Orthodox and the Blessed Virgin Mary

[Father_Gregory]

His Grace also refers to the figure of Archimandrite Lev (Gillet), better known as “A Monk of the Eastern Church.” Without denying his significant literary contribution to Orthodoxy in this century, we must point out that Father Lev was never, strictly speaking, Orthodox, except in name. Metropolitan Evlogy of Paris, a notorious modernist and ecumenist, received him into Orthodoxy in a most unusual way: by concelebration, no vesting, no renunciation of heresies, no Chrismation: nothing. Moreover, one need read only a few of his writings to realize that Father Lev never truly converted to Orthodoxy. Throughout his life, he considered himself to belong to both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, in some mysterious way although at times he would say that “the light shines brighter in the Eastern Church.” We do not wish to condemn Father Lev, who by all accounts lived a life of great poverty and simplicity and who was a sympathetic spiritual Father to many people; nor do we in any way impugn the uprightness of his intentions. However, we feel it necessary to indicate “the source of the profound and extensive errors in [the] theological outlook” of a man who was, quite manifestly, “neither Orthodox in his ecclesiology nor traditional in his personal spiritual life” (“Questions and Comments from Readers,” *Orthodox Tradition, *Vol. XIII, No. 1 [1996], p. 31).
orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_toc.aspx

I know that there are Orthodox who appreciate and approve of the message that Patrick Barnes (owner of orthodoxinfo) is and has been putting out. Those Orthodox are usually very much opposed to the likes of Fr. Lev. I do not find myself among the admirers of this - in my opinion - overly conservative kind of Orthodoxy. I fully endorse a more liberal approach such as that of Fr. Lev, Metr. Eulogios, Fr. Bulgakov, Fr. Afanasieff and St. Mother Maria Skobtsova (Fr. Lev’s spiritual daughter), and a great “father” of American Orthodoxy St. Tikhon the Confessor (all of whose Ecumenical and modernist inclinations are readily available online and in literature). Yet whether one finds him “guilty” or “innocent” by association (or by ad hominem arguments for that matter) with saints/heretics does not really touch the content of Fr. Lev’s observations. One can disagree with him or find his ecumenical openness troubling - which I confess I do not - yet it is the content of his article that matters. This is also the case for the Orthodox bloggers I linked to.

I believe Fr. Lev himself is possibly a saint, like Fr. Schmemann (to name another controversial figure). But whether he is so or not does not change the content of his article and other writings which are available to me and upon which I form my own opinion - which does not always agree or disagree with his. I am sure the same would be true for those who believe him to have possibly been a heretic. They too can read and form their own opinions. It is the content that ultimately matters - certainly here on this forum - where his article is referred to (by me) for its own merits or lack thereof. I think the personality of Fr. Lev is not necesarily involved here.

Concerning Fr. Lev: he was received into the Orthodox Church in an unusual manner, but received nonetheless and died in full communion (and good standing) with his Bishop and jurisdiction. To condemn him in the above manner is ad hominem as well as in poor taste, and I would say oversteps the boundaries of decency. Proclaiming that an Orthodox priest concerning whom no ecclesial condemnation exists was never “truly” Orthodox is, arguably, an illicit and irregular act. There are liberal and conservative Orthodox in the Orthodox Church. Both have a voice and I believe both ought to be heard as Orthodox. It is not given to us as individuals to condemn Orthodox Christians as heretics - no matter how strongly we feel about our disagreements. The Church in council makes those decisions.

I have engaged in this more than I would like, and I will not get involved (further) in a liberal vs. conservative dispute. I am not a conservative priest such as one can find on orthodoxinfo, I am a more “liberal” priest, though certainly not “liberal” as in “anything goes”, but rather along the lines of Metr. Kallistos, Metr. Jonah (Paffhausen), Bp. Hilaryon (Alfeyev), Jim Forrest, Fr. Michael Plekon, Fr. Alexander Men, etc., for which I do not apologize but which I do acknowledge. I realize this is unusual for “online Orthodoxy” (or Net-odoxy) but here I am.

May the blessing of the Lord be upon you all.

• Fr. Gregory

 

[Father_Gregory]

Is Fr. Lev in good standing with the Eastern Orthodox? What church or monastery does he serve in? I hardly know much about the man, other than the fact that I found his article to be quite informative.

