www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Hi, I'm Orthodox, and I believe in the IC.

Memo,

I, too, was initially confused by Hieromonk Ambrose's response to your recent post. However, I now think that he is referring to the part where you said, "[T]he Mother of God received . . . full theosis." That language does at least suggest that there is a point at which theosis ceases, since it suggests that one's "theosis tank," to use a metaphor, will have become "full" at some point. I don't know whether you meant this, though. Your new, most recent post suggests only that the Theotokos has received at least some of the particular graces that the righteous will receive on the Last Day, without suggesting that there cannot be continuing, or different levels of, theosis.

IAlmisry/Fr. Kimel,

I also see no obvious reason to think that 1 Cor. 5:21 challenges the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. What is the connection? It seems that someone can affirm that Christ "knew no sin," was "made sin for us," etc., and also affirm that the Theotokos was immaculately conceived (however exactly that is unpacked), without clear inconsistency.

Is the thought that no one, including the Theotokos, could be "made the justice of God," i.e., receive this sort of grace, until Christ was first "made sin for us?" That seems like a plausible concern. However, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does hold that the Theotokos was granted her privilege only in light of Christ's salvific work, i.e., only in light of his being "made sin for us." So, it doesn't sever the logical connection between these two things in any way -- that is, Christ's salvific work is logically prior to the grace granted to the Theotokos, according to the dogma. The question that apparently remains is whether the link here must also be temporal, but, given God's eternality, it isn't immediately clear why it must be.

Dear brother Isa,

Let's not forget the OT prophecies that God would prepare for Himself a vessel. And let's not forget the consistent teaching of the Church that Christ's Immaculate flesh had to be obtained from an immaculate source (I believe St. Palamas was very explicit on this, as well as many other Eastern Fathers). The very purpose of the Holy Theotokos, the very reason for her literal being, from the first moment God created her, was to be the vessel of the Word, and the source of Christ's immaculate humanity.

The Christological Truth inherent in the Dogma of the IC is one of the reasons I accepted it, even before I imagined I would join the Catholic communion. I for one, wish the Dogma explained this Christological connection more directly. It is contained in the Apostolic Constitution to the Dogma, but it wouldn't have hurt to actually include it in the definition itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

It's not enough to simply say this. You need to provide some arguments. What precisely do you believe the Fathers meant when they confessed the Virgin as the New Eve? Does being the New Eve say anything about her sanctity or sinlessness, or is she a child of wrath just like the rest of us?

And why precisely does the Catholic confession that the Virgin Mary was indwelt by the Holy Spirit from the beginning of her existence undo the patristic understanding of Mary as the New Eve?


But you haven't heard these arguments from me, so I'm not going to try to defend them.


Why not? I don't find these kinds of "logical" arguments helpful one way or the other. Just as I don't find it logically necessary to affirm the IC on the basis that Jesus had to be conceived in the womb of an immaculately conceived mother, so I don't find it logically necessary to affirm that because Mary died therefore she must have been sinful.

But as Fr Ambrose will confirm, the majority position within Eastern Christianity is that the Theotokos lived a sinless life. The sinlessness of Mary is not a point of contention between Catholics and Orthodox.

because God is eternal but (unless you hold some of the beliefs of Fr. Kolbe) the Theotokos is not. God entered time: its feast day is coming. That is the reason why we date BC/AD. The universe BC differs from the universe AD (or perhaps better "the year of Grace). Unless we want to indugle in "logical" sophistry in which we can do all sorts of things nunc pro tunc, in which case the Eternal has always been floating around the temporal, and the Infinite Son of God never incarnates as the Finite Son of Man. Saying that the IC is "only in the light of Christ's salvific work" is merely legalistic fine print to skirt the problem, a species of Nestorianism. The IC sprouts from the same source as "imputed righteous" and the satisfaction theory of Atonement, and it is not from Scripture nor the Fathers.

As for I Corinthians, the arguement is made that for Christ to be immaculate and sinless, His mother had to be. St. Paul exposes the falsity of this syllogism. It is an ingenius solution to a nonexistent problem.

