www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Immaculate Conception Revisited

As we all know, Eastern Catholics do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, per se, because of the different theologies regarding Original Sin. They do, however, believe that the Theotokos was sinless throughout all of her life. Naturally, every Catholic must believe this because of the Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, issued in 1854.

However, doesn't the wording of Ineffabilis Deus "corner" Eastern Catholics into accepting the Western/Augustinian notion of Original Sin? Look at the wording, keeping in mind that apparently all Catholics, regardless of rites or specific Churches, must accept this as dogma:

To me, this presents a huge problem to work around. If the above is revealed Truth and cannot be denied, then how can the Eastern Catholic Churches still hold to their views of Original Sin? Is there some way to work around this?

Please understand that I am not at all trying to convince anyone that the Eastern view of Original Sin is in any way lacking. I am simply asking if the wording of this dogma and the Eastern views can be made into accordance. I would certainly hope so.

Logos Teen

Salva Jesu Kristu

I would argue that a document based on Roman theology only applies to those of the Roman Church. Any pronouncement that does not include a caveat for Eastern beliefs cannot be considered part of "our" Byzantine heritage.
As we in the East continue to pursue a more Orthodox approach, I see this becoming more and more problematic with universal pronouncements. Vatican II made it quite clear our objectives in this matter.
Technically, after all, we are only in communion with Rome. She has her beliefs as we have ours. Although they should not disagree, they don't have to be exactly the same. Having our Lady's conception defined "Immaculate" really doesn't change anything for us. At least, this is how I understand it.

Dmitri

Furthermore, even though the decree employs certain vocabulary which an Augustinian would recognize, the context of the decree, and the acts of the council clearly indicate that the council did not intend to "canonize" the entire Augustinian philosophical synthisis, to teach the truth they were affirming. Just as it was not necessary for them to define the Augustinian synthesis as dogmatic teaching, so it is not necessary that the faithful accept it.

Mary is sinless, always was, and always remained so. She is all-holy, panagia.

Although Alex would probably disagree with me, the two views cannot be reconciled by simply pointing to different semantics between east and west.

The Latin pronouncement of 1854 is wrong, even for them, by their own soteriology, unless they declare definitively that the Theotokos absolutely did not die. [If born sinless and if not sinning during life, why would she die?] As of now, their Assumption doctrine leaves open the issue of whether or not she died before her assumption.

If the Latin Church declares absolutely that she did not die, then what will Eastern Catholics do with the feast of her Dormition? Change the name? Isn't that why the Latins encouraged these name changes on Cathedrals and Churches in the Eastern Rites?

No one has yet found a single eastern liturgical text which refers to anyone but Christ as "anamartitos" (sinless). He is the ONLY sinless one, in the east, anyway. Listen to the matins service. We say it there every morning!

The Most Blessed Theotokos inherits the fallen human nature, including its mortality. Thus she is also trapped in sin and needs Christ as her redeemer. Thus she is neither sinless nor a co-redeemer.

Most Holy Theotokos, save us!

In Christ,
Andrew

Andrew,

You state:"If born sinless and if not sinning during life, why would she die?" I think the correct response that is compatible with Eastern theology is she chose to follow her Son.

Although the East holds that sin=death, there are exceptions. I have never heard a tradition that stated St. Elias did not sin yet we know he did not die. Likewise Christ was sinless yet accepted death on our behalf. I don't think it is hard to accept that the Mother of God, while sinless, was subjected to the same natural laws, including death, that her Son subjected himself to.

And to say that the Mother of God is sinless is not to say she is with out need of a redeemer or savior. For to be preserved or forgiven sin is one thing, to be resurrected to new life and deified, as will occur at the Second Coming, is another.

Many Eastern Fathers hold that even if Adam and Eve had overcome temptation and remained sinless, it would have still been necessary for Christ to become man, in order for man to be deified and God's plan concenring man to be fulfilled. Even a sinless human is separated from the Trinity by an infinite chasm that can only be bridged by the incarnation of the Son. So I believe Eastern Christians can in truth say that Mary was sinless yet still in need of a savior, was subject to death yet not to corruption.

