Immaculate Conception in Eastern Catholicism

[dzheremi]

For the sake of clarity, I must remind people that Mardukm speaks only for himself and his own understanding, and does not represent any Oriental Orthodox viewpoint, as he is not any kind of Oriental Orthodox Christian. Oriental Orthodox resources on the questions of original sin and of the Immaculate Conception idea, which is not Orthodox doctrine nor accepted by any jurisdiction within the Oriental Orthodox Church, can be found at the following links:

HG Bishop Mekarios (Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church) lectures

Debre Sahel Medhani Alem Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Kansas City, letter to HH Pope Shenouda III asking for assistance – Following the most incorrect censure of their priest at the hands of the local archbishop for denying the IC, the priests and laity of this church wrote to HH Pope Shenouda III for clarification on the Orthodox view regarding original sin and St. Mary, and were victorious in being sent a Bishop from the Coptic Church who corrected the errors spreading in their Church regarding this doctrine; it was once again refuted and the errant archbishop corrected, to the benefit of the confused and wounded laity and priest.

“Original Sin and Atonement”, prepared by the Southern United States Diocese of the Coptic Orthodox Church. This was apparently written to answer Calvinists, not Roman Catholics, but still says very clearly: “what we inherit or what is transmitted to us is Adam’s fallen human nature and not his actual sin.” Whether or not this is concordant with any particular Catholic’s view of the IC and what it means is immaterial, as we reject it just the same, since we cannot countenance anything that places the Theotokos outside of the one human nature which is shared by all.

And, yes, I have read all the arguments from Mardukm et al. that this is a misunderstanding of the IC, and that it doesn’t really mean that, and that it’s really in keeping with the Oriental Orthodox view, blahblahblah. No, it isn’t. I could point to several portions of the Papal bull that defined the doctrine, Ineffabilis Deus, that are in direct contradiction with what we teach if I were actually interested in restarting that endless and pointless argument, but I’m not. My point in posting any of this is to emphasize that the self-serving recension of Orthodox doctrine presented by those who wish to harmonize things that are in fact at variance ought not stand in place of the actual Orthodox faith itself, just the same as any Catholic would, by virtue of their objecting to the presentation of the IC at the hands of Orthodox bishops and churchmen such as those linked above (who disagree with the RCC on this matter), insist that anyone wishing to get the real teaching on what Catholics in fact believe regarding this matter go to the source, and not rely on partisans for a particular viewpoint or of a particular jurisdiction. Thank you.

 

[twf]

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

Yes, Mary as the Second Eve is a major theme of the Roman Rite’s feast of the Immaculate Conception. When I attended a solemn sung mass for the feast on Monday and the first reading was from Genesis…“The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” As the New Eve, Mary is the perfect prototype of Holy Mother Church. She is the prototype of humanity’s restored nature, of humanity’s participation, through Christ, in the divine nature. She is our Mother in the order of grace.

 

[mardukm]

For the sake of clarity, I must remind people that Mardukm speaks only for himself and his own understanding, and does not represent any Oriental Orthodox viewpoint, as he is not any kind of Oriental Orthodox Christian. Oriental Orthodox resources on the questions of original sin and of the Immaculate Conception idea, which is not Orthodox doctrine nor accepted by any jurisdiction within the Oriental Orthodox Church, can be found at the following links:

For the sake of clarity, I should point out that the only thing I said that it is easier to understand and accept the IC from an Oriental perspective on Original Sin. I never said that the IC was an Oriental Orthodox doctrine, Brother Dzheremi, it is ironic that you complain that I am claiming something for the Orieintal Orthodox Church (which I did not) by trying to impose statements on me I never made.

“Original Sin and Atonement”, prepared by the Southern United States Diocese of the Coptic Orthodox Church.

With all due respect, Suscopts should stop pontificating about things it doesn’t know about. The very first statement from the link “Roman Catholics believe that St. Mary was born without the consequences of Original Sin” is flat-out false. From the get-go, it imposes a wrong premise on the doctrine. Until there are efforts to actually meet Catholic doctrine head on for what they teach, instead of the fanciful interpretations of its detractors, the road to unity would be easier.

This was apparently written to answer Calvinists, not Roman Catholics, but still says very clearly: “what we inherit or what is transmitted to us is Adam’s fallen human nature and not his actual sin.” Whether or not this is concordant with any particular Catholic’s view of the IC and what it means is immaterial

Of course, it matters, because you are misrepresenting the Catholic position attempting to even suggest that the response has anything to do with the IC. Don’t bring up the matter if you know it is irrelevant to the issue of the IC. If you don’t know, ask.

as we reject it just the same, since we cannot countenance anything that places the Theotokos outside of the one human nature which is shared by all.

