The Eastern Church on Marian Dogma/Doctrines

[Wedded_to_God]

Eastern Orthodox Christians say that Mary was without sin for her entire life, but they object to the dogmatic declaration of her immaculate conception.

In the tradition of Ethiopian Orthodoxy, the Kebra Nagast says:

He cleansed eve’s body and sanctified it and made for it a dwelling in her for adam’s salvation. She * was born without blemish, for He made her pure, without pollution, and she redeemed his debt without carnal union and embrace…Through the transgression of eve we died and were buried, and by the purity of mary we receive honour, and are exalted to the heights (emphasis added).*

:angel1:**

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Hmm. This has not been my experience. We in the Coptic Orthodox Church do not believe this (see here), and as far as I know, neither do the EO/Chalcedonians (see here).

From Suscopts:
“Roman Catholics believe that St. Mary was born without the consequences of Original Sin. This is not the Coptic Church’s belief; for St. Mary herself said “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:46-47). If she was born without sin why would she need salvation!”

I used to believe this as well, but I realized after reading Catholic sources that this is not actually what the Catholic Church teaches. Permit me to analyze this statement from the website:

Roman Catholics believe that St. Mary was born without the consequences of Original Sin
Not true. I grant that this is probably what some or even many Latin Catholics believe, but it is not what the dogma teaches. The dogma does not refer to all consequences of original sin, but only to the spiritual consequences (i.e., separation from God). This is what the “stain of Original Sin” means in the dogma - the “stain” is lack of holiness. It does not mean ALL the consequences of original sin. Mary was not preserved from the physical consequences of original sin (mortality, physical illness, etc.). Do you claim that the Coptic Orthodox Church teaches that the Theotokos lacked holiness at any point of her existence? Please answer that.

for St. Mary herself said “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:46-47). If she was born without sin why would she need salvation.
The dogma directly teaches that God is her Savior in two ways:
(1) It states that it was “a privilege granted by Almighty God.” Obviously, Mary needed God’s intervention to save her from the condition which she would otherwise be subject to. She did not save herself, but it was God who saved her.
(2) She was saved from the stain of Original Sin (i.e., lack of holiness)“in view of the merits of Jesus Christ.” You need to understand that the expression “merits of Jesus Christ” refers to one thing and one thing only in Latin theology - the Grace of Christ obtained from the Cross. So Christ’s Sacrifice was indeed the thing that saved Mary from the stain of Original Sin (as are all creatures).

Basically, the CC teaches that while everyone normally receives the Gift of holiness and the Grace of the Cross at Baptism, Mary received them at the first instance of her existence (Tradition also holds that the forerunner received them in the womb of Mary).

The theological language of the dogma is indeed quite different from how Orientals (and Easterns) would normally express the matter, but it is the same Faith.

I would add to this misunderstanding something I read from a writing of HH Pope Shenoute of thrice-blessed memory. In it, he stated that the doctrine of the IC teaches that Mary did not have natural human conception. On the contrary, the doctrine of the IC does not even touch upon the physical conception of Mary, but refers specifically only to her spiritual conception (i.e., the moment her soul was created and infused into her body by God). This was authoritatively asserted by the Roman Pope Alexander VII way back in the 17th century, to correct the errors of certain Latin Catholics who indeed opined that Mary did not have a natural human conception. Pope Alexander authoritatvely asserted that the term “conception” in the expression “Immaculate Conception” refers to Mary’s spiritual conception, not her physical conception.

I write this only for the sake of understanding.

Certainly, if a non-Catholic understands the IC in the way expressed by Suscopts, then go ahead and reject it by all means. I’d reject it too if that is what the IC teaches. But, in actual fact, that is not what the IC teaches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

I believe there resides the thinking with singular grace.

“The Most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God.” Ineffabilis Deus

My thinking is the spiritual sense with communion with God the Father.

 

[brb3]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

From Suscopts:
“Roman Catholics believe that St. Mary was born without the consequences of Original Sin. This is not the Coptic Church’s belief; for St. Mary herself said “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:46-47). If she was born without sin why would she need salvation!”