Recapitualiton. As St. Irenaeus passed on "Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin... By disobeying, Eve became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way Mary, though she had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."

BY OBEYING. God brought Eve painlessly out of Adam but she brought forth only in pain because of disobedience. By obedience Mary brought forth the New Adam painlessly, as Isaiah and the Fathers attest. If the IC were true, St. Anne's childbearing would have been painless (something I am not aware of being claimed). Eve started with grace and ended in sin, Mary started in sin (Psalm 50/51 tells us), and ended full of grace. The IC destroys Mary as the link between the Testaments, and instead makes her the leapfrog of the New in disregard of the Old.


She is a daughter of Eve: otherwise she could not be the mother of the New Adam.


It places the beginning of the New Testament before the end of the Old. Christ, under the IC scheme, isn't born under the Law, as His mother is already freed from it.



If the wages of sin is death, then why would she pay what she didn't owe?


That is, however, how the IC made the march from condemned innovation to ex cathedra "apostolic" dogma. It would never had made it without potuit, decuit ergo fecit.


Death comes only from sin. That is the teaching of the Fathers and Scripture.


Just a difference of how she got that way. Quite a difference.

Such as?


You can't forget what was not there to be remembered. The Church never taught any such thing.



Yes, we've talked about this all over the net: his words "Except for God, there is no one who is without sin" evidently are not explicit enough for you. Btw, did you ever find if St. Gregory gave a sermon on St. Anne's conception?


Yes, we have discussed that too. Care to name some, with some quotes?



God doesn't reduce His image and likeness to a mere means, no matter how exalted. Her "yes, let it be to me" was all her own. Which is why, despite your words below, the IC is inherently devoid of Christological Truth.


As they say in your pope's native land: Wer A sagt, muss auch B sagen. Who says A, must say B.


yes, we've gone through that all too.

The IC turns the Holy Theotokos from the Great Example to the Unique Exception.

Hi,



Hmmmm.... No. This is not what I mean. I do not know exactly how it works. The "tank" analogy cannot be discarded a-priori, but I do not believe is the only applicable model. We could also see theosis as an indefinitely ongoing asintotic process of union with God.

I am not sure how eternity works, but I do believe that whatever God has prepared for His children, He has already given to The Most Holy Theotokos. The statement stands for both models.


Again, I am not sure how eternity works and I don't think anybody can be sure, while on this earth.

I know that the "different levels" hypothesis is favored by some of the Fathers, but I am not sure if I can take their opinions as dogma.

Our Lord didn't speak in terms of levels, not even when asked for places at His left and right sides. He did tell a parable in which the workers who worked a full day received their fair day's pay, however, the workers who came in late and worked only the last hour received the very same pay.

It is natural for our minds to think this is unfair, but Our Lord's reply is just as natural: It's His money, as long as we received what we agreed upon, it is up to Him to spend the rest as He wishes.

We don't know if there are "levels of glory" in Heaven and, according to the Gospel, it is not our business to know.

I don't know how God has worked out these issues, but I certainly do know that it is not my position to tell Him how He should work them out.

From what I've known Him, I can trust that His solution is better than whatever I can come up with.

Shalom,
Memo

It is precisely the Virgin's faith and obedience as the New Eve that the doctrine of the IC seeks to undergird and explain. By the grace of Christ, and only by the grace of Christ, Mary possesses the synergistic freedom to say Yes to God on behalf of Israel and of all of humanity. It is because Mary is not a passive instrument that something like the IC seems to be demanded (whether you locate it at the conception or not later than the Annunciation). Mary truly collaborates with God and assents decisively, definitively, fully, and irrevocably to his work of salvation. In so doing she undoes the disobedience of Eve.


