www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology A detail of the IC dogma

I've just read through the part of St. John Maximovich's book, "The Orthodox Veneration of Mary, the Birthgiver of God" where he condemns the Immaculate Conception dogma. This leads me to my question.

I have no doubt that the Orthodox East affirms the complete sinlessness of Our Lady, as does the Catholic West. However, I find it compelling to believe that while Our Lady never sinned, that she experienced the temptations to sin as a result of original sin (i.e. the fallen nature) until the Annunciation. In fact, this seems most logical, as it would keep Christ as the only one free from sin completely, and would enable God to be Our Lady's Savior in the truest sense of the word. Is such a belief (that Our Lady could have had inclinations to sin, but never sinned) compatible with Roman Catholic theology? Thanks.

Pax tecum,

Adam

I don't think there would be any problem with this in the dogmatic pronouncement of her immaculate conception.

Consider the following: Adam and Eve were both created in the original innocence - no stain of sin was in them yet they were still tempted by the serpent and did fall from grace.

The dogmatic statement: "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." does not say that she was without temptations, only the stain of original sin.

We are not obliged to believe she didn't have any temptations and I think such a belief would take away from the heroic virtue of her life and here absolute, "Yes." to God. Again, Eve was innocent but still sinned. Mary was innocent as well but remained faithful.

Temptation to sin is no sin at all, even Christ was tempted by Satan and surely Mary the Mother of God was, the point is that neither did.
Stephanos I

I would only add that while both christ and the Theotokos were tempted, any temptation to sin was not due to corruption or any inward, disordered inclination to disobedience.

Rather, I would assert that it would only have been extrinsic temptations, perhaps appealing to their desire to achieve a higher good by a lesser or sinful means.

My two cents...

Gordo

Thanks, everyone, for your responses. I read the prayers for the feastday of the Annunciation (when some Orthodox believe Our Lady's inclination to sin was removed) and the Conception of St. Anne, this evening. Interestingly enough, the prayers for the Annunciation never mention Our Lady being cleansed, while the prayers for her Conception speak of her being conceived in a "miraculous manner" and of her being a "lamb."

Here are some of my thoughts on the substantial objections to the IC dogma from the East:

The charge that some of the church fathers spoke of her purification at the Annunciation cannot negate the fact that this opinion never made it into the prayers of the Church. St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil also taught that Our Lady had committed small sins, yet this never made it into the official prayers of the Church, the embodiment of Holy Tradition. The prayers of the Church are to be seen as the standard-bearer for what is truly Orthodox. The Fathers maintained Holy Tradition, yet they also had their own opinions - the difference is sorted out in the "lex orandi" of the Church.

Those who disagree with the teaching that Our Lady received special graces at her conception must endlessly wrestle with the situation where Our Lady would have been able to keep free from sin and yet have not been given special graces in order to accomplish this. Such a belief holds no trace of "synergism", but resembles plegalism.

As for the charge that this takes away the free will of the Theotokos - this cannot be. Our Lady still had a chance to say "No" at the Annunciation. Just as Adam and Eve were created immaculate and without any inclination to sin, yet still had the free will to give into temptation, the same is true for the Theotokos.

It is also untrue that this teaching about the Theotokos takes away from Christ being the only "sinless" One. If we understand that God created the world to be full of sinless, perfect, humans (had the Fall not occurred), and God would still be the "Only Righteous One", why couldn't he retain this title in light of the great holiness and perfect of the Theotokos? God is the only righteous One in the sense that He is fountain of all holiness, and the origin of the divine energy of grace. However, the Theotokos is the only sinless one in that she had neither stain upon her soul, or the fallen inclination (desire) to commit sin.

Far from taking away from the glory of the Most Holy Theotokos, the teaching of her complete perfection and holiness should cause us to honor her more and to see in her lifelong obedience, the model of redeemed humanity (the return to the pre-Fall state), and a picture of the Atonement - the completely faithful virgin restoring what the unfaithful virgin lost.

Pax tecum,

Adam

Welcome 'Catholic Orthodox'....or 'Adam'...
We also have a poster named 'Orthodox Catholic' named 'Alex'!

Thanks for the welcome, Alice! :-) I have read many of Alex's posts. He's taught me a lot. God bless!

Pax tecum,

Adam

Welcome Adam,

If you may, please, read the book of St. Maxim the Confessor, "The life of the Mother of God".
Well, I am not so sure if I translated well into English, but if you want, you find. It is very interesting.

May God have mercy upon us.

In Christ, Marian

Dear Adam,

Welcome! As you know, "Catholic Orthodox" is the original name that Russian Greek-Catholics took for themselves when they first came into communion with Rome. Patriarch Josyf Slipyj refers to them this way in at least one letter of his.

The Mother of God was certainly completely sanctified by the Holy Spirit at the moment of her Conception - as was, in fact, John the Baptist, whose Conception the East also celebrates liturgically. St Nicholas the Wonderworker's Conception is also liturgically celebrated on August 11.

