Immaculate Conception in Eastern Catholicism

[malphono]

… 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.

That line, all by itself, is really quite excellent, dzheremi. …

 

[dzheremi]

Just trying to teach what I’ve learned from my time in Orthodoxy so far. On a personal level, I find the Orthodox teaching on this matter to be very, very important not because what the alternative necessarily says about human guiltiness (I figure I have enough of my own sins that I am actually guilty of, I’m not going to get up in arms if the RCC wants to also say that I’m somehow guilty of one more that I know that I did not actually do; and it doesn’t seem like they say that now, anyway), but because of how all of this affects the incarnation. As I’m sure you know, the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox churches is deeply, deeply incarnational. It is impossible to understand outside of the context, in my experience. So, and here I am paraphrasing my priest, what does it mean to say that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ took flesh from the Theotokos if that flesh itself did not suffer the effect of the fall? It’s not that we believe that Jesus Christ is thus subject to any guilt (personal, inherited or otherwise) of sin, as the scriptures record that there was no sin in Him, and of course being God it is antithetical to His very being that He should commit such. Rather, it is quite simply as St. Gregory tells us: What is not assumed is not saved. In order to sanctify our nature, He assumes our nature. It must be fallen exactly as ours is, or else what the heck is the point of Christianity in the first freaking place? God was incarnate for no reason, because He could just as easily make us all sinless via some sort of special grace given at conception? I mean, yeah, that could have happened (in the same way that the Son could’ve been incarnate as an elderly Korean gentleman, or God could’ve created the world in three days and used the remaining 4 to give human beings gills or suction-cup hands or something; all kinds of crazy stuff we can’t even imagine could’ve happened) …but it didn’t. Respect His prerogatives as God.

Rant, rant, rant…hahaha. Sorry everybody. It’s just weird from an Orthodox perspective, because even if (as some here on CAF have claimed) it doesn’t say or mean that the Theotokos was rendered incapable of sinning (which I’m really not sure I buy, but anyway), it definitely messes with the incarnation and the theology surrounding it, which in turn distorts Christology, etc. So, even as we are always told around these parts that it is unfair and dishonest to reject a given RCC doctrine based on a non-Catholic reading of what it means or what its implications are, in truth the implications are enough alone to reject this one, given how much it messes with the very foundations set by our Fathers, such as St. Athanasius the Apostolic, St. Cyril, etc. These are our standard, not medieval Latin theological speculation that was dogmatized for whatever reason for all intents and purposes yesterday (1854 is yesterday in a 2000 year old church – Latin and Egyptian alike). We have no reason to accept that, and many, many reasons to be wary of it.

 

[frjohnmorris]

“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

That definition of original sin is very close if not identical to the Eastern Orthodox understanding of ancestral sin. It is also quite different from the Lutheran and Calvinist definition of original sin that includes total depravity and a denial of free will.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[MorEphrem]

That line, all by itself, is really quite excellent, dzheremi. …

You and dzheremi are a bunch o’ Mary hatin’ hairiotics. It obviously makes more sense to say that God contradicted both the Fall and Free Will to make someone super-holyz to do His Will so her “yes” was also devalued since a perfected individual would necessarily have to accept God’s will.

 

[Moonbug]

Zekariya, I don’t see much difference

“We do not teach a removal of God’s grace at the Fall.”

I view this as no different than committing a mortal sin. So then what do you call this state of Grace? Imperfect?

“Grace is the uncreated Energies of God.”

This is true, which is why I don’t see much difference.

" Certainly the Sacraments confer God’s grace but this has nothing to do the Fall."

Sure it does which is why we all baptize, its a supernatural imposed virtue of grace. So the question becomes when was St Mary Baptized. Then the creed.

I’m not too sure about that, Gary. As a Catholic I was taught that when Adam sinned, he fell from God’s approval (God’s grace), and was driven, with Eve, from the Garden of Eden. They had fallen from grace because the had disobeyed God.

As for Orthodox theology, I have read that some Orthodox theologians of prominence have agreed with the Catholic Church’s dogma of "The Immaculate Conception. Is this true?