Yes, Mary shared our human nature. I used to reject the IC because (among other misunderstandings about the IC) I thought it meant she did not have a human nature. After reading Catholic material - instead of non-Catholic ones - about what the IC really means, I realized that the IC does not teach that Mary did not have a human nature like ours.

And, yes, I have read all the arguments from Mardukm et al. that this is a misunderstanding of the IC, and that it doesn’t really mean that, and that it’s really in keeping with the Oriental Orthodox view, blahblahblah. No, it isn’t.

That’s fine, because I never said that. The Oriental Orthodox view on the IC is chock full of misunderstanding. I accept this about the Oriental Orthodox view on the IC. I know why they reject it. But it was a misunderstanding that God gave me the Grace to overcome over the years. That doesn’t mean I have rejected my Oriental Orthodox Faith. It simply means I have rejected the misunderstandings of the IC. Like all Oriental Orthodox, I reject anything that states Mary did not have our human nature. But the IC does not teach that – simple as that.

I could point to several portions of the Papal bull that defined the doctrine, Ineffabilis Deus, that are in direct contradiction with what we teach

Yes, I used to think that too…until I actually studied the matter from Catholic sources. If you wish to rely on your OO sources to tell you about the IC, and not Catholic ones, that is your prerogative. I don’t mind that, since I am secure that all the huff and puff do not really do any damage to the actual doctrine of the IC, because all the huff and puff are not even addressing the actual teaching of the IC in the first place.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

.“The Orthodox Church calls Mary all-holy, immaculate, free from actual sin. The Orthodox Church has never made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter of the Immaculate Conception. In the past, individual Orthodox theologians have made statements that, if not definitively affirming the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception, at any rate closely approach it. But since 1854, the great majority of Orthodox reject it as necessary; as implying a false understanding of original sin; as suspecting the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam and Eve, putting her in a different class. However, if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe it, he could not be termed a heretic for doing so.” - Bishop Kallistos Ware, “The Orthodox Church”

 

[mardukm]

There is something I wanted to explain about the IC for those who may not have researched the matter very thoroughly. It has to do with the idea that the IC means that Mary COULD NOT sin. This idea is borne of the fact that Mary did not have concupiscence. However, a proper of understanding of the Catholic and Orthodox teaching on concupiscence will evince that the idea that Mary COULD NOT sin is a non sequitur from the dogmatic facts of the matter.

The Latin understanding of concupiscence is very close to the Oriental understanding of concupiscence (my Eastern brethren, I don’t know what your teaching is on concupiscence, so please add anything that you feel is relevant). The Oriental understanding comes from Pope St. Athanasius, as does the Latin understanding. In both Traditions, concupiscence has to do with the disordered use of reason.

Human nature inherently consists of the base animal appetites (or inclinations) and the God-given use of reason. With God-given reason, the animal appetites/inclinations are checked. I think the problem is that many people understand concupiscence to mean “the animal appetites/inclinations.” This is incorrect. The animal appetites/inclinations are a NATURAL part of our created human nature. You and I have it, and - YES - MARY the Immaculate had it. Concupiscence does not denote the base animal appetites/inclinations – rather, concupiscence denotes the TENDENCY TO GIVE IN to those human appetites/inclinations because of a disordered use of reason.

Many popularly like to say that due to the IC, “Mary had no inclination to sin.” This is where the misunderstanding comes in, for this is often misinterpreted to mean that Mary COULD NOT SIN. When it is stated that Mary had no inclination to sin, “inclination” in this statement does NOT mean that Mary had no animal appetites or inclinations. If she didn’t, she would not be human. Since Mary had the animal appetites, as all created humans do, she was indeed capable of sinning (i.e., giving in to her animal appetites). What “inclination” actually refers to in the statement “Mary had no inclination to sin” is the disordered use of reason. What was special about Mary was not that she had no animal appetites/inclinations (i.e., that she “could not sin”). Rather, what was special about Mary is that she had the perfect use of reason and thus would never gave in to - always overcame - her animal inclinations.

Of course, the fact that human nature partly consists of an animal appetite is the reason that Mary experienced temptation - as well as Jesus (having our human nature).

It is without a doubt that Jesus COULD NEVER sin because His human and divine natures were perfectly united. The notion of whether Mary “WOULD NEVER sin” or “COULD NEVER sin” is a matter of theological opinion AFAIK - i.e., never been defined. In other words, It is a matter of theological opinion that the IC dogmatized that particular matter, for the formal dogma never makes a clear statement on that particular matter. So for certain non-Catholics to claim that the IC means Mary “COULD NOT sin” (i.e., that she no longer had any animal appetites/inclinations), thus depriving her of a human nature, is making the dogma say more than it actually teaches.

I hope that helps.

