Necessity of the Immaculate Conception

[Ghosty]

And it would likely be news to the wrong Ethiopian Orthodox leaders in the United States who have again wrongly thought that this was a part of our faith when it isn’t. This did not play out well for the errant leaders in question, when push came to shove recently: medhanialemeotcks.org/pdf/Letter_to_HH%20Shenouda.pdf (summary of PDF: Abp. Mattias was wrong, according to our common faith. The IC is wrong.)

Reply to the letter by HG Bishop David, who later came to the church in question at the request of the people to teach on this issue according to the Orthodox faith: medhanialemeotcks.org/pdf/HG%20Bisop_David-Letter.pdf

While it is long, the recently reposed Ethiopian Patriarch, HH Abune Paulos, wrote a very good PhD dissertation in 1988 on the Ethiopian beliefs regarding St. Mary. You can read the full thing here (in PDF form): medhanialemeotcks.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Filsata.pdf

The immaculate conception is listed at the end of the dissertation, as a Roman Catholic view, not appearing before in any of the chapter regarding the EOTC belief, as it is not an EOTC belief. The EOTC view is the same as all OO view: St. Mary was born the same as any of us. She was not “immaculately conceived”, but she was free from sin – just not in an a priori sense as the IC would have people believe.

It is unfortunate that there is not more material from the EOTC available in English on this matter, as I too have met Ethiopians who thought that this was a confusing issue, given how (and this is unfortunately something they likewise share in common with the rest of the OO, including Copts) they sometimes use terms that are in common with the RCC, while not understanding how they are understood in Western Christianity. You can likewise find terms like “Original Sin” being used by Copts (I’ve seen also my own bishop use it, though he’s never talked about it any of the times he’s visited us since I’ve been here), but a little bit of digging generally shows that we don’t mean the same thing as the West does. This is the same with EOTC, and unfortunately the confusion does sometimes pull in high-ranking leaders, including bishops and archbishops, leading to situations like what has happened in the EOTC in Kansas, which required outside assistance to sort out.

I will say is that all of the Ethiopians I’ve spoken to on the matter were recent immigrants, and had no catechesis in the U.S.

Everything you cited, aside from the dissertation, was from the Coptic Church, not the Ethiopian. Furthermore, your assertion that things didn’t play out well for the figures involved couldn’t be further from the truth. The Ethiopian Archbishop who said that the Immaculate Conception was the teaching of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and who removed the priest that denied it, is now His Holiness Abune Matthias I, the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

The issue was not “sorted out” by outside assistance, as you claim, but rather the Archbishop in question has since been elevated to Patriarch in the witness of all the other Oriental Orthodox Patriarchs. The Ethiopian congregants and priest that complained had to go outside the Ethiopian Church precisely because their view was not supported within it, and even the Patriarch that wrote the dissertation you cited did not come to their defense (hence they went to the Coptic Church for support).

Unless you can show me something that indicates that His Holiness Abune Matthias repudiated his very strong belief, a belief so strong that he punished a priest that denied it, then I have no reason to believe your claims in the face of the Ethiopian Orthodox I know that proclaim, with their Patriarch, that Mary was Immaculately Conceived.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dzheremi]

Everything you cited, aside from the dissertation, was from the Coptic Church, not the Ethiopian.

The church in question in Kansas at which this controversy played out is an Ethiopian Orthodox Church. The letters produced were to the Coptic Church from the EOTC parish and from the Coptic Church to the EOTC parish in response to this controversy.

Furthermore, your assertion that things didn’t play out well for the figures involved couldn’t be further from the truth. The Ethiopian Archbishop who said that the Immaculate Conception was the teaching of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and who removed the priest that denied it, is now His Holiness Abune Matthias I, the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Ughhh. The smiley suggests you know you’re being silly, but just so we’re clear, I meant “didn’t play out well” in that he was rebuked by all the other Orthodox churches. I didn’t link to it, but there was eventually a conference about this issue also including Coptic and Eritrean bishops (I don’t know if Syriacs and Armenians also attended, but there are clear statements from both to be found elsewhere regarding their rejection of the IC), who all affirmed that the IC was not and is not an Orthodox teaching, and has no place in our Church. (The Ethiopians even videotaped their lecture series and Q&A session that came about due to this conference, but there’s no use linking it here since it’s all in Amharic with no subtitles. Ethiopians who viewed it all relayed that the content supports the OO view, and not the innovation of HE now HH Abune Matthias regarding this issue).

