The Eastern Church on Marian Dogma/Doctrines

[dzheremi]

It should be pointed out that Sergei Bulgakov’s Collyridian tendencies were condemned as heresy by none less than John Maximovitch, a saint among the EO. So Bulgakov is really not a good choice to base your view of EO Mariology on. See Maximovitch’s objections to Bulgakov’s ideas for more information.

 

[mardukm]

I’m running out of patience with you, Mardukm. Please refer to post #27 in this thread. There is absolutely no point in having any conversation with you. Go away.

Yes, I understand you don’t want to hear what the Catholic Church teaches about herself. That’s fine. I write these things for other readers who want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, not what other Churches think she teaches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

But taken together with what you say in the subsequent paragraph, she is redeemed at the moment of her conception. Is Christ’s death on the cross not necessary for her salvation, then, since she is uniquely redeemed at her conception?

This is heretical to the Orthodox, so I hope we can now put to bed the idea that the Orthodox believe in the IC, which was was the whole point of my original post in this thread. From HG Bishop Youssef (my bishop):

“All those who oppose the Immaculate Conception (including us the Orthodox) believe that the Redemption accomplished by our Lord Christ would not be universal if the condition of sin were not common to all human beings. …] In our Orthodox view, this whole issue of defending or re-explaining the Immaculate Conception again diminishes the importance of the Cross. For if the Lord redeemed or pre-redeemed our Lady, or by His grace preserved her from sin, without or before actually dying on the Cross, then this whole salvation process might be considered as an act before man!”

suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=511&catid=203

I understand what is written there.

There is no disagreement on this: the condition of sin is common to all human beings.

The disagreement is on “defending or re-explaining the Immaculate Conception again diminishes the importance of the Cross” because “this whole salvation process might be considered as an act before man!”.

However it is know from the Bible that some were saved before the Cross.

Elijah is taken up by a whirlwind into heaven (2 Kings 2:11).

Enoch “he was attested as having pleased God” and was “taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found because God had taken him” (Hebrews 11:5, cf. Genesis 5:24).

And also the Immaculate Conception constitution does have reference to Genesis 3:15.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The disagreement is on “defending or re-explaining the Immaculate Conception again diminishes the importance of the Cross” because “this whole salvation process might be considered as an act before man!”.

If we consider this point perhaps we can avoid further inquiry into mystery. We have to conclude there is salvation for those not in the Apostolic Church’s. I can’t see how we can condemn all these souls when scripture is explicit here.

Otherwise its back to No Salvation.

 

[mardukm]

I think another issue on people’s minds is whether the Theotokos received ALL possible Graces at her conception. I think some Catholics actually believe that. But the dogma states only that Mary was saved/preserved from “the stain of Original Sin,” which in the Latin reckoning refers only to lack of Original Justice/Original Holiness — the same thing we all recover at Baptism.

In fact, the Apostolic Constitution explicitly states that Mary GREW in her holiness, so the dogma cannot possibly mean that Mary received ALL possible Graces at her IC.

This fact would answer the objection I’ve encountered that a few Fathers say that Mary recieved certain Graces later in her life. It also responds to the objection that Mary had no free will because of the IC. Grace, according to Catholic teaching, can only grow when the recipient RESPONDS to Grace. If the Apostolic Constitution explicitly states that Mary grew in holiness, then that means she was responding by free will to the Grace given to her.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agree completely on that. I tend to think about Jeremiah also “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” While this doesn’t relate to Mary and no doubt takes another turn. We still can’t ignore that God knew Mary prior in His plan of Salvation. This is where I see Gods perfection, not as a afterthought which confines Him to His own rule.

 

[Apotheoun]

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.

I am Eastern Catholic and I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception. It really is an unnecessary speculative theory from an Eastern Christian perspective.

The Latin Church is constantly trying to dogmatize theories that really have no meaning outside of a particular speculative context.

 

[joe370]

The Orthodox view Mary as “superior to all created beings”, although not divine. The Orthodox venerate Mary as conceived immaculate and assumed into heaven, but they do not accept the Roman Catholic dogmas on these doctrines. The Orthodox celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos, rather than Assumption.

:angel1:

So, the EOC teaches that Mary is “superior to all created beings”, although not divine" and that she was immaculately conceived, but does not believe it when the CC says the same thing, definitively?

The doctrine of the Assumption, as per the CC, says that at the end of Mary’s life on earth (whether she fell asleep or died) she was assumed, body and soul, into heaven. Does the EOC believe this?

The CC has never formally defined whether Mary died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of her assumption certainly would not be impaired if she did not in fact die.

 

[joe370]

I think another issue on people’s minds is whether the Theotokos received ALL possible Graces at her conception. I think some Catholics actually believe that. But the dogma states only that Mary was saved/preserved from “the stain of Original Sin,” which in the Latin reckoning refers only to lack of Original Justice/Original Holiness — the same thing we all recover at Baptism.

