Do any Particular Eastern and Oriental Churches in union with Rome celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception as a Holy day of obligation?

U-C

My parish is Ruthenian. We do celebrate it on the 8th, rather than the 9th as is traditional, but it is called "The Conception of St Anna," rather than the feast of the Immaculate Conception, and it's not a "holy day of obligation." Our calendar, from Byzantine Seminary Press, shows it as a solemnity.

A blessed feast day to all!

A quick check of several Orthodox calendars (new calendar) states that on December 8th, among the commemorations of the day is "The Forefeast of the Conception by St. Anna of the Most Holy Theotokos" from the Greek Orthodox website and the ACROD website.The ninth is observed as the Conception of the Theotokas The OCA and Antiochian calendars also note the commemoration on December 9th. Obviously the Orthodox do not commemorate this in the western sense as the 'Immaculate Conception.'

Does anybody know why the Latin Church moved the Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos by Saint Anne back one day? I thought the point of having the Feast on the 9th was to make it nine months minus one day from the Nativity of the Theotokos, an imperfection meant to distinguish her from her Son.

The name of this Holy Day has become misleading. The conception is not of Anna because it was Mary who was conceived. I've also seen it called the "Maternity of Anna" which is correct but rather changes the focus. The "Conception by Anna" is partially correct; more accurate is "Conception by Anna and Joachim." A better name for the commemoration would be "Conception of the Theotokos" as it better matches the scriptural readings.

I tend to think that "Immaculate Conception' has merit (understanding that my eastern brothers and sisters have arguable grounds for disagreement) because the "Most Pure One" also has the title of the "New Eve." As Eve was created (in a different way) without sin, it is logical that the mother of mankind was also created without sin.

IMHO, it becomes difficult to explain the Holy Day when we have such difficulty with the accuracy of its name.

Pardon me for this next comment, but everyone in the Steeler Nation know what the "Immaculate Reception" is.

I guess that I have this idiosyncrasy because I've been preaching that life is sacred from conception to natural death. It becomes confusing to people when we misuse the word conception, which is the creation of a person.

A holy fast to all,
Fr Deacon Paul

A solemnity is of the highest order in the categories of Church days among memorials and feasts.

Solemnity, Feast, Memorial is the ranking of the Roman Rite. The Byzantine Rite ranks Feasts as Vigil, Polyeleos, Great Doxology, Six Stichera, and Simple. The Conception of the Theotokos is a Feast of Great Doxology rank traditionally and still is among the Orthodox. Catholic Byzantine Churches have raised it to Vigil rank.

It is a Holy Day of Obligation for Maronites and Chaldeans.

Fr Deacon,

I didn't know that. Are you Ruthenian Catholic, too? Do you know why the calendar we get from Byzantine Seminary Press shows Roman rankings? That's disappointing. My parish priest uses the same terminology. I just checked my calendar again, and all the feast days are indicated as either "Simple," "Solemn," or "Obligation." Is this a lingering latinization, then?

I would also like to know the answer to Stuart's question.

Jaya,

There are two different issues here: what the liturgical ranks of days are called in each rite, and how bishops notify their priests of which services must be publicly celebrated.

LITURGICALLY, the lists given by Father Deacon are correct for the Byzantine and Roman Rites.

But note that the calendar from the Byzantine Seminary Press doesn't say Solemnity, Feast, or Memorial. That is because the indication is how the PARISH PRIEST is supposed to conduct services. There are rules on what services, at a minimum, are to be celebrated in the parish. So while there are many feasts of "vigil rank" - such as the feast of Saint Sabbas on December 5 - only some of them (such as Saint Nicholas' feast day on December 7) are named by the bishops as "solemn feast days" or "simple feast days" - days when the parish priest is obligated to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in his parish. (Ideally, the "full liturgical observance" of a solemn feast day should also include Vespers and Matins.)

When you get next year's calendar, look at the "tear-off" cover page, and I think you will find an explanation of the terms "solemn holy day" and "simple holy day."

Orthodox parishes tend to either be more informal, OR based on specific rulings for their particular bishop. For example, one Orthodox parish I attended ONLY had services on Sundays. If a feast fell on a weekday, tough. I would wager that this is the sort of thing that the system of "solemn feasts" and "simple feasts" (and days of obligation) is supposed to prevent.

For a complete listing of saints' days in the Byzantine Catholic Church, the liturgical rank of each, see the Calendar of Saints

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

Thank you for your very clear and informative post. That explained everything!

My parish priest, however, does refer to the feasts labeled "Solemn" as "Solemnities." I guess that's a holdover from his Latin days.