The issue was not “sorted out” by outside assistance, as you claim, but rather the Archbishop in question has since been elevated to Patriarch in the witness of all the other Oriental Orthodox Patriarchs. Unless you can show me something that indicates that he repudiated his very strong belief, a belief so strong that he punished a priest that denied it, then I have no reason to believe your claims in the face of the Ethiopian Orthodox I know that proclaim, with their Patriarch, that Mary was Immaculately Conceived.

It appears that you do not understand the way that things work outside of your own communion. The fact that an archbishop who is now Patriarch once wrongly disciplined a priest for teaching correctly and was repudiated for it by bishops of other churches in the communion does not make the rest of the communion wrong. Whether HH Abune Matthias had a strong belief in the IC is of no consequence, as in that case it was a strong belief in something that is wrong. By your logic, we would have to show, for instance, that notorious Roman Pope Honorius gave up his personal belief in monothelitism before we could say whether or not monothelitism was the belief of the Roman Catholic Church of his day. I suspect you know that things do not work that way, and with good reason. Well, we are no different. And I’m sure you know that the Orthodox Tewahedo Church is the daughter of the Coptic; it is not for nothing, then, that eventually the matter came before the COC, after the church in question did not receive a reply from their own leadership. HG Bishop David set the matter straight, and of course the fact that the Ethiopian Orthodox church in question saw fit to bring the matter to HH Pope Shenouda III is evidence that the Ethiopians themselves are not believers in this doctrine. Those who think that it is Orthodox, whether they are Patriarchs or archbishops or whatever, are quite simply mistaken.

 

[Ghosty]

The church in question in Kansas at which this controversy played out is an Ethiopian Orthodox Church. The letters produced were to the Coptic Church from the EOTC parish and from the Coptic Church to the EOTC parish in response to this controversy.

And these letters are irrelevant as to the teaching of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Ughhh. The smiley suggests you know you’re being silly, but just so we’re clear, I meant “didn’t play out well” in that he was rebuked by all the other Orthodox churches. I didn’t link to it, but there was eventually a conference about this issue also including Coptic and Eritrean bishops (I don’t know if Syriacs and Armenians also attended, but there are clear statements from both to be found elsewhere regarding their rejection of the IC), who all affirmed that the IC was not and is not an Orthodox teaching, and has no place in our Church. (The Ethiopians even videotaped their lecture series and Q&A session that came about due to this conference, but there’s no use linking it here since it’s all in Amharic with no subtitles. Ethiopians who viewed it all relayed that the content supports the OO view, and not the innovation of HE now HH Abune Matthias regarding this issue).

Links please and citations. All of your citations were at least over five years old, and two of them were from outside of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

It appears that you do not understand the way that things work outside of your own communion.

This statement is both uncalled for and incorrect. I made no claims about the workings of the Oriental Orthodox Communion, I simply stated the facts of this particular case. I’m not even making an argument for the correctness of the teaching in question, merely pointing out that your blanket assertion contradicts the “facts on the ground” as regards the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

The fact that an archbishop who is now Patriarch once wrongly disciplined a priest for teaching correctly and was repudiated for it by bishops of other churches in the communion does not make the rest of the communion wrong.

Show me where it was claimed that the rest of the Communion is wrong. I was simply pointing out the stance of the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church, as you had claimed that no Oriental Church teaches the Immaculate Conception. Furthermore, show me where His Holiness Mathias was repudiated by Bishops from his own Church, the ones that elected him Patriarch shortly thereafter.

Whether HH Abune Matthias had a strong belief in the IC is of no consequence, as in that case it was a strong belief in something that is wrong. By your logic, we would have to show, for instance, that notorious Roman Pope Honorius gave up his personal belief in monothelitism before we could say whether or not monothelitism was the belief of the Roman Catholic Church of his day.