I used to believe this as well, but I realized after reading Catholic sources that this is not actually what the Catholic Church teaches. Permit me to analyze this statement from the website:

Roman Catholics believe that St. Mary was born without the consequences of Original Sin
Not true. I grant that this is probably what some or even many Latin Catholics believe, but it is not what the dogma teaches. The dogma does not refer to all consequences of original sin, but only to the spiritual consequences (i.e., separation from God). This is what the “stain of Original Sin” means in the dogma - the “stain” is lack of holiness. It does not mean ALL the consequences of original sin. Mary was not preserved from the physical consequences of original sin (mortality, physical illness, etc.). Do you claim that the Coptic Orthodox Church teaches that the Theotokos lacked holiness at any point of her existence? Please answer that.

for St. Mary herself said “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:46-47). If she was born without sin why would she need salvation.
The dogma directly teaches that God is her Savior in two ways:
(1) It states that it was “a privilege granted by Almighty God.” Obviously, Mary needed God’s intervention to save her from the condition which she would otherwise be subject to. She did not save herself, but it was God who saved her.
(2) She was saved from the stain of Original Sin (i.e., lack of holiness)“in view of the merits of Jesus Christ.” You need to understand that the expression “merits of Jesus Christ” refers to one thing and one thing only in Latin theology - the Grace of Christ obtained from the Cross. So Christ’s Sacrifice was indeed the thing that saved Mary from the stain of Original Sin (as are all creatures).

Basically, the CC teaches that while everyone normally receives the Gift of holiness and the Grace of the Cross at Baptism, Mary received them at the first instance of her existence (Tradition also holds that the forerunner received them in the womb of Mary).

The theological language of the dogma is indeed quite different from how Orientals (and Easterns) would normally express the matter, but it is the same Faith.

I would add to this misunderstanding something I read from a writing of HH Pope Shenoute of thrice-blessed memory. In it, he stated that the doctrine of the IC teaches that Mary did not have natural human conception. On the contrary, the doctrine of the IC does not even touch upon the physical conception of Mary, but refers specifically only to her spiritual conception (i.e., the moment her soul was created and infused into her body by God). This was authoritatively asserted by the Roman Pope Alexander VII way back in the 17th century, to correct the errors of certain Latin Catholics who indeed opined that Mary did not have a natural human conception. Pope Alexander authoritatvely asserted that the term “conception” in the expression “Immaculate Conception” refers to Mary’s spiritual conception, not her physical conception.

I write this only for the sake of understanding.

Certainly, if a non-Catholic understands the IC in the way expressed by Suscopts, then go ahead and reject it by all means. I’d reject it too if that is what the IC teaches. But, in actual fact, that is not what the IC teaches.

Blessings,
Marduk

This was very helpful…

… its the spiritual that was/is FULLY GRACED in Mary’s & our case too !!

 

[dzheremi]

Mardukm: I don’t really care to get into a discussion with you about these matters. I provided those links because they show that the Orthodox Church, both non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian, do not accept the Immaculate Conception, as the poster I was responding to wrote that they do. Whether or not they understand the doctrine properly according to you is another matter, and not one that I care to indulge even in the slightest. If you were to ask the vast majority of clergy, bishops, etc. in any of these churches if they believe in the Immaculate Conception, they’d say no. That’s all. They will not accept it.

Wedded to God: The Kebra Negast, while produced within an Orthodox culture and obviously bearing the imprint of that culture and religion, is not considered in any way scripture or a source of doctrine within the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Furthermore, the Ethiopian Orthodox affirm the same faith as the rest of the Oriental Orthodox, including condemnation of the Immaculate Conception. There has apparently been some confusion as the result of the actions of a bishop of the EOTC in Kansas who thought that the Immaculate Conception was Orthodox doctrine and banned a priest from serving in the church after he taught against it. This resulted in the laity and the head priest of the Church writing to the Coptic Orthodox Church to help support them in teaching the true Orthodox understanding of St. Mary against what their bishop wrongly believed (while they waited for a response from HH Abune Paulos; I am not aware what sort of response they received, and HH passed into eternal rest in August of this year). They stood up to their bishop on this matter and wrote to HH Pope Shenouda III directly regarding this matter, and HG Bishop David eventually came and taught them the right way, to prevent any further confusion or problems from the wrong teaching and action of their bishop.