God bless,

Rony

Fr. Lev died a long time ago in “good standing” with his Bishop and the Orthodox Church. Elisabeth Behr-Sigel wrote a biography of him which may be available still, I know there is a shorter one available online by Fr. Michael Plekon online as well as in Fr. Plekon’s book “Living Icons”.

• Fr. Gregory

 

[ronyodish]

Fr. Lev died a long time ago in “good standing” with his Bishop and the Orthodox Church. Elisabeth Behr-Sigel wrote a biography of him which may be available still, I know there is a shorter one available online by Fr. Michael Plekon online as well as in Fr. Plekon’s book “Living Icons”.

Thanks for the info father.

Take care, and God bless,

Rony

 

[twf]

Father Gregory,

Perhaps it would be possible for you to give an example from the Orthodox liturgy in which St. Mary is described as a ‘great exception’? That would be of great interest to me as I, as a Latin Catholic, strongly believe that Our Lady is both the great exception and the great example. I find that the Catholic position on any matter of faith, properly understood, almost never conforms to extremes, but is also somewhere in the middle.

 

[Hesychios]

If this is correct, then surely we Catholics have as much, nay more, just cause for complaint as the Orthodox do. Archimandrite Lev was received into Orthodoxy (albeit in a way that bothered many Orthodox) and yet continued to claim to “belong to … the Roman Catholic Church”? I’m sure that, if the situation were reverse, the Orthodox would be quite upset.

Those who claim to be Orthodox in communion with Rome fit this category.

There are more than one member here at CAF who identify themselves formally as Orthodox (without a qualifier), but are in communion with the Pope. Technically, taking communion in a church signifies that one agrees with the theology of that church. So we say that they have left Orthodoxy (indeed, if they were ever Orthodox to begin with, and some may never have been). If the person communes with the Pope and does not believe everything the Roman Catholic church teaches, they would then be of some cafeteria variety Catholic I suppose, but technically they are excommunicated latae sententiae.

Father Lev, the Monk of the Eastern church, was a great personality and in some ways inspiring. He was certainly an idealist. But either he believed in Papal Universal Jurisdiction or he didn’t, he either believed in Purgatory or he didn’t. It is not at all clear to me what he believed on those points.

I remember years ago there was an Episcopalian priest around Chicago who claimed to be a Roman Catholic, born and raised he “never” left the church. Same kind of fishy stuff here.

 

[rowlands]

Is Fr. Lev in good standing with the Eastern Orthodox? What church or monastery does he serve in? I hardly know much about the man, other than the fact that I found his article to be quite informative.

God bless,

Rony

I sang at his funeral in 1980.

 

[Peter_J]

Those who claim to be Orthodox in communion with Rome fit this category.

There are more than one member here at CAF who identify themselves formally as Orthodox (without a qualifier), but are in communion with the Pope.

I agree with you that Catholics who call themselves Orthodox without a qualifier are in that category; Catholics who call themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome” are another matter (just like if an Orthodox descibes himself as “Catholic in communion with Constantinople”, or if an Anglican descibes himself as “Catholic in communion with Cantebury”).

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Peter,

I agree with you that Catholics who call themselves Orthodox without a qualifier are in that category; Catholics who call themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome” are another matter (just like if an Orthodox descibes himself as “Catholic in communion with Constantinople”, or if an Anglican descibes himself as “Catholic in communion with Cantebury”).

Well maybe.

But was Father Lev Gillett an Orthodox in communion with Rome?

Or was Father Lev Gillett a Catholic in communion with Orthodoxy? It is not at all clear.

Was he still able to take communion in a Catholic church, or was he excommunicated? Are there any records of him concelebrating or communing with Roman Catholics after he was received by the Orthodox?

He may have ideally believed that he was a member of both churches, but I doubt it. What is remarkable is his most unusual reception, but after that I do not really think he could be considered Catholic any longer by the Vatican’s standards, and I think he knew that.

 

[Mickey]

Father Lev, the Monk of the Eastern church, was a great personality and in some ways inspiring. He was certainly an idealist. But either he believed in Papal Universal Jurisdiction or he didn’t, he either believed in Purgatory or he didn’t. It is not at all clear to me what he believed on those points.

Amen.