 

[malphono]

You and dzheremi are a bunch o’ Mary hatin’ hairiotics. It obviously makes more sense to say that God contradicted both the Fall and Free Will to make someone super-holyz to do His Will so her “yes” was also devalued since a perfected individual would necessarily have to accept God’s will.

Maybe haricots-verts???

 

[Wandile]

I’m not too sure about that, Gary. As a Catholic I was taught that when Adam sinned, he fell from God’s approval (God’s grace), and was driven, with Eve, from the Garden of Eden. They had fallen from grace because the had disobeyed God.

As for Orthodox theology, I have read that some Orthodox theologians of prominence have agreed with the Catholic Church’s dogma of "The Immaculate Conception. Is this true?

I have heard this too but this might help

Two of Thomas Aquinas’ most ardent disciples among the Greeks disagreed with him on one point only, his failure to admit the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. Demetrios Kydonios (fourteenth century) translated some of Aquinas’ works into Greek, but vehemently opposed Thomas’ views on the immaculate conception. [Demetrios Kydonios, “Hom. in annuntiationem deiparae”, contained in “Cod. Paris gr.”, 1213 (cf. Jugie, op cit., pp. 276-279.] No less did the other great Thomist, Georgios Scholarios (fifteenth century), in his synopsis of the immaculate conception. [Georgios Scholarios, “In dormitionem” (PO 16, p. 577); cf. Petit-Siderides-Jugie; “Oeuvres completes de Georges Scholarios”, Vol. 1 [Paris, 1928], pp. 202-203; also Petit-Sisderides-Jugie, op. cit., I, p. 501; also Jugie, “Georges Scholarios et l’Immaculee Conception”, Echos d’Orient (Paris-Istanbul, 17 [1915], pp. 527-530.]
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/imconcep.htm

 

[Zekariya]

As for Orthodox theology, I have read that some Orthodox theologians of prominence have agreed with the Catholic Church’s dogma of "The Immaculate Conception. Is this true?

If you have time to read it, Archimandrite Lev Gillet (Patriarchate of Constantinople) has written thoroughly about it in four parts:

eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-1/
eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-2/
eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-3/
eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-4/

It was quite an enlightening read for me.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I’m not too sure about that, Gary. As a Catholic I was taught that when Adam sinned, he fell from God’s approval (God’s grace), and was driven, with Eve, from the Garden of Eden. They had fallen from grace because the had disobeyed God.

As for Orthodox theology, I have read that some Orthodox theologians of prominence have agreed with the Catholic Church’s dogma of "The Immaculate Conception. Is this true?

It is true that the Eastern Orthodox doctrine concerning Mary is almost identical to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Mary. Thus some Orthodox theologians have come very close to the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. We certainly believe that from the moment of her conception that God prepared her with His grace for her role in our salvation by becoming the Birthgiver (Theotokos) of God. However, the only actual dogma concerning Our Lady officially proclaimed by the Eastern Orthodox Church is that Mary is the Theotokos, that is birth giver of God. 3rd Ecumenical Council, Ephesus 431. However the liturgical texts of the Eastern Orthodox Church make it clear that the dogmatization that Our Lady is Theotokos does not exhaust Eastern Orthodox beliefs about The Blessed Virgin Mary. She is also Ever Virgin, All Pure and Immaculate. Thus, she committed no personal sins. We also teach that she was prepared by God’s grace since childhood to bear Christ, which we celebrate at the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple on November 21. The liturgical texts of the Eastern Orthodox Church also teach that after her death and burial, Mary rose from the dead and ascended body and soul into Heaven. Thus although we do not classify it as a dogma, we certainly believe in the bodily assumption of Mary.
The Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception is problematical for Eastern Orthodox because we have a different understanding of original sin. Eastern Orthodox theology was not influenced by the Blessed Augustine or the Western controversy over Pelagianism. Thus we do not believe that the Fall led to a loss of grace, which we do not define as defined by Moonbug as God’s favor. According to our theology, Grace is an uncreated and fully divine energy of God flowing from His hidden essence. Thus grace is the experience of God, which St. Paul tells us in the 1st chapter of Romans is given to all humanity through His creation. According to the Orthodox understanding of ancestral sin, ancestral sin is chiefly the inheritance of mortality from Adam and Eve. Because we are born mortal we are born in corruption and all commit sins, thereby earning guilt for our own sins. The liturgical texts for the Feast of the Dormition or Assumption make it clear that Our Lady died a natural death and was buried before she was assumed body and soul into Heaven. Therefore, because she died, we believe that Mary was born in ancestral sin. However, we also believe that she used her free will from childhood to cooperate with the grace of God to be prepared to become the Theotokos. Thus Mary was pure and sinless. The most common Eastern Orthodox prayer to Mary is,“It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, who art ever blessed, and the mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, thou who without stain gavest birth to God the Word, and art truly Theotokos; we magnify thee.”
it is important from Christological point of view that Our Lady was born in ancestral sin, because Christ received His human nature from her. As St. Gregory the Theologian wrote, “That which is not assumed is not healed.” By assuming fallen humanity from Mary Christ healed humanity from ancestral sin. There is a line from the Prayer to Mary at the end of the Byzantine Service of Compline that expresses this concept beautifully “thou hast joined our fallen human nature to Heavenly things.”
Therefore, Eastern Orthodox agree with Catholics that God prepared Mary by His grace to become the Theotokos. We just express it differently as a result of a different understanding of original or ancestral sin.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[prodromos]