I have no idea where you are getting this from, nor do I see where you’re going with it. Honorius is irrelevant to this discussion. So far we have no evidence from you that His Holiness repudiated his teaching. You reference a conference, but you don’t cite it; if it is the conference I believe it was, however, it was merely a local convening of various Orthodox figures in Washington D.C. and had no authority within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

I suspect you know that things do not work that way, and with good reason. Well, we are no different. And I’m sure you know that the Orthodox Tewahedo Church is the daughter of the Coptic; it is not for nothing, then, that eventually the matter came before the COC, after the church in question did not receive a reply from their own leadership. HG Bishop David set the matter straight, and of course the fact that the Ethiopian Orthodox church in question saw fit to bring the matter to HH Pope Shenouda III is evidence that the Ethiopians themselves are not believers in this doctrine. Those who think that it is Orthodox, whether they are Patriarchs or archbishops or whatever, are quite simply mistaken.

The local supporters of that particular priest brought it to the Coptic Church after their own Bishop removed the faculties of the priest in question. This doesn’t show that the Ethiopian Faithful deny the Immaculate Conception, it merely shows that this particular group could not get the decision overturned within their own Church, and went so far as to approach Bishops from outside their own Church to address an internal matter.

Again, I simply ask that you cite evidence that this decision was overturned by the Ethiopian Church, and/or that the current Patriarch has renounced the teaching. If you can’t do these things then you can hardly claim categorically that the Immaculate Conception is not a teaching, or at the very least a strong theological opinion, within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

My point is simply this: every Ethiopian I’ve personally spoken to has made it a point to emphasize the Immaculate Conception, and so has their Bishop/Patriarch, and this viewpoint has not, to my knowledge, been challenged by the Synod of the Ethiopian Church. On the contrary, the group that complained about the punishment handed down on the priest in question did not receive the response they hoped for, even from the then-Patriarch that had earlier written the dissertation you cited. In fact, to my knowledge the priest in question is still without faculties in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dzheremi]

The bottom line is this, Ghosty:

You are taking HH Abune Matthias’ personal belief in this matter (at least as evidenced by his actions as Archbishop against the priest of the church in KS) to reflect the belief of the EOTC in toto, bolstered by the Ethiopians you have met. You are wrong in doing so and wrong in rejecting what has been presented so far that shows this as a controversial issue precisely because it is not agreed upon as an accepted dogma of the EOTC. You will note, I hope, that I have not in this thread or anywhere argued that no Tewahedo Orthodox Christian believe in the IC, only that it is not OO (EOTC, COC, any of us) doctrine. Those individual Tewahedo, no matter their rank, are wrong and at odds with the rest of the communion in affirming something that is explicitly rejected by the Church. My only point is that, while you claim that I have not shown that this is not EOTC doctrine by neglecting to link to the decision of the EOTC synod on this matter (as their hasn’t been one; that’s why the church in KS had to appeal to the COC in the first place), by even framing your position in this way, you are imposing a foreign mindset on the Church. Absolutely there should be such a synod, but in the absence of one, what we do have are the local conventions (and the one I mentioned was not in DC, but held at St. Mark COC in Kansas City in 2009 to deal with this issue, as it had effected the local church there), wherein OO of all jurisdictions in the area came together to support the true Orthodox doctrine, which is not the IC – not just in the Coptic Church, but in all of our churches. We do not recognize some artificial division between the two Orthodox churches of Africa, either in faith or in any other matter, just because you want to argue on the internet that the Coptic voice that was asked for by the Ethiopian Orthodox themselves does not say what you want it to, or does not say what the Ethiopians you have spoken to say.