As an aside, the distinction I perceive between the Latin and Oriental understanding of concupiscence is that the Latin understanding seems to distinguish “the desire for the animal appetites” and the “disordered use of reason” as two separate (though related) movements; the Oriental understanding seems rather to equate the two.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Mardukm,

When there are people in this thread thanking you for elucidating what you have termed “the Oriental point of view”, it does benefit all to point out that this is one area in which it cannot be said to be an “Eastern” vs. “Oriental” difference in viewpoint that has led to conflict or controversy (not that there might not be such differences in soteriology, but that they don’t really matter when it comes to rejecting the RC dogma), so much as a Catholic vs. Orthodox difference, as no Orthodox (Oriental or Eastern) accept this piece of RC dogma as you do – and you do so because you are Catholic, not because you profess to be “Oriental”.

As to differences of opinion regarding who is correctly representing what – whatever, fine, as I wrote before, I don’t care. Represent the IC and all other RCC doctrine however you want, to whomever you want, as is your right. My only point is to stand up and say to the people who don’t know any better in this thread that you are not representing some kind of general “Oriental” view such that there could even be one regarding something that your forefathers in the Coptic Orthodox Church, together with all OO, reject on principle (as though we have predetermined stances on doctrine that isn’t even ours; this was an issue for precisely 0% of Christianity before Rome decided to dogmatize Latin theological speculation for no reason at all and force that speculation on their Eastern compatriots in kind). Views do not exist separately from their actual communions, and in this case you are compelled to accept something that is a Catholic (and moreover, really Latin, as your Byzantine and other non-Latin coreligionists would probably have a few things to say about acceptance of this doctrine) distinctive by virtue of your own chosen communion. Don’t make it into an “Oriental” thing when it’s not.

 

[Zekariya]

There is something I wanted to explain about the IC for those who may not have researched the matter very thoroughly. It has to do with the idea that the IC means that Mary COULD NOT sin. This idea is borne of the fact that Mary did not have concupiscence. However, a proper of understanding of the Catholic and Orthodox teaching on concupiscence will evince that the idea that Mary COULD NOT sin is a non sequitur from the dogmatic facts of the matter.

The Latin understanding of concupiscence is very close to the Oriental understanding of concupiscence (my Eastern brethren, I don’t know what your teaching is on concupiscence, so please add anything that you feel is relevant). The Oriental understanding comes from Pope St. Athanasius, as does the Latin understanding. In both Traditions, concupiscence has to do with the disordered use of reason.

The Byzantines do not teach the Roman doctrine of concupiscence. I can’t find any Oriental Orthodox information on their theology on concupiscence in order to compare it with the Roman doctrine.

Roman concupiscence defined: newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

 

[KDamgirl]

The Byzantines do not teach the Roman doctrine of concupiscence. I can’t find any Oriental Orthodox information on their theology on concupiscence in order to compare it with the Roman doctrine.

Roman concupiscence defined: newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

I am very confused. I assumed everybody taught about the pull towards sins. Why is that only roman doctrine? It is in the Bible. The flesh is weak! It is also an observed fact of life. I’m confused about this.

 

[Zekariya]

I am very confused. I assumed everybody taught about the pull towards sins. Why is that only roman doctrine? It is in the Bible. The flesh is weak! It is also an observed fact of life. I’m confused about this.

Yes, we are inclined towards sinning (the East does teach that). However, concupiscence is a Roman scholastic term that means a whole lots more than just inclination to sin.

 

[KDamgirl]

Yes, we are inclined towards sinning (the East does teach that). However, concupiscence is a Roman scholastic term that means a whole lots more than just inclination to sin.

What else does it mean?

 

[Zekariya]

Concerning man’s flesh, there is absolutely no doubt that in many respects it is a den and source of anti-moral predisposition’s, strivings and inclinations. The ancestral sin - this inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors and our own personal sinful experiences: all this added up and each (experience) strengthening one another, creates in our flesh a source of temptations, sinful moods and acts.

• Metropolitan Philaret (Voskresensky)

Further reading here: orthodoxphotos.com/readings/law/sin.shtml

 

[Zekariya]

What else does it mean?

Here you go: newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

 

[frjohnmorris]

I am very confused. I assumed everybody taught about the pull towards sins. Why is that only roman doctrine? It is in the Bible. The flesh is weak! It is also an observed fact of life. I’m confused about this.

The East EO, OO or EC, does not use the term concupiscence, but we all teach that we are inclined towards sin because of the mortal in imperfect state that we inherit through ancestral sin.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[RaphaelJ]

So erm… to summarize. Our Eastern brethren believe that Mary is immaculately conceived and experienced the fullness of God’s presence, right? As to why the Pope defined it, I think that maybe he just wanted to settle it once and for all. You see, the Franciscans and Dominicans were debating whether she free from original sin from conception or not. The Dominicans argued that she was touched by original sin whereas the Franciscans argued that she was not. Both of course agreed she was free from actual sin. Perhaps that’s why… after all, in the Catholic Church dogmas are defined when there are conflicts.

