastern perspective, according to it’s own theological language.

Friend, all the Eastern Church’s, both Catholic and Orthodox, as well as the Oriental Church’s are all very dear and close to my heart. I love them dearly, and place a very high value on preserving all the different liturgy’s and traditions of each and every rite. I give great effort towards promoting understanding between them. However, I view the differences between east and west as like the differences between different type’s of flowers, not the difference between a flower and a car. That is, just because there are different emphasis and theological expression doesn’t mean there is a difference of Faith or two different faiths. “5 Plus 5” and “20 Divided by 2” are different, but they are both equal, because they both result in ten.

Perhaps the tone of your reply hit me in the wrong way, and I hope I wasn’t a bit to strong in my reply, but I am very serious about agreement between East and West, and I don’t believe in making Latin’s into Greek’s, or Greek’s into Latin’s.

 

[Rafkqa]

This is the most useful thing I have learnt on the subject in a very long time. many Many thanks!

Dear brother Andrewstx,

Eastern Catholics do not have the same doctrine as Roman Catholics about Original Sin. “Original Sin” and “Ancestral Sin” are in fact two different concepts, and one should not confuse the two terms.

The Eastern “Ancestral Sin” primarily focuses on the physical consequences of the first Sin (i.e., physical death and corruption), and the soteriology moves from that premise; on the other hand, the Western “Original Sin” primarily focuses on the spiritual consequences of the first Sin (i.e., spiritual separation from God), and proceeds from that different premise.

Once you understand this difference, perhaps you can begin to understand that the Eastern concerns about “Ancestral Sin” do not really touch upon the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

In Eastern terms, the dogma of the IC would be stated simply as “there was not a moment during the existence of Mary when she was spiritually separated from God.” If you understand that this is the only thing meant by the Westerns when they say “Mary did not have any stain of Original Sin from the moment of conception” perhaps you can accept the orthodoxy of the IC. You can easily verify this if you check the old Catholic Encyclopedia, which concisely explains that the dogma of the IC refers not to the physical nature of Mary, but her spiritual nature.

As an aside, Oriental soteriology is a little closer to Western soteriology than Eastern soteriology in this regard. In all Oriental manuals I have investigated (Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Indian, Ethiopian), the consequence of Original Sin is deprivation of Justice and Holiness. The IC is easier to understand and accept from an Oriental pov than from an Eastern pov.

However, please be aware that there are Eastern sources which do claim that Eastern and Western soteriologies were Traditionally much closer to each other on the matter of Original Sin, and that the “divergence” only occurred within the past (perhaps) century-and-a-half. Others have noted these sources in other threads.

Please be aware of the difference between dogma and doctrine. Dogma is what must be believed, while doctrine is how that belief is taught/expressed. The IC is expressed in Latin doctrinal theology, and is often difficult for Easterns to understand and accept. However, the belief that there was not a single moment of Mary’s existence when she was spiritually separated from God is the dogma that binds and unites all Catholics - from the time of the Apostles down to our day - on this particular matter.

I hope that helps. I also have some comments below for our Latin brother TRH1292, which might also aid in the cause of mutual understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

Actually Eastern Orthodox, Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholics and Latin Rite Roman Catholics are not that far apart on this issue. We both affirm that Our Lady was sinless. We also both affirm that God prepared the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary to bear Christ. We both celebrate the feast of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple on November 21. The Byzantine liturgical texts for the feast tell us that when she was about 3, Joachim and Anna too Our Lady to the Temple. Her uncle St. Zacharis, the father of St. John the Baptist, met them and took her into the Holy of Holies, which was considered so sacred that only the High Priest entered it only once a year. Then she spent her youth in the temple praying and studying the Scriptures until she was betrothed to St. Joseph. The Byzantine Rite calls Mary, “All Holy,” “Immaculate” and “more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim.” I thank that we can find agreement through the Feast of the Entrance of Our Lady into the Temple.
The East never really dealt with Pelagianism. Thus, Byzantine theology did not develop along the same lines as the West where there was a major controversy over Pelaginism. One thing that I have learned from reading the posts on this site, is that there are major differences between the way that Catholic interpret Blessed Augustine and the way that Luther and Calvin interpreted his writings. The Catholic view of Blessed Augustine is much closer to Byzantine theology, than the extremes that Luther and Calvin took from a rather selective reading of Blessed Augustine. They find total depravity and a rejection of free will in Blessed Augustine that Catholics do not find.
Byzantine theology considers grace an uncreated energy of God flowing from His hidden Essence, the way that light flows from the sun. Thus to us grace is not created but is a real experience of God. To Calvinists grace is “unmerited favor,” which is an attitude of God towards the believer and therefore created.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[twf]

Father,
Thanks for this. If you read the texts of the Roman liturgy for the feast of the Immaculate Conception, you’ll note that the focus, in both the mass and the divine office, is on the sinlessness, purity, and holiness of Our Lady…on Her unique vocation as Mother of God…on Her cooperation with the ever present grace of God…and on Her role as a type and exemplar of the Church - of redeemed humanity. These are all things we can agree on. The particularities of original sin unique to Latin theology are not a major part of the feast’s spirituality in my opinion - Mary’s unique holiness is.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father,
Thanks for this. If you read the texts of the Roman liturgy for the feast of the Immaculate Conception, you’ll note that the focus, in both the mass and the divine office, is on the sinlessness, purity, and holiness of Our Lady…on Her unique vocation as Mother of God…on Her cooperation with the ever present grace of God…and on Her role as a type and exemplar of the Church - of redeemed humanity. These are all things we can agree on. The particularities of original sin unique to Latin theology are not a major part of the feast’s spirituality in my opinion - Mary’s unique holiness is.

Obviously Eastern Orthodox teach Mary’s unique holiness and her with cooperation of the grace of God. Our Blessed Lady is the Second Eve, whose obedience to God begins our liberation from the curse of sin and death that came from the disobedience of the First Eve.

Fr. John W. Morris