If you have time to read it, Archimandrite Lev Gillet (Patriarchate of Constantinople) has written thoroughly about it in four parts:

eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-1/
eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-2/
eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-3/
eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-4/

It was quite an enlightening read for me.

And yet, Fr Lev Gillet converted to Orthodoxy from the Catholic Church. Do you know if this was written before or after his conversion?

 

[tdgesq]

That definition of original sin is very close if not identical to the Eastern Orthodox understanding of ancestral sin. It is also quite different from the Lutheran and Calvinist definition of original sin that includes total depravity and a denial of free will.

Fr. John W. Morris

Father,

I do agree with this, although I have what is probably a technical question about the historical reality of the dispute between the East and the Roman Church’s view on original sin. I really don’t see much disagreement on this issue from the historical record, at least in terms of where schism occurred. This seems to be much more of a contemporary issue; due in no small part to Ineffabilis Deus. What is your analysis of this?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father,

I do agree with this, although I have what is probably a technical question about the historical reality of the dispute between the East and the Roman Church’s view on original sin. I really don’t see much disagreement on this issue from the historical record, at least in terms of where schism occurred. This seems to be much more of a contemporary issue; due in no small part to Ineffabilis Deus. What is your analysis of this?

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary played no role in the events that led to the schism. Augustine’s view of original sin was virtually unknown in the East at that time. His works were not translated into Greek until about the 13 century. However the papal claim to infallibly issue doctrinal declarations on his own authority did. The Eastern Orthodox Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as having a primacy of honor not of jurisdiction and did considered him or any other Bishop infallible. Orthodox Christians believe that doctrinal declarations binding on the whole church can only be issued by an Ecumenical Council or what we now call a Pan-Orthodox Council representing the whole Church. However, to be considered an infallible statement of doctrine, it must be accepted by the Church. For example the Robber Council of Ehpesus of 449 claimed ecumenical authority, but was rejected by the Church and its exoneration of Eutyches overturned by the 4th Ecumenical Council, the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This same council also accepted the Tome of Leo, but only after a committee of the council studied it and declared it Orthodox. Chalcedon did not accept it just because it was written by Pope St. Leo. There were other issues such as the filioque clause, and the dispute over married clergy, but the major issue was the refusal of the East to recognize universal papal jurisdiction.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

And yet, Fr Lev Gillet converted to Orthodoxy from the Catholic Church. Do you know if this was written before or after his conversion?

I do not know with any certainty. However, I did notice that he refers to “Patriarch Photius” and “(St) Gregory Palamas” even though they are major Eastern Orthodox saints (and Melkite saints for that matter). I know that most Eastern Catholics seem to hesitate calling St Photius a a saint. This would lead me to guess that he was still Catholic at the time of writing the article.