www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Original sin

Ghazar,

I did not say I supported what some Catholic apologists say. You stated:

"The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception carries more than that sentence you summarized it with."

Care to elaborate?

Dear Friends,

There is no doubt but that the teaching that the Mother of God was conceived in holiness is not the problem here.

The view taken on Original Sin by the West certainly is.

The insight provided by Rev. Fr Deacon Lance is that both sides have been focusing on something that they already have always agreed on.

What they should be focusing on is the matter of Original Sin itself, defining what an Augustinian definition is, how, if at all, it has changed over the centuries in the West and how it compares with the views of the Eastern Fathers etc.

Augustini has already written voluminously on this subject!

But djs is certainly correct - both sides subscribe, in the end, to the understanding that St Maryam is All-Holy and All-Immaculate, at her Conception and always.

Alex

Dear DJS,

Call me innocent, but the reason that I won't get into any of the legalistics behind the Immaculate conception is because Our Lady saw to it to refer to herself that way to St. Bernadette, who being a simple peasant girl, didn't even understand what the word meant when she conveyed it to her priest. If that is how our Lady saw to it to refer to herself in the West, then that is good enough for me....

As an Orthodox I have been taught that our Lady became 'full of grace and immaculately free of sin' at the Annunciation. Atleast, that is what the Greek Orthodox Church *presently* teaches. My research has shown that this understanding of at what age she became immaculate flip/flops through the centuries in Orthodoxy. I wouldn't be surprised if this teaching came AFTER the doctrine in the West was proclaimed!

In any case, what difference do sixteen years make? Not much to me....when we call her 'Immaculate Lady' in the supplication services and other prayers, it goes beyond her ever-virginity (which is seperately referred to).

I found these thoughts written by Anthony Dragani and thought them to be compelling:

"In the West, Our Lady is considered as being free from every stain of original sin. In the East, we have always spoken of Mary's perfect holiness, ( my interjection: even from the time of her entrance into the temple as a young child). So the West prefers to refer to her being absent of something (the stain of sin) and the East prefers to speak of her as being full of something (the Holy Spirit)."

It seems to me that we really don't disagree too much here. Perhaps over the years, the doctrine of the 'Immaculate Conception' has been over defined leading to all sorts of East/West problems and knee-jerk reactions in understanding each other?

Just my personal thoughts.

In Christ and the Theotokos,
Alice

Dear Dave,

Yes, simply put we have to deal with the entire Roman Catholic doctrine as defined in the Papal Encyclical. One person summarizing it in his own words and then saying "why can't you Orthodox agree with that" isn't going to cut it here. The Papal document is from whence the Roman Catholic dogma is defined. It is this that must either be altered or reformulated in a way acceptable to all sides.

Dear Alex,

I'm struggling to see where in our Tradition in regards to St. Mariam are the words "from the first moment of her conception" used at all? This very emphasis seems to be off, foreign and non-Eastern. Our sister Alice mentioned that the East sometimes invoked the teaching that at the time of the Annunciation her womb was cleansed. But I see this in the same light as those in the East who reacted to the Latin's definition of the exact moment of "Transubstantiation." The East knows it is not in our Tradition to define the "when" and "how" of either of these Mysteries, and as a result some individuals have tried to offer alternatives (the Annunciation being the time of St Mary's cleansing and the Epiclesis being the time of "Consecration"). When in reality, we didn't need to go there. It has always been our Tradition to just accept these on faith and not to over dogmatize about these.

The West will no doubt accuse us of unclarity in teaching becuase we do not dogmatize about all of these little issues. But we can reply that this "lack of rigidity" or "freedom in doubtful matters" has been what has prevented a large scale defection within our Churches from the historic faith as the Roman Catholics experienced at the Reformation. It is our Tradition to leave Mysteries as Mysteries.