 

[KDamgirl]

The East EO, OO or EC, does not use the term concupiscence, but we all teach that we are inclined towards sin because of the mortal in imperfect state that we inherit through ancestral sin.

Fr. John W. Morris

Is it only that you don’t use the term concupiscence? Because the other blogger implied that Romans teach something other than pull towards sins. I find this strange because I have always understood that concupiscence is pull or attraction that is not according to the right way hence pull towards sin. Three concupiscence taught by St. John in the bible of the flesh the world and pride of life. That link is full of technical language that is not easy to understand. However, the other link of the metropolitan is what I understand to be concupiscence. Can someone point out which part in roman doctrine is not the pull towards sin? The blogger zekariya said that it involves many other things.

 

[KDamgirl]

The East EO, OO or EC, does not use the term concupiscence, but we all teach that we are inclined towards sin because of the mortal in imperfect state that we inherit through ancestral sin.

Fr. John W. Morris

is not this what Romans teach? Please explain the difference and not send people to a technical page like the other blogger.

 

[Zekariya]

is not this what Romans teach? Please explain the difference and not send people to a technical page like the other blogger.

It is the “technical” stuff (ie scholasticism) that make the difference.

 

[frjohnmorris]

is not this what Romans teach? Please explain the difference and not send people to a technical page like the other blogger.

I think that there are two major differences between the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin and the Roman Catholic doctrine. Eastern Orthodox do not believe that we inherit guilt from Adam. Instead, we believe that we are guilty only of our own sins and only inherit the consequences of Adam’s sins the chief of which is mortality. Because we are all mortal, we are all corrupt. Because we are all corrupt we sin and become guilty of our own sins. Thus Orthodox theologians do not speak of ancestral sin as the loss of original justice. Roman Catholic statements imply that we inherit actual guilt from Adam. The other major difference is that we do not believe that anyone is ever completely cut off from God’s grace. Orthodox theology does not have different categories of grace, like prevenient grace and sanctifying grace, but instead defines grace as a fully divine uncreated energy of God.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[dcointin]

I think that there are two major differences between the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin and the Roman Catholic doctrine. Eastern Orthodox do not believe that we inherit guilt from Adam. Instead, we believe that we are guilty only of our own sins and only inherit the consequences of Adam’s sins the chief of which is mortality. Because we are all mortal, we are all corrupt. Because we are all corrupt we sin and become guilty of our own sins. Thus Orthodox theologians do not speak of ancestral sin as the loss of original justice. Roman Catholic statements imply that we inherit actual guilt from Adam. The other major difference is that we do not believe that anyone is ever completely cut off from God’s grace. Orthodox theology does not have different categories of grace, like prevenient grace and sanctifying grace, but instead defines grace as a fully divine uncreated energy of God.

Fr. John W. Morris

“405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.”

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=14-chapter4.xhtml%23para404

 

[dzheremi]

Whether or not we all agree on ancestral/original sin or not kind of doesn’t matter for the purposes of the actual subject of the thread, does it? I have had Romans explain it to me in any number of ways (including priests), and what it comes right down to is that whatever terminology they use, they say that the Theotokos was uniquely kept from ______ (stain/guilt/etc.) from her conception (and some further divide this into her actual conception vs. some kind of “spiritual conception”, which makes zero sense to me, but I guess means something to Latins). No matter how you fill in that blank or how you conceptualize her conception, this is not acceptable. St. Mary was indeed uniquely blessed and filled with grace by God, but was not kept from sin by any means other than her personal sinlessness. We do not need to mess with Christian anthropology to render her uniquely sinless so as to preserve her from inheriting _____, since as far as I understand it we do believe that by her being subject to the same fall as affected the rest of humanity, she was made mortal. That is after all the effect of sin, as recorded in the scriptures (mortality). If anything, she was sinless because she was so faithful to God, not because she was uniquely preserved from _____. We in the Coptic Orthodox Church do sing in the paraliturgical hymn “O Mary” that “the Lord from your childhood witnessed your purity”, not “the Lord from your conception preserved you from the stain of original sin”. I believe that there is a big difference between these two ideas, even if the RCC does not teach that we are personally guilty of Adam’s sin (which is good to see, if true; it’s been a while since I’ve seriously investigated the CCC about this, but if I remember correctly there are other places that are questionable from an Orthodox perspective regarding the effects of the fall).

So the IC is in any case completely unacceptable, no matter how you fill in the above blanks.