Here is their letter to HH Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Orthodox Church: medhanialemeotcks.org/pdf/Letter_to_HH%20Shenouda.pdf

Here is HG Bishop David’s letter regarding the issue, indicating quite clearly that the Immaculate Conception is regarded as heretical: medhanialemeotcks.org/pdf/HG%20Bisop_David-Letter.pdf

In addition to these, HH Abune Paulos (the above-mentioned Ethiopian Patriarch) wrote a Ph.D. dissertation in 1988 at Princeton Theological Seminary on the Mariological tradition of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church that clearly shows that EOTC tradition is against the Immaculate Conception. It is available at the website of Debre Sahel Medhani Alem Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, accessible via the above links. I will not quote from it here due to its length (it is, after all, a Ph.D. dissertation, and runs well over 300 pages), but one section relevant to the Ethiopian understanding of the Theotokos’ humanity as it is manifest in the Church’s Mariology begins on p. 302, should you choose to read it.

 

[Vico]

Mardukm: I don’t really care to get into a discussion with you about these matters. I provided those links because they show that the Orthodox Church, both non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian, do not accept the Immaculate Conception, as the poster I was responding to wrote that they do. Whether or not they understand the doctrine properly according to you is another matter, and not one that I care to indulge even in the slightest. If you were to ask the vast majority of clergy, bishops, etc. in any of these churches if they believe in the Immaculate Conception, they’d say no. That’s all. They will not accept it.

Wedded to God: The Kebra Negast, while produced within an Orthodox culture and obviously bearing the imprint of that culture and religion, is not considered in any way scripture or a source of doctrine within the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Furthermore, the Ethiopian Orthodox affirm the same faith as the rest of the Oriental Orthodox, including condemnation of the Immaculate Conception. There has apparently been some confusion as the result of the actions of a bishop of the EOTC in Kansas who thought that the Immaculate Conception was Orthodox doctrine and banned a priest from serving in the church after he taught against it. This resulted in the laity and the head priest of the Church writing to the Coptic Orthodox Church to help support them in teaching the true Orthodox understanding of St. Mary against what their bishop wrongly believed (while they waited for a response from HH Abune Paulos; I am not aware what sort of response they received, and HH passed into eternal rest in August of this year). They stood up to their bishop on this matter and wrote to HH Pope Shenouda III directly regarding this matter, and HG Bishop David eventually came and taught them the right way, to prevent any further confusion or problems from the wrong teaching and action of their bishop.

Here is their letter to HH Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Orthodox Church: medhanialemeotcks.org/pdf/Letter_to_HH%20Shenouda.pdf

Here is HG Bishop David’s letter regarding the issue, indicating quite clearly that the Immaculate Conception is regarded as heretical: medhanialemeotcks.org/pdf/HG%20Bisop_David-Letter.pdf

In addition to these, HH Abune Paulos (the above-mentioned Ethiopian Patriarch) wrote a Ph.D. dissertation in 1988 at Princeton Theological Seminary on the Mariological tradition of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church that clearly shows that EOTC tradition is against the Immaculate Conception. It is available at the website of Debre Sahel Medhani Alem Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, accessible via the above links. I will not quote from it here due to its length (it is, after all, a Ph.D. dissertation, and runs well over 300 pages), but one section relevant to the Ethiopian understanding of the Theotokos’ humanity as it is manifest in the Church’s Mariology begins on p. 302, should you choose to read it.