Dear Alice,

Good to hear from you as always. I trust I am not guilty of being legalistic because I am simply trying to affirm our historic Tradition which our contemporary Theologians also affirm. Pope John Paul II stated in his encyclical Orientale Lumen, that the East is an authentic interpreter of its own Tradition. Therefore I don't think it is legalistic to listen to our theologians and try to understand what they are saying (as I have tried to do in my essay). As for St. Mariam's supposed statements in various private revelations, I do not look to these (whether of the East or of the West) to gain a normitive understanding of the faith. This was was once for all delivered from the Apostles (Epistle of St. Judas). For instance, St. Mariam was supposed to have appeared to another Western Saint (perhaps it was Teresa of Avila) who was told specifically by the Theotokos that she was NOT the Immaculate Conception. Of course such an apparation was rejected by Western ecclesial authorities. The point is, St. Mariam is not going to appear and contradict the one Tradition we have always maintained. Therefore we are under no obligation to change that Tradition based on someone's private revelation. These are authoritative for the individuals who received them, not for the entire Church.

But I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to over-defining doctrine (as I mentioned above). As you state, I agree this is a big contributor to our problems between East and West.

Ghazar,

I think your analogy to a precise moment of the change of the eucharistic elements is flawed. Rome accepts the Eucharist of the Assyrian Church to be really the Eucharist even if one of their ancient liturgies does not contain the Words of Institution. Left unstated in that recent document is speculation as to when the change actually occurs. The West has at times been guilty of defining too much but that image is often overworked.

The scholastic definition of transubstantiation is well known. Yet, that does not mean that scholastic theology is itself dogma. Pope Paul VI referred to the doctrine of transubstantiation in his encyclical "Credo of the People of God" left open the possibility of other explanations of this mystery:

"This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation. Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us..." (Section 25)

What is required for Catholic belief regarding the Theotokos is not the Western view of Original Sin. The West is actually quite open to other understandings of doctrines. I've mentioned the openness on the timing and understanding of the eucharistic change above. The West has been in the forefront of discussions with those who did not accept the Councils of Ephesus and Constantinople (AD 451). Rome and the Assyrian Church (popularly called Nestorian) have signed an accord on Christology and consider that disagreement settled.

With all the above in mind, how is that I as an Eastern Catholic would need to affirm anything other than what I wrote above with regard to Mary's holiness?:

Mary's holiness was a gift from God and she was never apart from that grace. All her life she did God's will.

I am not required as an Eastern Catholic to hold to the Western views on Original Sin.

Dear Ghazar,

I did not mean to say that you, personally, are being legalistic. I just don't like to debate these theological points as much as the rest of you.

The Ecumenical Patriarch at the time of the doctrine, in a letter to the Pope to convey his grievances on a number of things, said only that he had a problem with the 'dogmatizing' of the Immaculate Conception. He did not mention the doctrine itself.

Bishop Kallistos Ware says that Orthodox Christians are free to believe in the immaculate conception if they wish.

So, putting aside speculation what our Lady has said here and there, I will remain with Anthony Dragani's words, which I always find very spirit illumined:

In the West, Our Lady is considered as being free from every stain of original sin. In the East, we have always spoken of Mary's perfect holiness. So the West prefers to refer to her being absent of something (the stain of sin) and the East prefers to speak of her as being full of something (the Holy Spirit)."

I personally believe our Theotokos to be 'all immaculate' and 'full of holiness and grace' from the time of her birth and through her years in the temple until the Annunciation.

In Christ,
and best regards,
(how old is the baby now?)
Alice

Dear Ghazar,

You raise an extremely important point regarding the way I put the terminology, as you quote above!

Yes, the way I put it is more of a Latin expression.

But it shows the meaning behind the liturgical celebration of the Conception of the Mother of God in the womb of St Anne, her mother - and this is all.

IF we celebrate liturgically the Conception of the Theotokos (which we do!), then this means that her Conception was sanctified and holy. This feast also leads to the theological implications for the Feast of her Nativity - she was born a Saint and this because she was conceived in holiness, as Fr. Deacon Lance says, indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

(In fact, St John the Baptist is, likewise, celebrated as having been conceived in holiness and born already sanctified and we celebrate the feast of his Conception which Fr. Holweck in his Dictionary of Saints asserts is the same as celebrating his "sanctification.")