We also have the witness of the festal celebration of her conception in the liturgical calendar, which originated in the East, not the West. Only Christ and the St. John the Forerunner also have conception feasts. The fact that these feast exist point to something miraculous connected with these conceptions. With Christ it is obvious. With the Virgin and the Forerunner I believe it something more than the conception of children by barren mothers and points at the very least to their sanctification in the womb, although at different times for the Virgin and the Forerunner.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

But, Father, isn't this what has been done in Ineffabilis Deus? The Augustianian terminology is smack dab in the middle of the dogmatic phrase.

Andrew,

The Theotokos needs a Savior whether or not she was born without sin and lived without sin. By God's special grace He preserved the Blessed Virgin from sin; thus He is still her Savior.

Logos Teen

Some of this ground was covered in this thread a couple of years ago:

https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000981;p=1

I mention it because it deals with both the Conception of the Theotokos and her Dormition.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Slava Jesu Kristu,


I think the question really asked here is not whether we accept the teaching of the Immaculate Conception but whether we can reject it. TOTIL brings up a good point about how far we go with really re-adopting our heritage.
If we are truely to integrate this, then the first seven councils are it. Period. "Revealed Truths" after that are therefor not binding technically.
On the other hand, however, how do you explain to our Roman brothers that we are still Catholic? Oddly enough, we seem to have this discussion more with the Orthodox than amoungst our fellow Catholics.
To futher complicate matters, I am not even mentioning our Coptic and Armenian Catholic brothers. As we embrace our heritage, how will our approach to them, all of us Catholic, be affected theologically? Will it be affected at all?

Dmitri

I have yet to see how the Immaculate Conception goes against what the East believes.

Until such a time, I do not feel a need to reject anything.


David

I do.

Well then the burden is upon you to prove and then to prove how one can be a Catholic while denying Catholic Teaching.

Do we not address the Holy Mother as Immaculate in our prayers and liturgies? Do we not address the Blessed Mother as Mediatrix in our prayers? (see my reply in the thread Mary: Co-redeemer? Mediatrix?)


David

Dear Dmitri,

Some research I have done shows that the Orthodox East believed in the Immaculate Conception until (the Greeks) the 15th century, and the Russians until the 17th century.

Bishop Kallistos Ware goes so far as to say that Orthodox Christians are allowed to believe in the Immaculate Conception of our blessed Theotokos without being in heresy.

I don't think that our Lady would have appeared to St. Bernadette identifying herself as such, if it were not true. (Poor St. Bernadette didn't even know what the word meant!)

There are many other arguments which have already been given by those who are far more intelligent than me.

As we celebrate the feast of the conception of our Theotokos, I have chosen, as a cradle born Orthodox to personally believe in this. Remember, we commemorate Her as all pure, spotless, and immaculate.

In Christ our Saviour,
Alice

Slava Jesu Kristu,

Please don't misunderstand me. My only concirn is the adaptation by we who call ourselves Eastern to a Western concept. We can say that the East believes in this and other Latin beliefs and quote many documents that seem to prove it as a teaching. However, we can also source many Orthodox documents that say otherwise as has been done often on this Forum. My feeling is that for us to truely reclaim our heritage, we should not be in such a hurry to make what the Romans do our own. As I see it, it is that questioning that all Byzantine Catholics have been called to do.
Personnaly, I have no problem with the teaching of the Immaculate Conception. I find it to be sound and logical in Western theology.
As usuall, I probably have not made myself clear..

Dmitri

As Patriarch Athenagoras said to Paul VI: "There are many theologians, but there is only one theology".

ruel

Isn't the Roman Catholic Church's position that yes, the Theotokos was in need of Christ's salvation and so He went about saving His mother first of all, preserving her in her conception from the Original Sin ... and I'm assuming that the Orthodox position is that she is also completely pure and immaculate, but that she was purified ... not at conception, but in her earthly life through her complete obedience to God? (Sorry, I am not going to go back to your other thread ... ) Also, I think Roman Catholics can believe in both the Dormition AND the Assumption ... some have believed that she died physically prior to the Assumption, and others do not. I think that there's room for both in RC theology, if I recall correctly.
At any rate, what Alice says is important because through what she says, one can pick up on the essential thing, which is love, awe, and devotion to this great mystery of faith. I found what you wrote there quite refreshing and inspiring, Alice. It reminds me a bit of Saint Maximilian Kolbe, who loved to meditate and pray about this ...it's beyond our understanding, but surely we must ponder and give thanks ...
Greetings from
Communion of Saints