In fact, the Apostolic Constitution explicitly states that Mary GREW in her holiness, so the dogma cannot possibly mean that Mary received ALL possible Graces at her IC.

This fact would answer the objection I’ve encountered that a few Fathers say that Mary recieved certain Graces later in her life. It also responds to the objection that Mary had no free will because of the IC. Grace, according to Catholic teaching, can only grow when the recipient RESPONDS to Grace. If the Apostolic Constitution explicitly states that Mary grew in holiness, then that means she was responding by free will to the Grace given to her.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hey Marduk. That does make sense. Luke reminds us that “Jesus grew in wisdom and stature…” Is it fair to say then that just as Mary received certain graces later in her life, so did Jesus, in terms of wisdom?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Dogma is another issue which has nothing to do with the reality of what did occur. Distraction on a thread which amazingly has stayed on point

Frankly the history is tracked back somewhat close enough here to give an idea of a mystery which has long been contemplated in the Church’s.

The Coptic Church has been a blessing in regards to their preservation of this Tradition and certainly sheds much light on what by large is lost in the CC and EO. Their point of view is as valid as anyones.

The debate is narrowed to Marys birth which honestly from here I consider an accomplishment. Which theory is in fact correct from there still remains a mystery and I believe by intent. What is evident is that Duns Scotus by taking the high road in the debate reduced everyone else to taking the low road. Without a doubt this placed the debate in his favor. We don’t have a recorded eyewitness document of what God the Father did do in regards, so in essence we’re left to what He in fact could have done. The reverse side is focused on what God didn’t or couldn’t do which binds Him to mans reason.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Another point is that when “sanctified” in the womb is mentioned. Sanctified in the womb has various meanings Biblically which leads me back to Jeremiah. So sanctification has different meanings with a specific singular grace, in other words sanctification in the womb saved no-one in the OT till Christ.

Sanctified in the womb obviously has various meanings.

 

[brb3]

Is Mary’s IC scheduled for discussion in talks between Benedict & Patriarch of East ?
If Mardukm is right, wouldn’t these two WISE MEN, aided by HS, be able to resolve the confusion…and remove this matter as an issue of dispute?

If not on schedule, could we, CAF brotherhood/sisterhood … petition them to add it to discussions, … to foster Christ’s call for ONE UNIFIED CHURCH ?

 

[RyanBlack]

Is Mary’s IC scheduled for discussion in talks between Benedict & Patriarch of East ?
If Mardukm is right, wouldn’t these two WISE MEN, aided by HS, be able to resolve the confusion…and remove this matter as an issue of dispute?

If not on schedule, could we, CAF brotherhood/sisterhood … petition them to add it to discussions, … to foster Christ’s call for ONE UNIFIED CHURCH ?

There is no one Patriarch of the East. The Ecumenical Patriarch would have no authority to impose on the other Orthodox Churches any agreement he reached with the Catholic Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Is Mary’s IC scheduled for discussion in talks between Benedict & Patriarch of East ?
If Mardukm is right, wouldn’t these two WISE MEN, aided by HS, be able to resolve the confusion…and remove this matter as an issue of dispute?

If not on schedule, could we, CAF brotherhood/sisterhood … petition them to add it to discussions, … to foster Christ’s call for ONE UNIFIED CHURCH ?

You would think wouldn’t ya? Apotheoun is right in the overall sense that “Dogma’s” made this difficult.

CAF follows the Primacy.

 

[joe370]

There is no one Patriarch of the East. The Ecumenical Patriarch would have no authority to impose on the other Orthodox Churches any agreement he reached with the Catholic Church.

Each respective eastern orthodox church is essentially autonomous - correct?

 

[brb3]

There is no one Patriarch of the East. The Ecumenical Patriarch would have no authority to impose on the other Orthodox Churches any agreement he reached with the Catholic Church.

Then, there’s the problem … many groups of sheep, w/o a single Leader. Not unlike problem found in schismatic Protestantism.
Lets all admit that its high time we rectify our circumstances, …under direction of HS…and have ONE leader. Then, the world will take notice …and take us seriously !!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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).

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.

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.

Well said, Marduk.

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.

With respect, dzheremi, the the links you provided - thank you, by the way - corroborate without a doubt that, at the very least, their authors do not understand the Immaculate Conception. The Coptic Orthodox link actually said, “Roman Catholics believe that St. Mary was born without the consequences of Original Sin.” That is obviously not true, as the Latin tradition unanimously testifies - even in Pope Pius XII’s MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS - that the Theotokos died. Thus, she was mortal. And since mortality is one consequence of original sin, it’s plainly apparent that Catholic teaching does not consider the Theotokos to have been born “without the consequences of original sin.”