This same underlying issue, by the way (possible tension between governing bodies and people within the Church), has surfaced in many ways across the OO communion: The Coptic Synod of 1957 (or thereabouts) that passed the electoral bylaws that currently restrict the electable candidates to the Papacy was in some sense challenged recently when locum tenens HE Metropolitan Pachomios made all candidates promise to work at replacing them with something that reflects the position that the Church is in today, not back then when there was only maybe one Coptic Church outside of North Africa. Even more on point, the Ethiopian Synod was challenged at the time of HH Abune Paulos’ election (1992) by the formation of a synod in exile which charged that the synod back home had been corrupted by the Derg, and hence refused to recognize HH. The same is going on now in Eritrea, where the native church is held hostage by the government, who installed the puppet patriarch Diskoros after jailing the recognized Patriarch HH Abune Antonios. In all these cases, the faith is paramount. Should an EOTC synod be called tomorrow which affirms the IC as Orthodox doctrine, that would be the end of our recognition of the EOTC as part of our communion (unless they were to renounce it later, I suppose). And so I can’t help but think that you are overplaying your rather sparse hand in light of the fact that the rest of the OO have not broken off communion with the EOTC over this issue, if they do indeed teach the IC as you claim they do. More likely the position has probably been clarified within Ethiopia (in their own languages, so we don’t know), but old (bad) habits die hard. It’s no different than how there has been some controversy in the COC in recent years over the issue of theosis arising from poorly translated texts that apparently say (in Arabic) that we literally consume the divinity of Christ (as in, we digest it and it breaks down in our stomachs, as though it were an earthly food). Somehow this very reasonable controversy (in the sense that it is reasonable to be concerned about what people who read these texts would come to believe about our church’s Eucharistic theology) has mutated in the minds out outsiders, and even some disgruntled insiders, to become “The Coptic Church/HH Pope Shenouda III rejects theosis!”, when of course that is not the case. As my Arabic is not advanced enough to read the texts in question competently, I can guess that one of two things went on here: (1) HH Pope Shenouda III (correctly) rejected the understanding present in the faulty texts as not representing traditional COC belief in our partaking in the Divinity of God in the sacrament, or (2) HH, (wrongly) thinking that these texts represented the concept presented by the term “theosis” correctly, rejected theosis as something foreign to our Church. HH would be wrong had (2) occurred, but in neither case would be correct to summarize what is going on as “the COC rejects theosis”.

Hopefully the parallel is clear. There is a world of difference between “this Patriarch/these people believe this or that” and “this is a doctrine of the Church”.

 

[MarcoPG]

Oh man, I started a new FILIOQUE

 

[Ghosty]

Alright, here’s the facts as we’ve seen them laid out here:

a) the current Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church teaches the Immaculate Conception.
b) the Patriarch, in his previous capacity as Archbishop of the U.S. removed the faculties of at least one priest, and this priest has not been reinstated to this day
c) the Synod of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the then-Patriarch, neither redressed the complaints of the supporters of this priest, nor the priest, and they did not censure the Archbishop, but rather elected him Patriarch.
d) getting no satisfaction from within their own Church on the matter, some Ethiopian Orthodox went outside to other Churches for support of the priest, yet this did not lead to any apparent changes within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
e) the other Churches in the Oriental Orthodox Communion reject the Immaculate Conception.

My point is this: your blanket claim that “none of the Oriental Orthodox Churches believe the Immaculate Conception” is unsupported given that a priest has been removed by the now-Patriarch and has never been reinstated. It’s certainly not a “declared Dogma”, but the belief is strong enough to cost priests their faculties and lose the support of their Synod, while those that punish them for non-belief are elevated to Patriarch. This was clearly not a private belief of the Patriarch, but an action backed by the Synod and even the then-Patriarch.

So not only do these Ethiopians I know speak consistently about belief in the Immaculate Conception, they have witnessed their Bishops, Patriarchs, and Synod punish those who have disagreed too strongly. There may be room for debate within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (again, I don’t claim it is some settled Dogma), but the lines have been clearly drawn and upheld in censuring priests who taught otherwise. Unless you can demonstrate some clear evidence that the Ethiopian Church has spoken against the Immaculate Conception, I don’t think your appeal to the absence of evidence holds much weight given that they have actually and demonstrably punished those who deny it.

More likely, it would seem, that it is simply a matter that is not totally settled within the Church, but that the strong weight of tradition (and the authority of the Synod) leans heavily towards support and propagation of the Immaculate Conception. You can claim that this is in error, but you can hardly claim that it isn’t taught with backing of the Patriarch and Synod.

When you present some actual evidence from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church that contradicts the previous actions of its Synod and Patriarch, I’ll be happy to revisit this discussion. Until then, however, I won’t be drawn in to a debate that relies on the absence of evidence. I will simply stand by my statements that your claims would surprise every Ethiopian Orthodox I have spoken to, and that priests that have denied the Immaculate Conception have lost their faculties and not had the support of the Patriarch and Synod.

Peace and God bless!