 

[Mickey]

I believe Fr. Lev himself is possibly a saint, like Fr. Schmemann (to name another controversial figure).

Yes. Fr Schmemann is also controversial. It seems that St Vladimir Seminary already sort of venerates him as a saint. But neither one of these contoversial men have been glorified–to my knowledge.

But whether he is so or not does not change the content of his article and other writings which are available to me and upon which I form my own opinion - which does not always agree or disagree with his.

It is most beneficial when our opinion coincides with the writings of the holy fathers of the Church.

It is not given to us as individuals to condemn Orthodox Christians as heretics - no matter how strongly we feel about our disagreements. The Church in council makes those decisions.

Was he referred to as a heretic? I did not see that.

 

[pickguard1]

I guess I didn’t explain this very well.

I did not mean to imply that Latin Catholics think Mary “greets” you in heaven. What I meant was that there is a sense that once one dies the position of each is fixed, and saint Mary has somehow been placed above us.

Theosis is an ongoing process. We strive to to become God-like but can never be God or encompass God in our minds. He is beyond our understanding, God is unfathomable. We yearn for God, we approach, in this life and the next. It is a never-ending process because God is infinitely greater in infinite ways.

Saint Mary of Nazareth, creature of God, is on this same journey with us. She may be out in front but it is a journey for her too, even now. She is not in a special place above us so much as further along in this process. Orthodox hymns of praise must be understood in this context.

Perhaps I misunderstand the concept of Theosis - but it seems absurd to say that one can become more like God if the “gap” between God and man is infinite. If this is the case (which I agree that it is) there is no way to quantify the relationship between God and man in such a way. If it’s infinite - there is a never-changing distance between God and man. No amount of “approaching perfection” could narrow that gap - it would always remain, as you say “static,” by the very fact that it is infinite. So in this sense, the Catholic understanding of our place in heaven upon death is identical to your concept of Theosis. We are “static” in relation to God because no amount of “increased perfection” or divinization could get us closer to being God, because that gap is infinite.

This also makes it seem as though there is time that passes and a process that is parallel with time. However, we believe that eternity is infinite as well, so “time” doesn’t really apply, since it is an artifact of the human perception of creation. I don’t think there would be an awareness in heaven of what we call “time” here on earth, because in heaven we will be as unchangeable as God is.

Perhaps I also misunderstand (or don’t understand at all) the Orthodox belief concerning our disposition in heaven. We believe (or at least as I understand it) that once we enter into heaven, we will be as perfect as we possibly can be, in relation to God, this would probably be the source of your statement that we believe in a “static” relationship.

 

[pickguard1]

I also don’t see why there is a need to have an “either/or” mentality towards Mary being the excpetion or the example. Why is it impossible for her to be both?

In this way, one could say that yes, Mary was conceived without original sin (the exception). That is, God through a singular act of Grace prevented her from inheriting the fallen spiritual nature that everyone else does, through the sin of Adam and Eve. However, she is the example, in that, after receiving this singular grace she persisted in conforming her will to that of the Father. She remained sinless, through her own will. I don’t think that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception maintains that Mary had no role in her sinlessness, which I get the feeling is how it is perceived by our Orthodox bretheren. Rather, by virtue of the special grace given to her at conception (that is, being free from the bonds of concupiscence), she then continued to use her will to conform to the law of God. It is clear that she could have sinned later, as Adam and Eve were also blessed with not having concupiscence but fell, nonetheless. Mary possessed the same Free Will that Adam and Eve had, However, Mary - our example - chose to be obedient.

 

[Hesychios]

In this way, one could say that yes, Mary was conceived without original sin (the exception). That is, God through a singular act of Grace prevented her from inheriting the fallen spiritual nature that everyone else does, through the sin of Adam and Eve.

Why should we lie about this

 

[pickguard1]

Why should we lie about this

lie about what? I’m just trying to show that there needn’t be any dischord between the concept of Mary being the exception AND the example.

 

[Mickey]

I’m just trying to show that there needn’t be any dischord between the concept of Mary being the exception AND the example.

I do not understand? The Orthodox say she is the great example. She is like you and I but chose through her own free will to remain sinless. She was a great ascetic. This is our example.

The Orthodox do not believe that Our Lady was an exception.