As Alice rightly points out, the Theotokos was sanctified by the Spirit on more than one occasion throughout her life.

She was bedewed with great spiritual Grace at her Annunciation, to be sure.

But she was ALREADY All-Holy even BEFORE the Annunciation, since the Archangel Gabriel already called her "Full of Grace" etc. before the moment of the Incarnation of OLGS Jesus Christ in her Sacred Womb.

One reason I used what approximated a Latin expression is that Western and Eastern Catholics I've known often assume that because the Orthodox Church rejects the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - then this MUST mean that the Orthodox believe St Maryam had been stained with sin etc.

Again, the issue here lies with Original Sin and how we understand it - both Churches have ALWAYS proclaimed the Mother of God as being totally holy and sinless - always, as the Western FAther St Augustine himself affirmed way back when as well.

Alex

I pretty much agree with Alex's gloss on this subject. Within the context of original sin as ancestral and death, we can't really speak of Mary being exempt from the effects or stains of Adam's sin, namely death and corruption (and by this I mean aging, mutability, etc. things that our Lord in his human nature experienced as well). The East is fully vindicated on this point. However, we must remember that Latin Theology and its scholastic daughters are built on the back of Augustinian/Thomistic language and philosophy. It is from this framework and only this framework that we can make any sense out of Rome's dogmas: from divine simplicity, the filioque, to merit, original sin, and the immaculate conception. Porting these concepts in their original language and understanding to an Eastern model is very problematic, because of the apophatic nature and methodology she (the East) has always maintained. This aphophatic methodology is very faithful to the Patristic tradition, that includes Augustine and the Western Fathers! If one wants to find systematic ways of understanding Latin theology within one's own tradition, it's going to take a sincere analysis of what everyone means by their terms all under the umbrella of a robust philosophical realism. If that isn't done, Augustine looks like a traducianist and a Manichee from an Eastern perspective, and Cassian and Maximos look like Pelagians from a western perspective.

Daniel

Dear Dave,

I don't think my analogy is flawed even after reading your reply. You assumed by my statements that the Latin Tradition is to pinpoint the moment of conception that I was implying that the Latin Church thereby condemns all other opinions or understandings. But I never said that. All I said was that our Traditions were different.

But who among us who venture to imply that the Latin Church has any doubt in their Tradition at what moment this takes place. It is the focal point on their entire Mass and their greatest emphasis and point of devotion in the Mass. As I said, the Latins have in their Tradition a very great significance and emphasis on the moment of consecratation. This is not my opinion but a fact. Pope Paul VI' Credo does not speak to our subject but rather to the Latin Scholastic explanation of what that change entails.

As for the Theotokos, I am seeing that there is no real point to argue with you all about this. Being you are Eastern Catholics, of course you do not to see any real difference between the two teachings. Sorry I didn't realize this sooner. Thanks for the dialogue and keep up the good work on your excellent web-site.

Dear Alice,

Thanks for sharing your toughts on this. I agree with you (as I have mentioned before) the mere "fact" of the definition is also a concern between our Churches. You are right about Bishop Kallistos but I also recal his pointing out the differences I have mentioned. And notice that our brother Anthony Dragani does not mention "from the first moments of her conception" in his explanation, as it is not our practice to dogmatize about the specific moment. Thanks again for sharing your insights.

p.s. Sahag (Arm for Isaac) is over a year now. He is truly a joy to the whole family and we are so very thankful for him, thanks be to God!

here's a picture of the little guy (and family)
http://www.geocities.com/derghazar/family.html

Dear Alex,

you wrote: "IF we celebrate liturgically the Conception of the Theotokos (which we do!), then this means that her Conception was sanctified and holy. This feast also leads to the theological implications for the Feast of her Nativity - she was born a Saint and this because she was conceived in holiness, as Fr. Deacon Lance says, indwelt by the Holy Spirit."