It is this location of Mary completely and exhaustively "under the Law" that is, I think, your mistake--and if I may say so, this is a Protestant mistake. I suggest that the patristic witness is more complicated, interesting, and subtle than this. Here I have found Hans Urs von Balthasar's discussion in his Theo-Drama (vol. 3) illuminating. Balthasar proposes that as a dramatic character in the narrative of salvation, Mary stands between Paradise and the fallen state, between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and between Time and Eternity.


Like you I do not find the "God could do it, it was fitting that He did it, and so He did it" argument to be compelling, just as I don't find the "Mary died therefore she must be guilty of personal sin" argument compelling. But I do not believe that this the origin of the IC. IMHO, the origin of the IC lies in the patristic witness to Mary's sanctity and her full and free (and non-Pelagian!) assent to the announcement of salvation as the New Eve.

No, prior to her conception, she didn't exist, so she wasn't in a position to collaborate with God. Perhaps this is how Fr. Kolbe got his Immaculata ideas. In any case, the IC reminds me of the parents who conceived a sibling to serve as a bone marrow donor for their daughter. An atheist I know remarked how wonderful that was, for the little girl to know that she saved her sister's life, to which I could only reply, how is she going to feel about having been brought into being for spare parts?

If God could do it for Mary, it would be fittig that he do it for Eve and all the rest of us, yet He did not. potuit, decuit ergo fecit. If He "infused grace," i.e. Himself, into the Theotokos at her conception then the Creator entered Creation then and there, and not at the Annuciation, so we ought to move our calendars back 14 years or so B.C. God was in Mary reconciling the world unto Himself, and the Incarnation becomes merely a forgone conclusion.



And undoes the mission of her Son as well.


It is this location of Mary completely and exhaustively "under the Law" that is, I think, your mistake--and if I may say so, this is a Protestant mistake. I suggest that the patristic witness is more complicated, interesting, and subtle than this.
She is, until the IC shifts her totally on the side of Paradise, New Covenant and Eternity, transforming her from a saint to a bodhisatva.


Then explain her death, as we know the reason for all others.


The scholastics used it to catapult it into dogam. Were it not for that slogan, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


LOL. Another heresy that sprung forth from Britain.

With the IC, it is neither full nor free.


That announcement, Latin Annunctio as in Annunciation, came later. That assent came then.

Those who have been said to be unable to understand the dogma of the IC may be in that position because they invent issues that are not germane to the dogma: Construct the strawman and then severely and vehemently attach and demolish it -- and then declare victory.

The whole issue of the IC is that it pertains to the conception -- to the moment of conception -- and not "prior to her conception."

Wow. Quite a scattershot fired out here. I'll try to respond to some parts.

Yes, God is eternal, and the Theotokos is not, and God entered time when God the Word became incarnate. Now, what exactly is the argument that somehow the doctrine of the IC conflicts with the aforementioned claims? That's a genuine question, because I don't see argument here; I see the three claims that I just mentioned, followed by name-calling (logical sophistry that is "merely legalistic fine print," "a species of Nestorianism") and "poisoning of the well" (you try to associate the doctrine with "imputed righteousness," and so on, again without argument--and I'm not sure how such an argument would go, since the righteousness in this case is not (merely?) "imputed").

Anyway, before you offer the argument, keep this in mind: the Orthodox think that something happened to the Theotokos, perhaps at the time of the Annunciation, or perhaps earlier. The Annunciation is also prior to the Incarnation ("you will conceive in your womb," "and will call his name 'Jesus,'" "the Holy Spirit will come upon you," "let it be done unto me"), and it is at this time that Mary is called blessed among women and full of grace. So, if there is a problem with this happening before the Incarnation, then we all have serious problems here. If there isn't, then there isn't (yet, anyway) an obvious reason why the timing should make a special problem for the IC here, given that both the IC and the Annunciation are prior to the Incarnation.

Finally, these verses may be worth consideration in this regard (in relation to God's eternality): "the Lamb [was] slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8), and "a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you" (1 Peter 1:19-20).