 

[pickguard1]

I do not understand? The Orthodox say she is the great example. She is like you and I but chose through her own free will to remain sinless. She was a great ascetic. This is our example.

.

I do not disagree with this statement at all, nor do I think any Catholic would.

I am just pointing out that this does not automatically exclude her from also being an exception through her Immaculate Conception. She can be, and is, both.

 

[Mickey]

I do not disagree with this statement at all, nor do I think any Catholic would.

I am just pointing out that this does not automatically exclude her from also being an exception through her Immaculate Conception. She can be, and is, both.

That is the point. The Orthodox do not acknowledge the Roman Catholic doctrine of the IC. They believe it was not necessary to declare her as the great exception. You and I can also follow her example and choose not sin–to increase in virtues.

 

[pickguard1]

That is the point. The Orthodox do not acknowledge the Roman Catholic doctrine of the IC. They believe it was not necessary to declare her as the great exception. You and I can also follow her example and choose not sin–to increase in virtues.

Do the Orthodox refuse to acknowledge the IC because they believe it was not necessary, or because they believe it to be false?

 

[Mickey]

Do the Orthodox refuse to acknowledge the IC because they believe it was not necessary, or because they believe it to be false?

I understand that you are asking good and honest questions in all charity. But I have made it a point to refrain from discussing doctrinal differences between Catholics and Orthodox on this forum because it usually disintegrates into an ugly argument. Much of the differences on this subject stem from a different understanding of original sin between Catholics and Orthodox.

Here is something from an Antiochian Orthodox website:

Taken at face value, the Western doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is seen by the Orthodox as separating the Mother of God from the rest of the human race. If true, this would have made it impossible for Christ to become truly man, because Mary would therefore not be subject to the same conditions of humanity as those for whom Christ had become incarnate in order to save. Mary is human, and through her, God became fully human as well.
http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/Orthodox-view-on-Immaculate-Conception.aspx

 

[pickguard1]

I understand that you are asking good and honest questions in all charity. But I have made it a point to refrain from discussing doctrinal differences between Catholics and Orthodox on this forum because it usually disintegrates into an ugly argument. Much of the differences on this subject stem from a different understanding of original sin between Catholics and Orthodox.

Here is something from an Antiochian Orthodox website:

Taken at face value, the Western doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is seen by the Orthodox as separating the Mother of God from the rest of the human race. If true, this would have made it impossible for Christ to become truly man, because Mary would therefore not be subject to the same conditions of humanity as those for whom Christ had become incarnate in order to save. Mary is human, and through her, God became fully human as well.
http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/Orthodox-view-on-Immaculate-Conception.aspx

I understand your reservations at discussing doctrinal differnces, as I have seen how quickly it can (and usually does) devolve into mudslinging. And I appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me, as I do not intend for this to become a mudslinging match. I have read a couple of places that actually point to Catholics and Orthodox as having the same doctrine of Original Sin, but seem to be intent on magnifying “perceived differences” that don’t really exist. A problem with semantics, perhaps.
Whether this is true or not, I don’t know because I haven’t had an in depth discussion regarding Original Sin with any Orthodox.

The reason I asked the “unnecessary/false” question is that, if the Orthodox generally believe Mary to be conceived Immaculately, but feel no need to formally define it, then is there anything “technically” wrong with having a formal definition, and why would it be unreasonable to acknowledge it in spite of believing it to be “unnecessary”? On the other hand, if the Orthodox believe that the doctrine itself is false, then it really does boil down to the underlying doctrinal issues.

As for the quote from the Antiochean Orthodox website, I think it is perfectly OK to say the God DID in fact separate Mary from the rest of humanity, by virtue of her being the Mother of God, Theotokos. God could have easily sent the Son on a cloud from heaven, but chose to use a human to be the bearer instead. Is it unreasonable that the Mother of the sinless Son of God should have been sinless as well, from the point of her creation? This in no way takes away her Free Will, and she did have to persevere in her purity with the help of God’s grace (as we all do), so in this manner she IS just like the rest of humanity.

By the way, does the Eastern Tradition have the imagery/analogy of mary as the “New Eve” as the West does? If so, is it not in perfect harmony with this that Mary would be free from original sin, as was Eve at her creation. The difference would be that Mary chose not to be disobedient to God.