 

[SyroMalankara]

I believe the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is still debating the issue; one side vehemently supports the IC as Traditional EOC belief, not based on anything RC and any attempt to deny it, a Coptic imposition of Ethiopian Orthodox faith
from a EOC forum:

We the Tewahidos do not use the term “immaculate conception”. We simply say that the Blessed Virgin Mary is free from original sin. We call original sin in ge’ez as “tinte te’abiso” and we say that Mariam is free from “tinte te’abiso”.

The Kibre Negest, as quoted in wiki, has correctly indicated that Mariam is free from original sin. The Kibre Negest says: “But in His mercy God the Father created the pearl in the body of Adam; he cleansed Eve’s body and sanctified it and made it into a dwelling for Adam’s salvation. Thus Mary was born without blemish, for He made Her pure without pollution.” Yes Ezekiel’s sealed door was truly sealed with a great marvelous seal so that original sin does not pollute it. The Blessed Virgin Mary was born without Adam’s original sin.

She is free from original sin because She is the tabernacle not only of God the Son. God the Father dwelt in her to strengthen Her and God the Holy Spirit dwelt in Her to keep her pure. The Holy Spirit protected Her in her mother’s womb and prepared Her to be His tabernacle. That is why David, Her father, said “God is in the midst of Her and She shall not be moved”. Solomon also, in his songs, praised her by saying: “Thou are all fair, my love, there is no spot in thee.”

Aba Giorgis of Gasicha, a 14th C. Ethiopian theologian has said in his book known as “The book of mysteries”: He who does not know sin took the flesh of sinners and judged sin. He took flesh from the daughter of sinners, who herself, is but pure in flesh and soul. Her father’s sin did not touch Her Son.” - bibliotecapleyades.net/kebra_nagast/kn096.htm

The other side is that the IC is strictly RC and that the EOC agrees with the Coptic Orthodox and Pope Shenouda’s statement.

The bishop’s of the EOC have not yet clarified. As you both have stated, various events can be interpreted as supportive of each position.

The standard belief as I understand it is that the Theotokos was purified at the annunciation, but that the “when” is only theological speculation and not dogmatically set one way or another - the EOC Liturgical and Written Tradition seems to go with the IC.

 

[dzheremi]

I believe the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is still debating the issue; one side vehemently supports the IC as Traditional EOC belief, not based on anything RC and any attempt to deny it, a Coptic imposition of Ethiopian Orthodox faith

Aye, there is the rub. I was not going to go there (since I love my EOTC brothers and sisters, and don’t want to make it seem like their church is heretical just because some of their bishops and people have embraced something wrong), but the side that supports the IC as an Ethiopian theological distinctive is doing so against our common faith because they think they are allowed this wrong belief by virtue of the fact that some people interpret it as part of Ethiopian tradition; to deny it, then, would be a “Coptic imposition”. They would rather be an Ethiopian Church than an Orthodox one. But no particular church in any communion gets to keep theological distinctives that are explicitly rejected by the rest of the communion. This is also probably why the EOTC has neglected to issue a definitive ruling on the issue, as it really would risk angering the rest of the communion should they not come down in favor of our common belief regarding this issue. Granted, I do believe that it is possible to understand the Ethiopian writings and tradition as the Ethiopians themselves have (if you read HH Abune Paulos’ dissertation that I linked earlier, you will see what seems to be the default position of the EOTC: Not explicitly teaching against the IC, but not embracing it; it is more a matter of which current in EOTC Mariology you want to embrace as “authentic” or what have you). I say this, however, also with the knowledge (that my interlocutor in this conversation apparently does not have, having rejected the already-presented letters from Medhanialem EOTC as Ethiopian evidence against the IC, for some reason, as though there is supposed to be other evidence presented in English before their stance can be taken seriously…), that segments of that same dissertation have been taken in support of the anti-IC position. So this whole issue, as Ghosty has tried to frame it, is particularly difficult to tackle precisely because we cannot take the Patriarch’s seeming position (without confirmation directly from him, or moreover directly from the synod) as the position of the Church as a whole. Was the EOTC anti-IC when Bishop Paulos, future HH Abune Paulos, wrote his dissertation that did not affirm the IC, and was later used to defend against the IC? Did it become pro-IC because a man who once disciplined a priest over this issue (and was rebuked on doctrinal grounds on that account by the rest of the communion) is now Patriarch? I don’t think you can affirm the first, but I definitely don’t think you can affirm the second, as that would imply that the Patriarch decides what we are to believe purely because he is the Patriarch (or, to put it another way, since the Patriarch believes X, X is obviously a dogma of the Church). No. That’s not OO ecclesiology; that’s the boiler plate Orthodox understanding of RC ecclesiology (with one man, apparently protected from error, affirming by virtue of his belief what is orthodox and what is not regardless of how it relates to the rest of the communion) imposed on us by the likes of Ghosty by virtue of his approach to this question. (All this stuff about “I never said X…I only said you have to show me where the Patriarch did Y or else you have no argument” or whatever…bah…it’s bad enough trying to explain to Orthodox Byzantines why their presuppositions make their questions and stances obscure to us, but Catholic Byzantines? Forget about it. I will not even bother anymore.)