The Eastern/Byzantine Orthodox link you provided asserts more reasonably that the dogma is “redundant” from the perspective of eastern theology, but even that link shows a lack of comprehension of the dogma. Please consider the following selections:

"This is the orthodox understanding of original sin: it is not something that we are guilty of personally, but an action whose consequences have affected our lives as humans."

Catholic teaching agrees with this 100%: The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants” (405).

The linked article also states, "Orthodox writers who often refer to Mary as having been ‘prepared,’ and ‘sanctified,’ and who hail her as the ‘immaculate one,’ are thinking in the context of the Orthodox view of original sin, not the Western. None of these writers put forth a claim that Mary was immortal – which necessarily follows for those who accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It does not fit in the context of the Orthodox view of original sin."

Notice that the link admits that Orthodox writers refer to the Theotokos as “the Immaculate One,” and states that the Orthodox disagree specifically with any teaching that makes the Theotokos immortal.

But the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not make the Theotokos immortal. Remember that as I said above, Pope Pius XII explicitly referenced the death of the Theotokos when he dogmatized her Assumption into heaven.

I know you said you don’t want to talk about this. And you certainly don’t have to if you don’t want to. But I have every right to ask you, even if you refuse, to admit that such arguments against the Immaculate Conception demonstrate a lack of comprehension of it. The Immaculate Conception is quite unworthy of any serious controversy. It is a part of the Faith.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

We dispute the proposition that the dogma places the Theotokos outside of human nature.

You don’t have to agree with us, of course. You don’t even have to engage us. But you will know and now do know that we dispute and contradict such understandings of the dogma as untrue, unpatristic, and non-Traditional.

“Original sin”, “Stain of original sin”, etc. We don’t even have these ideas to begin with … 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.

Understood. I don’t think anyone here wants you or your church to suddenly adopt exclusively Latin terminology. From our perspective, you believe what we believe anyway, although you express it quite differently. So we’re perfectly happy to leave this alone.

But we won’t just ignore it if, instead of ignoring it, you start asserting things about the teaching that aren’t true. I do hope that doesn’t offend you, dzheremi.

If it were just a matter of being sanctified in the womb or what have you, that would be one thing

Sanctified from the moment of her conception, yes. That’s the dogmatic core of the Immaculate Conception, stripped of its Latin terminology.

I can’t speak for your church, dzheremi, but the Byzantines’ Divine Liturgy on the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple states that when she entered the Temple as an infant, she brought divine grace with her.

As I said, the Immaculate Conception is unworthy of great controversy.

Is Christ’s death on the cross not necessary for her salvation, then, since she is uniquely redeemed at her conception?

Is Christ’s death on the cross not necessary for the salvation of Saint John the Baptist, since he was uniquely redeemed while still in the womb?

This fact would answer the objection I’ve encountered that a few Fathers say that Mary recieved certain Graces later in her life. It also responds to the objection that Mary had no free will because of the IC. Grace, according to Catholic teaching, can only grow when the recipient RESPONDS to Grace. If the Apostolic Constitution explicitly states that Mary grew in holiness, then that means she was responding by free will to the Grace given to her.

Excellent points, Marduk.

I am Eastern Catholic and I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Oh, I’ll bet you do.

When do you believe the Theotokos received sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

Hint: consult the Kontakion for the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple.

It really is an unnecessary speculative theory from an Eastern Christian perspective.

Fair enough, Apotheoun. I fully understand why many eastern Christians feel it’s best to simply ignore it, but I think you’ll find that it’s not something you “don’t believe in” if you choose to engage the matter at all.

 

[RyanBlack]

Each respective eastern orthodox church is essentially autonomous - correct?

Basically, yes. The autocephalous churches are entirely self-governing, while the autonomous churches are essentially self-governing, apart from the fact that their primatial bishops are confirmed by one of the autocephalous churches.

 

[brb3]

I think another issue on people’s minds is whether the Theotokos received ALL possible Graces at her conception. I think some Catholics actually believe that. But the dogma states only that Mary was saved/preserved from “the stain of Original Sin,” which in the Latin reckoning refers only to lack of Original Justice/Original Holiness — the same thing we all recover at Baptism.

In fact, the Apostolic Constitution explicitly states that Mary GREW in her holiness, so the dogma cannot possibly mean that Mary received ALL possible Graces at her IC.

This fact would answer the objection I’ve encountered that a few Fathers say that Mary recieved certain Graces later in her life. It also responds to the objection that Mary had no free will because of the IC. Grace, according to Catholic teaching, can only grow when the recipient RESPONDS to Grace. If the Apostolic Constitution explicitly states that Mary grew in holiness, then that means she was responding by free will to the Grace given to her.

Blessings,
Marduk

Now ur making a lot of sense …can’t argue with that sound logic !