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia seems to document (regardless of the way the rest of the article comes off - or is in some places wrong, or at least severely dated) that the feast was on the 8th on the English calendar when it was introduced ~1000 years ago, apparently without knowledge of Eastern practice. (It seems the English just counted 9 months and stuck it there)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

I went looking at the 1917 encyclopedia, because I had been taught something different - and I figured I should verify the story I had always heard before responding. (In retrospect what I was taught now seems more than a little silly and unlikely - so much so that I won't even mention it).

Justin

Stuart,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Byzantine Ruthenians in the US celebrate the feast on December 8, which changes that 9 months minus 1 day period.

There are a couple of reasons. The 6th Plenary Council was held on December 8, 1846 in Baltimore which placed the US under the protection of the Mother of God.

Also, Pope Pius IX made his infallible proclamation of the Immaculate Conception on December 8, 1854.

As Catholics, we stand firm with Universal Catholic Church in fundamental matters ' faith

As Eastern Christians, we are blessed with a special understanding, bringing us closer to the Theotokos and to Christ, to help us to the Kingdom of God

Have a most blessed Christmas,

Fr Deacon El

Whatever that means. Sometimes, of course, the circle cannot be squared.

As an Eastern Christian, I find the doctrine of the immaculate conception to be superfluous at best. I have no problem if Latin Catholics wish to believe it, as it is necessary given Latin assumptions about original sin. Since the Christian East has a very different set of assumptions about that, there is no need for Mary to have been protected from the stain of original sin, because, as an Eastern Christian, I don't believe we inherit any such stain from Adam, but only the curse of mortality. As Mary died, it does not seem she escaped from the ancestral curse.

And you never explained just why the Latin Church changed the date of the Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos to 8 December, merely noted that they did.

There's more to original sin than mortality.

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16,16).

That citation does not support your assertion.

One of the wonderful things about the catholicity of the Church is that it contains fullness everywhere at every time so that what is proposed by the part, is given for the whole.
There is no reason to insist that "only" the west's tradition or "only" the east's tradition cotntains the fullness of understanding, but that each contributes to the whole.

I think that this passage from John chapter 9, at least in my mind, supports Stuartk on the Eastern View of original sin.

"Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth.
And His disciples asked Him, saying, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' Jesus answered, 'Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.'" Later in the passage the Pharisees say to the healed man born blind, "You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?" The Lord rebukes this idea earlier in the passage when speaking to his disciples.

I think that this verse speaks against the idea that sins from the past are passed on to the next generation. We can use this same logic to original sin. The result of original sin is our separation from God and death but not some stain or passing down of past sins to the next generation.

Blessed Feast of the Maternity of St. Anne.(or post-feast for us whom celebrated it yesterday)

Oh yes, it makes clear that we are born separated from God.

I only see a contrast between belief and non belief. Where do you see anything about birth?

Sins from the past can be transmitted to next generations not as a personal guilt, but as consequences (see how babies of alcoholic mothers look like, they're not guilty of anything, and yet they're born deformed). This separation from God, mortality, passions, all this what makes the fallen state is precisely this "guilt" or "stain". It's just arguing about words.

People are born unbaptized. They need to be baptized to be saved. To be saved means to be united with God. Therefore simply being born is not enough to be united with God.

I don't disagree that the consequences of sin is passed on (the consequence of original sin is death) just that I wouldn't want to use the terms "guilt". The stain of original sin in my mind is death. So yes if my mother was a drug addict and it effected the way I looked that is a consequence.

But I do think that my parent’s sins before my birth have nothing to do with my own sinfulness. My sinfulness is due to the fall not the unmoral or amoral life of my parents. Now after birth is a different story since I could immolate my parent’s sins and follow in their footsteps but that is a free choice not something I am born with.

The Pharisees believed that the man born blind was born blind because his parents (or some past generation) had done some great sin and now he was being punished for it. Clearly the Lord rebukes this idea.

Of course people need to be baptized into the Saving Mysteries of Christ. But baptism is no guarantee of salvation.

Following you logic then would an infant who dies before baptism not be saved since he/she died before baptism? I strongly dislike that idea!!

While this may or may not be, it's not in the verse you cited.

I meant to say emulate not immolate, which my spell checker told me to use. Sorry about that!!

Yet, this is what many of the Fathers taught.
Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, Pope Leo I are some that taught that salvation for anyone is impossible without baptism.

Well, IMO, the doctrine of Immaculate Conception is kind of redundant to the Byzantines at least. And, the Roman Church has her feast of the Nativit of the Mother of God on September 8th.

The Latin Church does not teach the transmission of the "guilty", not at least as we understand that. See what I said about in a late post:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thanks Phillipe; this view, to a great extent, reconciles the views of East and West with regard to original sin, if I understand both positions correctly.
Let me add a confirming quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1426 Conversion to Christ, the new birth of Baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Christ received as food have made us "holy and without blemish," just as the Church herself, the Bride of Christ, is "holy and without blemish." Nevertheless the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life. This is the struggle of conversion directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never ceases to call us.

Fr Deacon Paul