The letter shows that Bishop David presents a different concept than what the Catholic Church does in the Immaculate Conception. It appears that he may not understand the Catholic doctrine for it is not about the original sin but the stain of original sin which is different. Originating original sin is of Adam and what we are born with is originated original sin, and includes all consequences. One such consequence is lack at birth of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is termed the stain of original sin. So the Blessed Virgin Mary was subject the original sin, but was saved by Christ (preserved) from the stain. The letter has:1. … The Holy Spirit came upon the Blessed Virgin Mary to sanctify and purify her in order that the Incarnate Son of God may not inherit the original sin. …
2. All human beings, including the Blessed Virgin Mary, were conceived with the original sin. (Psalm 51:5; Rom. 5:12).
Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So then the Catholic definition of the Immaculate Conception is not the same as what is in the letter.

 

[dzheremi]

Perhaps my post reads as though I am only not interested in discussing this with Mardukm. Oops. I meant it to apply to anyone who will answer “that’s not what Rome says”. Please understand this: Any doctrine that places the Theotokos outside of the human nature that she shares with the rest of humanity will not be acceptable to the Orthodox.“Original sin”, “Stain of original sin”, etc. We don’t even have these ideas to begin with, so the fine distinctions you might make are kind of lost on the OO (and I would suspect largely on the EO, as well, though they seem to have more familiarity with post-Chalcedon doctrinal development in the Roman Church). I think that’s kind of what has gotten Bishop Matthias (the EOTC bishop who forbade the priest in KS from serving in the church) into trouble: Using terms or offering opinions on subjects that aren’t really well-understood by the communion as a whole, and hence confusing everybody. It’d be better just not to offer those opinions in that case. Not everything we have a private thought about needs to be shared, and certainly it shouldn’t replace the authentic beliefs of the Church, which do not include the Immaculate Conception. There are probably also linguistic issues going on here, as we have no trouble calling St. Mary “immaculate”, but don’t mean it as any kind of support for the IC or any other foreign doctrine. Actually, as far as I can tell from hymns of the Church like Ge Gar Enthok, the word that is translated often as “immaculate” would be more precisely translated as “unmarried” (the Coptic, from the Greek, is “en-at-gamos”, and the Arabic is “al-'arus alaty bghayr zawaj”, literally “the bride who is without marriage” – it should be clear from context which idea about the Virgin Mary that phrasing is supporting, and it’s not the IC).

 

[Vico]

Perhaps my post reads as though I am only not interested in discussing this with Mardukm. Oops. I meant it to apply to anyone who will answer “that’s not what Rome says”. Please understand this: Any doctrine that places the Theotokos outside of the human nature that she shares with the rest of humanity will not be acceptable to the Orthodox.“Original sin”, “Stain of original sin”, etc. We don’t even have these ideas to begin with, so the fine distinctions you might make are kind of lost on the OO (and I would suspect largely on the EO, as well, though they seem to have more familiarity with post-Chalcedon doctrinal development in the Roman Church). I think that’s kind of what has gotten Bishop Matthias (the EOTC bishop who forbade the priest in KS from serving in the church) into trouble: Using terms or offering opinions on subjects that aren’t really well-understood by the communion as a whole, and hence confusing everybody. It’d be better just not to offer those opinions in that case. Not everything we have a private thought about needs to be shared, and certainly it shouldn’t replace the authentic beliefs of the Church, which do not include the Immaculate Conception. There are probably also linguistic issues going on here, as we have no trouble calling St. Mary “immaculate”, but don’t mean it as any kind of support for the IC or any other foreign doctrine. Actually, as far as I can tell from hymns of the Church like Ge Gar Enthok, the word that is translated often as “immaculate” would be more precisely translated as “unmarried” (the Coptic, from the Greek, is “en-at-gamos”, and the Arabic is “al-'arus alaty bghayr zawaj”, literally “the bride who is without marriage” – it should be clear from context which idea about the Virgin Mary that phrasing is supporting, and it’s not the IC).

I can say that the Catholic Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary has 100% human nature.