reply: Yes I know you teach this about the Festival of the Conception of the Mother of God. I understand your line of reasoning, but I am having a hard time finding support for it in our Tradition or from our Fathers. While appealing to our practice, it still seems to be a Latin "twist" of our teaching and Tradition. In other words, what Father of our Eastern Churches taught what you are saying, namely that our feast teaches us this point? If it was as simple and clear a point as you are stating, all of our Orthodox theologians and Fathers would be proclaiming it. The fact that they aren't, tells me what you teach might be a slight stretch of our Tradition. At least this is what it seems to my thinking. Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, just true to our true understanding and position.

you wrote:
As Alice rightly points out, the Theotokos was sanctified by the Spirit on more than one occasion throughout her life. She was bedewed with great spiritual Grace at her Annunciation, to be sure.

reply: This I think is more on track and would explain some of the different feasts and understandings as complimentary rather than divisive.

you wrote: But she was ALREADY All-Holy even BEFORE the Annunciation, since the Archangel Gabriel already called her "Full of Grace" etc. before the moment of the Incarnation of OLGS Jesus Christ in her Sacred Womb.
angel Gabriel already called her "Full of Grace" etc. before the moment of the Incarnation of OLGS Jesus Christ in her Sacred Womb.

reply: Now here is another example. I just went to a Catholic/Orthodox conference and the Catholic Bishop made this exact argument. I know the Latins argue this point, but what Eastern Fathers did?

you wrote: One reason I used what approximated a Latin expression is that Western and Eastern Catholics I've known often assume that because the Orthodox Church rejects the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - then this MUST mean that the Orthodox believe St Maryam had been stained with sin etc.

reply: You are right on this. Good point. It might be more beneficial if you were to find a statement affirming the historic Eastern position without borrowing from the Latin Tradition.

...Actually, your next statement, I think, accoplishes just this when you state:

"both Churches have ALWAYS proclaimed the Mother of God as being totally holy and sinless..."

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Ghazar Der-Ghazarian

Dear Ghazar,

Well, St Gregory Palamas extolled the Immaculate Mother of God very extensively in his sermons, especially in that of her Dormition. Then there's St John Damascus, St Germanus of Constantinople and others - but, in all sincerity, I'd have to "search the Fathers."

You are absolutely right in pointing out the fact that the West went to pains to underscore the holiness of St Maryam from her Conception, something that the East doesn't do IN THE SAME WAY, although it does liturgically.

The reason for this is obviously the discussion over Original Sin, once again. For the East, Original Sin had nothing to do with the "stain" business .

And I'm STILL not convinced that our Latin friends haven't shifted positions on Original Sin over the centuries .

But the Byzantine East as well as the Oriental Orthodox East have said all that needs to be said about St Maryam's All-Holiness in the liturgical offices and prayers.

You have also pointed out yet one more distinction between the devotion to the Theotokos in East and West - the West has tended to make definitions of faith concerning the Mother of God that goes beyond Her Divine Maternity and Perpetual Virginity.

The East is content to leave its devotion to her as something that belongs to the Church's inner, intense life of unceasing liturgical prayer and praise of the Mother of Him Whose Body the Church is.

So in answer to your question about St Maryam East and West, we look to theologians to find out what the West says about her and we look primarily to the liturgical "lex orandi, lex credendi" tradition concerning her in the East.

Alex

Dear Augustini/Daniel,

What you have said in your post, coming as it does from a Latin Catholic and an Augustinian expert as you are, is something VERY significant and insightful.

If that is what the Catholic West believes as well, then the path to East-West unity is a hopeful one to be sure!

Alex

Alex, I agree with your synopsis. Wisely put.

Augustini, You make an excellent point. I couldn't agree with you more. The Pontifical Council for promoting unity did exactly this on the issue of the Filioque.

But what do you have against "traducianist"? I (and many Orthodox believers) happen to be one. For a previous thread on this topic, see:
https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001619

Dear Ghazar,

What a beautiful family, (including dad)!

May God bless you all with His love, and every blessing from above!

With love in Christ,
Alice