While everyone, including our Lord, experienced temptation, the Mother of God would not have experienced concupiscence as we do - she felt no pain in giving birth to Christ and her death was so light that the East calls it a "Dormition."

That she, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, was anointed by Him more than once in her life - absolutely!

At her Annunciation, at her Visitation, at Pentecost, at her Dormition and now, in Heaven, where she is first after Her Son, OLGS Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity.

Sometimes certain Orthodox teachers "bent over backwards" to try and distance themselves from RC teachings.

Archbishop Kallistos Ware points this out, and mentions that when even the Assumption was proclaimed, there were Orthodox who said that Orthodoxy "never taught that" etc.

Some of that extremism, which the West also had, spilled over into quite nonsensical things, like the style of Cross ie. that the three-bar Cross was the only valid Cross (Old Believers) and the one-bar Cross was the "Latin chrism" and even "heretical."

Today, happily, the only real difference between a "Catholic cross" and an "Orthodox cross" is (are you ready?) that Catholic Crosses will depict Christ's Feet nailed one on top of the other with one single nail . . .

The 2003 Encyclopaedia of Orthodoxy published by the Moscow Patriarchate asks the faithful to stay away from such Crosses and ask Orthodox priests not to bless such . . .

I told an Orthodox priest friend of mine about this (he had never heard of that) and,at that moment, he quickly looked at his pectoral Cross to see if it were truly Orthodox!

Isn't all this exciting?

Welcome, once again.

Alex

Thanks for the welcome and explanation, Alex!

I found the following Orthodox website this evening, dealing with the Annunciation of Our Lady: http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/annunciation.htm

I thought the article puts things into perspective nicely.

And here is a quote from St. Hesyshius (d. 300) about the Blessed Theotokos and concupiscence:

"Behold a Virgin. Who is she? The most noble of women, the elect from among virgins, the splendid ornament of our nature . . . she whom the smoke of concupiscence touched not, nor the worm of pleasure harmed" (Hesychius, Orat. De Virginis laudib).

Pax tecum,

Adam

Dear Adam,

St John the Theologian has a special cult in the Byzantine Churches.

The liturgical prayers so honour him as all-pure etc. that many have believed (as I do) that he too was conceived in holiness.

And his translation to heaven in the body is highly feted in the East (I visited his tomb).

His disciples put the aging John alive into the tomb and covered him over with the stone.

When they returned the next day, they moved the stone away and found nothing.

Every year, on the feast of his bodily translation to heaven, the worshippers who gather at his tomb are enveloped in a light breeze that picks up shiny specks of dust that glisten in the sun . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

Yes, I've read about that in the past. St. Gertrude the Great had a vision of St. John the Theologian in Heaven, body and soul. It's mentioned in her book of revelations.

Once, I heard a Russian Orthodox priest say that a lot of the liturgical prayers aren't meant to be taken literally. For example, when some of the saints are said to be "all-pure" and "all-wise" that the prayer isn't literally saying that they are perfect in either wisdom of holiness.

Last evening I read one of the Vesper prayers for the feastday of St. Elias the Thesbite, which reads, "Elias all-wise, in your burning zeal for God you slaughtered the priests in confusion with your sword . . ."

And the troparion for Eliseus reads of Elias, that he was an "angel in the flesh." Since we clearly don't interpret these passages to say that St. Elias the Prophet was literally "all-wise" or an "angel in the flesh" why should we interpret the passges relating to the Holy Theotokos and St. John the Theologian as being literally "all-pure"? Thanks!

Pax tecum,

Adam

Dear Adam,

As for Elias, you know what he did with those pagan priests . . .

So if anyone wants to argue whether he was "all-wise" or not . . . well, it's not going to be me, I can tell you . . .

The Orthodox Church does indeed honour the Holy Conception of St Nicholas of Myra on August 11th.

And that certainly is not "over the top praise."

Lex orandi, lex credendi . . . unless, of course, it relates to a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, then, of course, things can be reviewed

FRANKly speaking, I like Roman Catholics. Not a bit scared of them at all . . .

Alex

Mary had no concupiscence, but was tempted to sin.

I'll give you a link to an article which makes a really good analogy.

Say me and Mary are going to a party, and people will be smoking there. (and let's say that smoking a cigarette is definitely a sin). I quit 3 months ago and still have urges to smoke a cigarette (my concupiscence). Mary has never had a cigarette (never sinned) so she has no sort of addiction (no concupiscence).

When all the guys at the party will light up their smokes, I'll want one, but Mary might too, you know, to fit in or something.

So while she is immaculately conceived and I am not we both have the temptation to light a cigarette.

But - Mary's temptation would not be from a "fallen nature," she was born in sanctifying grace.

Mary was saved from sin by her Son before she was born.
http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/graymatters.htm

Dear Alex,

I, too, have noticed that some Orthodox like to "review" certain prayers/teachings when the Roman Church declares them as dogmas, et all.

Dear Guglielmo,

Thanks for that analogy, it was really helpful.

Pax tecum,

Adam