 

[dzheremi]

Sure, but it’s not 100% the same as ours so long as she is personally exempt from something that the rest of us share. If it were just a matter of being sanctified in the womb or what have you, that would be one thing (we believe that John the Baptist was similarly sanctified), but to say that she was preserved from conception from ____ (I’ll let you fill that in with whatever you think is appropriate, because again these are not concepts we normally deal in, so I don’t want to use the wrong word and have my post dismissed out of hand on that account), when the rest of us are subject to _____, well…no. Then she is not like us, and so the flesh that Christ took from her is something other than that which shares the one (fallen) human nature. This is at the heart of why the Orthodox will not accept the IC: It distorts the theology of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Vico]

Sure, but it’s not 100% the same as ours so long as she is personally exempt from something that the rest of us share. If it were just a matter of being sanctified in the womb or what have you, that would be one thing (we believe that John the Baptist was similarly sanctified), but to say that she was preserved from conception from ____ (I’ll let you fill that in with whatever you think is appropriate, because again these are not concepts we normally deal in, so I don’t want to use the wrong word and have my post dismissed out of hand on that account), when the rest of us are subject to _____, well…no. Then she is not like us, and so the flesh that Christ took from her is something other than that which shares the one (fallen) human nature. This is at the heart of why the Orthodox will not accept the IC: It distorts the theology of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

That difference, however is not of nature, but outside of human nature. Nature is that to which a human person has claim, as creature.

 

[dzheremi]

Oh boy…religious metaphysics. Excuse me, I think I hear some unfolded laundry calling me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Your holding on way too strongly to a point of view which is not indicative of early church teaching in any of the Church’s nor does any give indication of exactly when this Grace is bestowed on Mary, but it is understood that by the age of reason Mary possessed this "holy by nature Grace’. We need to look at this more objectively.

Chapter 11 "Nevertheless , she was by this way holy by nature ‘and’ truly a virgin to the point of that not even the slightest desire of any passion that would be corrupting of ‘spiritual holiness’ ever came upon Her. [Life of the Virgin, Maximus the Confessor on Marys Birth and Childhood]

 

[GaryTaylor]

Chapter 13 “Thus with such comportment qualities pleasing to God. the all-Blessed Virgin was present in the Temple, and She grew in stature and virtue beyond comprehension. Also “all” of Her life was exalted ‘beyond nature’ and because it was commensurate with Her becoming the Queen of all things and the Mother of the Lord, because She had been chosen by the Father ‘and’ prepared by the Holy Spirit ‘to’ contain in Her womb the only begotten Son and Word of God” Maximus the Confessor.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sure, but it’s not 100% the same as ours so long as she is personally exempt from something that the rest of us share. If it were just a matter of being sanctified in the womb or what have you, that would be one thing (we believe that John the Baptist was similarly sanctified), but to say that she was preserved from conception from ____ (I’ll let you fill that in with whatever you think is appropriate, because again these are not concepts we normally deal in, so I don’t want to use the wrong word and have my post dismissed out of hand on that account), when the rest of us are subject to _____, well…no. Then she is not like us, and so the flesh that Christ took from her is something other than that which shares the one (fallen) human nature. This is at the heart of why the Orthodox will not accept the IC: It distorts the theology of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Well was the flesh that Christ took on somehow different than ours? I don’t think so. Only difference is God is never not in communion with God.

What distorts the Incarnation is God who is always in communion with Himself, could not and was not born into anything not in communion with Him.

And no there is no teaching which indicates sanctified in the womb and from what I continue to see not in the Coptic either. Which holds to the apocryphal of James in regards to the teaching on Mary and Her childhood.

This idea Mary was sancitified in the womb is a “new” animal in Christianity. No early church father taught this and its not a constant in history nor Biblically.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“God has heard your prayer, and you will give birth to the cause of joy, and you will name Her Mary, through whom the salvation of the entire world will come into being.” (Protev. 4.1)

And the conception began, from barren Anna was born Mary the “illuminator” of all, for so Her name Mary is translated as “illuminator”. Maximus the Confessor.

I contend Mary was predestined by God in one critical aspect, communion with Him. This singular Grace certainly became many virtues as we see. This in no way distracts from Marys humanity nor did Christs Divinity distract from His humanity. It illuminates humanity correctly.