The other side is that the IC is strictly RC and that the EOC agrees with the Coptic Orthodox and Pope Shenouda’s statement.

I’m not sure this is fair. I think the other side is “here is the consistent teaching of all the other churches, and a significant part of your own tradition as well”.

The standard belief as I understand it is that the Theotokos was purified at the annunciation, but that the “when” is only theological speculation and not dogmatically set one way or another - the EOC Liturgical and Written Tradition seems to go with the IC.

Exactly! Thank you. That’s exactly it. It is not dogmatically set (since we don’t dogmatize such things to begin with), and so as long as nobody is disciplining others for teaching against the IC as though it should be dogma when it’s not (cough cough the exact situation that brought this all to a head in KS), then the communion is apparently willing to live with opinions that might be at variance with common tradition (what the EO would call “theolougoumena”…except they’d spell it properly, since they’ve got the Greek), precisely because this is not a teaching of the EOTC. It is not a piece of Orthodox doctrine. It is an opinion that some Orthodox people hold, no different than how some Orthodox believe that the filioque can be understood in an Orthodox fashion, and some think it is out and out heresy, or any of the hundreds of other things we do not dogmatize because we’re supposed to know better.

So, yes, I still have to say that no OO church teaches the IC. If you have a problem with that, take it up with our fathers (not the Kebra Negast, which is not Ethiopian canon in the first place…believe me, if there were a way to put it into the canon, the Ethiopians would do it! It is considered profitable to read, but so are many things).

 

[Ghosty]

Dzheremi: No one here has claimed that the IC is a dogma of the Ethiopian Church, and I certainly never claimed that the Patriarch is somehow infallible on this matter. I merely object to your characterization that no Oriental Orthodox Church believes in the IC. The fact is that this belief is indeed widespread within the Ethiopian Church, rightly or wrongly, and that at least one priest has beeb disciplined for denying it. These are facts, not opinion. To make it out that the belief is somehow foreign or heretical in all Oriental Orthodox Churches is simply overstating the case considerably, that is my point.

I really don’t have a horse in this race; I don’t like the fact that the IC was proclaimed a Dogma even though I believe the teaching. I simply ask that you don’t speak so authoritatively on a matter that is clearly not as settled as you claimed. When the Ethiopian Synod speaks definitively on the matter, and the priest is reinstated (or at least his suspension is not upheld on the grounds of denying the IC) then I will back you up in such weighty statements.

If your point was simply that the IC is not a Dogma of any Oriental. Orthodox Church, then I agree completely. Saying that it is not believed, however, seems to imply (though I’m open to correction) that it is not to be believed, and that is not the case in the Ethiopian Church, as the only relevant discipline has actually gone in the other direction.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I really don’t have a horse in this race; I don’t like the fact that the IC was proclaimed a Dogma even though I believe the teaching. I simply ask that you don’t speak so authoritatively on a matter that is clearly not as settled as you claimed.

I believe so. You know what bothers me about both this and the Assumption, for someone like yourself who has taken time to read through a good deal of information this becomes as you say not so much of an issue since we talking “most fitting” and the Incarnation to the Cross remain the same.

The problem is not everyone is going to do this reading as we both know. Further in the West the Dogmas would be learned first then further understanding backwards of Tradition. In the East its the opposite way around, the Tradition is learned first then perhaps as with Catholics in the West further reading. I believe imho this creates a good deal of ignorant conflict. We tend to leap to judgement as we see often and terms such as heretical are applied which are not qualified and so forth.