You say this to Fr. Kimel: This simply doesn't follow. No one says that St. Anne was sinless, so why should her childbearing have been painless? What you've said here shows only that people who are sinless perhaps bear children without pain. So, at most, it would follow that the Theotokos bore without pain and that, as you mentioned, Adam "bore" without pain. It would not follow that St. Anne bore child without pain.

One last point, for now. Fr. Kimel said to you that the Theotokos "undoes the disobedience of Eve." Your replied: I'm not sure if you meant that this was implied by Fr. Kimel's words here alone or not. If you did, what do you say to St. Irenaeus, who also said, "[T]he knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith?" (Against Heresies)

I've got to run, so I can't say more right now. Hopefully others will address the other issues you raised (I see that Fr. Kimel is doing some of this).

God bless.

The "Great Example" is on the moral plane; "Unique Exception" is on the ontological. According to the IC, Mary is unique ontologically but then so is Adam (and Eve) before the fall. So is Christ yet He is certainly true Man though a divine person. Mary is His unique counterpart -- and who else as she is His (unique) mother -- except that she is a human, not a divine person. It is from her that He takes true humanity, a humanity that pertains to all Mankind, to Adam after the fall.

If one can come to comprehend the incomprehensible, the Incarnation, then the IC should not be a problem conceptually.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean when you say that Mary did not exist prior to her conception. Who in this thread has suggested that she did? Or are you speaking of Mary's predestination as the Theotokos? But if this is what you are referring to, it still does not make any sense to literally say that the person of Mary existed "before" her conception--that would be a serious category mistake.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that it is somehow unfitting for God to elect individuals for specific purposes within the economy of salvation, then I honestly do not know how to respond. I suggest you are allowing preconceived notions of what is "fitting" and "unfitting" to control your reading of Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In his freedom God may and has elected specific individuals to fulfill special roles in salvation history--Abraham, Moses, and John the Baptist immediately come to mind. Each role is special; each is unique.

Mary is the Mother of Jesus the incarnate Word. Precisely because God predestined Jesus Christ "before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4), so we must say that this predestination also intends his mother. How we should understand predestination in this context is a topic for another thread, but surely Catholics and Orthodox agree that the blessed Virgin's was eternally chosen by God to bear the divine Son. Thus St Gregory Palamas: "God predestined Her before the ages for the salvation and reclaiming of our kind. She was chosen, not just from the crowd, but from the ranks of the chosen of all ages, renowned for piety and understanding, and for their God-pleasing words and deeds."
Actually, all God did was to restore to Mary the same internal freedom that Eve originally possessed. Without this freedom, she would not have been the New Eve, except only in a physical sense. "Is it any violent inference," asks Cardinal Newman, that she [the blessed Virgin Mary], who was to cooperate in the redemption of the world, at least was not less endowed with power from on high, than she who, given as a helpmate to her husband, did in the event but cooperate with him for its ruin." Was the Incarnation therefore a "foregone conclusion," as you suggest? No. Mary had the freedom to say no. Her assent was not coerced. Hence Joseph Ratzinger:
The critical concern underlying the Immaculate Conception is the question of Mary's freedom to offer herself wholly and unreservedly to God's plan for her life and the life of the world. It is the conviction of Latin Christians that since the Fall human beings have not had this freedom and that only by the grace of Christ is this freedom restored to us by the Holy Spirit. The question that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception puts to Eastern Christianity is this: Is the Incarnation of the divine Son, and therefore the salvation of the world, dependent on the operation Mary's free will operating independently of grace? Fr Edward Oakes [firstthings.com] puts the matter this way:

The assent of the blessed Virgin to the Incarnation leads us into the mystery of grace and human sinfulness. It is at this point that the discussion needs to be joined.

That would be more a consequence of how the IC became dogma, solving a problem that didn't exsit (opposed, for instance, to the circumstances surrounding the Definitions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils), then of those who reveal the holes in it.


If she didn't exist, and she did not, then she was not there (despite what Fr. Kolbe writes) to give her fiat, consequently the IC would be without her collaboration.

I hope to return to the rest of the posts later.