“That is why Scripture says of her bodily forms and disclplines that they are all wonderful, praised and glorious. For she loved learning and was an excellent student; she was an expert in every good subject and filled with understanding of the Divine Scriptures and with all wisdom, because She was to become the Mother of the Word and Wisdom of God. She was clever with words and had a pleasant voice, as it is written; “she opened her mouth with wisdom and imposed order in her speech” [Prov. 31.25], for these words of Solomon were also spoken of her, and also with the following, “she is clothed in her strength and beauty” [Prov. 31.26], by the grace and power that was born from her.” [Life of the Virgin, Maximus the Confessor pg 43]

 

[GaryTaylor]

When we speak of Original Sin or Ancestral Sin we are speaking of pre-fall Adam and Eve. What this disobedience bought to mankind was “Death” which is indeed a consequence, and its also true that when we say Death the Serpent took mankind and nature into captivity as hostage. He became the prince of the physical world. The Apostle Paul elaborates on Christ and that “Death” was nailed to the Cross, thus the redemption.

Death came upon man because the folly in the garden broke Communion with God by transgression. Communion was restored on the Cross. In order for God to reverse this captivity of evil, that is according to my Bible.

God the Father used the Serpents own manner of proceeding with a woman, yet this woman ‘unties the knot of disobedience Eve bought to mankind, with obedience’ as the Saint states.

The proto type is Eve which God the Father then must reflect on, and correct with and through Mary, and more important is the position He is to place Himself in as a suckling baby. This now is no longer a comparison of Eve pre-fall and Mary. Eve was not the Mother of God. Mary in a very real way carried the Light of the World. Therefore it stands to reason Mary was all of what Eve was in this critical area, and remained in continuity thus Communion with God to become the Mother of the Lord.

Perhaps is we stay on point here, then the conversation can proceed in a productive manner. Are we saying the Almighty God who is all Love and Wisdom couldn’t do this in creating perfect Grace, also according to my Bible? I say this is exactly what God did in a very humble, very human women, that is to produce a mediator of His Grace. Illuminator…“My Soul Magnifies the Lord”

And so too it follows that since all Grace passed through Mary that all Grace is no doubt capable of passing through Mary. This is mediation/intercession correctly understood. Mary didn’t become mediator and intercessor after the Incarnation, She was that before the Incarnation. And for all of us. This is why Mary needed a Savior more than all of us.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This was very helpful…

… its the spiritual that was/is FULLY GRACED in Mary’s & our case too !!

Communion with Jesus Christ. And yes our path is one of Eve or Mary in the Spiritual realm. We have what Mary didn’t have, the New and Everlasting Covenant to be a constant aide in this spiritual battle. So too this is why Mary needed a savior more than anyone. She was condemned as all were, Her continuity of Faith not only bought Her Salvation, but gave Birth to the entire Salvation of mankind… The Light of the World.

What Mary had was Scripture and unwavering Faith, and these Words rang true by Her intercession…

“If my people upon who my name has been pronounced, humble themselves, pray, and seek My Presence, and turn from their evil ways, I will hear them from Heaven, pardon their sins and heal their land” 2 Chronicles 7:14

 

[brb3]

Lets be clear on what we receive at our Baptism & Confirmations by Holy Spirit. We become New Creations …Spiritually reborn Only ! We still reside in a body that is fallen, which will age and die…Just like Mary’s body !!! We still need ongoing confession & repentance, and the Eucharist !!

If Mary got more than we, when she was FULLY GRACED …then please explain !!

 

[GaryTaylor]

If Mary got more than we, when she was FULLY GRACED …then please explain !!

There is the twofold question I contend the focus should remain on, not just when, but why then at this specific suggested time?

Course the what is this singular grace, which increase’s in virtue in real time throughout the ministry of Christ.

 

[brb3]

There is the twofold question I contend the focus should remain on, not just when, but why then at this specific suggested time?

Course the what is this singular grace, which increase’s in virtue in real time throughout the ministry of Christ.

Don’t talk in figures …speak plainly. What did Mary receive during her earthly life that You/I & Apostles didn’t ?