 

[Iconodule]

I don’t think that there is any Necessity in the things of God. Sometimes, things are what they are, and we get the privilege of sitting in Wonder.

 

[Ghosty]

GaryTaylor: My objection to the Dogmatization of the IC is not so much that it can be deduced from study, but more that belief in it doesn’t really affect the Faith one way or another. This can be seen by the fact that some of the great Saints denied it, yet maintained an incredible Faith and right understanding of God.

By Dogmatizing it, regardless of the truth of it, we run the risk of alienating those who come to different conclusions or simply object to unilateral action on the part of Rome. We’ve seen this borne out with the Eastern Orthodox espescially, as the Immaculate Conception had a strong current in the Byzantine tradition (though it was not universally accepted, or even necessarily widespread by the 19th century), but this quickly and definitively turned around with the declaration of the Dogma. What should have been a touchstone for unity became a flashpoint of further division, and that is most unfortunate. Where before there could easily be Byzantine Orthodox who sided with St. Gregory Palamas on the matter of the IC, after it became a position of suspicion, an indication of “Popish leanings”

Of course I wasn’t asked my opinion on the matter when it was Dogmatized, so it ultimately is a fruitless objection.

As for the original question, I believe the IC is fitting but hardly necessary, theologically speaking. Christ would not have been “tainted” had He been born of a woman that had been conceived without sanctifying Grace, any more than Mary (assuming the IC is true) was tainted by being born of Joachim and Anne.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dzheremi]

If your point was simply that the IC is not a Dogma of any Oriental. Orthodox Church, then I agree completely. Saying that it is not believed, however, seems to imply (though I’m open to correction) that it is not to be believed, and that is not the case in the Ethiopian Church, as the only relevant discipline has actually gone in the other direction.

Pardon me, then, I suppose this conversation was unnecessary, because I did indeed mean only that the IC is not a dogma, not that you cannot find individuals who believe in it or something like it. I would not argue about dogma from the belief of individuals, as no church determines its beliefs that way (that’s why I phrased my original post that way: “no church within our communion”, not “no people within our individual churches”; your individual beliefs do not create doctrine, whether you are a Pope or a priest or whatever you are). I personally know lay Copts who disbelieve in evolution and have tried to bring that point of view before our bishop for a blessing, and have been rebuked on that account, because it has not been seen as fitting to dogmatize a point of view on this matter (cf. the EOTC’s reticence regarding the IC). That does not mean that the COC believes or disbelieves in evolution. Our churches do not work that way.

 

[GaryTaylor]

As for the original question, I believe the IC is fitting but hardly necessary, theologically speaking. Christ would not have been “tainted” had He been born of a woman that had been conceived without sanctifying Grace, any more than Mary (assuming the IC is true) was tainted by being born of Joachim and Anne.

Peace and God bless!

This part above I think we run into issues say for example with the Trinity, here theologically speaking it bears witness to the activity of a God who can only be understood in the terms of Trinity. I don’t see this as any different than the Incarnation. So what makes it important enough that our salvation should hinge on Theological speculation any more than with Joachim and Anne and the following sequence? Is it necessary with the Trinity with different emphasis which as I see cannot be qualified as we reach mystery. Seems we have a similar situation, only without unilateral decree.

 

[Ghosty]

Dzheremi: Well, if that’s what you intended, then I guess you’ll just have to live with us agreeing with eachother.

It’s certainly not a dogma in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, even if a priest was disciplined for denying it. Although it is a belief that seems to carry a lot of weight, relatively speaking, within the Ethiopian Church, it could just as easily be declared heretical tomorrow; the widespread acceptance of heresy doesn’t make it true, else Arianism would be the Doctrine of the Faith.

It seems highly unlikely at this juncture, given the politics and heated feelings within the Ethiopian Church, that a definitive decision in either direction is forthcoming. This is espescially true given the strong spread of Protestantism within the traditional territory of Ethiopia, and the desire of many Ethiopian Orthodox to highlight their differences with the Protestants, one of these being reverence for Mary. In fact, it was my impression that this was precisely the impetus for testing my “orthodoxy” by asking me about the IC; for many Ethiopians, I get the sense that this has become an easy line to distinguish “orthodox” from Protestants. The other major line seems to be the Eucharist.

Peace and God bless!