Immaculate Conception??

[LuxPerpetua]

Why does the Orthodox church reject the Immaculate conception of Mary promoted in Catholic belief? Just curious.

 

[Moros]

Because it isn't supported by the bible?

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

I can't remember exactly why? But I do know that the answer is in this book.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0938635689/qid=1079668256/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-5661476-8036137?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[The Prokeimenon!]

We don't teach the Immaculate Conception because we don't believe that children are concieved and/or born with the guilt of Adam.

The point of the immaculate conception is that God preserved the Theotokos from the guilt of original sin.

We believe that nobody is born with the guilt of original sin.

In a sense, everybody is immaculately concieved.

Moses

 

[prodromos]

Here is the book online, The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God

This teaching, which seemingly has the aim of exalting the Mother of God, in reality completely denies all Her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Her mother, when She could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God's grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit consist? If She could have been placed in the state of being unable to sin, and did not sin, then for what did God glorify Her? if She, without any effort, and without having any kind of impulses to sin, remained pure, then why is She crowned more than everyone else? There is no victory without an adversary.

John.

 

[Michael G]

Why does the Orthodox church reject the Immaculate conception of Mary promoted in Catholic belief? Just curious.

Lux,
You are welcome to ask questions any time you like. You will find there are alot of things which the Roman Catholic Church believes which we Orthodox do not believe. I found this out the hard way, while studying Catholic Theology in Seminary at St. Vincent in Latrobe. The differences were what caused me to begin down the road to conversion to Orthodoxy. Most of these things are based on two or three huge differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. We Orthodox have a much different view of Original Sin than the Catholics do. Because of this, we have no need for ideas like the Immaculate Conception, or purgatory for that matter. Immaculate Conception teaches that the Theotokus was conceived immaculately through the action of the Holy Spirit and therefor without any stain of sin on her soul at all. The Catholic view of Original Sin is that every person has the stain of the sin of Adam on their soul at birth. The Catholic Church teaches this to clear up the idea that Christ was born to a sinful woman and therefor in someway touched sin himself, which is impossible. However, Joachim and Anna were not born immaculately, and therefor Mary (from this line of thought) in someway touched sin herself. When you sit down and weigh out the entire teaching, it is quite hard to justify. Orthodoxy's view of Original Sin is that Adam sinned and because he sinned the world is no longer in a state of grace. I do not bear the sin of adam on my soul, I just have to deal with the consequences, which means the world is not in a state of grace. Because of this view of Original Sin, we have no need to teach that somehow Mary's conception in the womb of Anna was influenced by the Holy Spirit to be free of sin. Further, if you take a deeper look at the view of Immaculate Conception, if removes all free will from Mary, because she was conceived without sin and in essence predestined not to sin. I hope I have helped clear this up to you and have not hindered your query into Orthodoxy in any way.
Peace,
Michael

 

[Eusebios]

It sure is great to have an convert from the RCC here to provide such excellent analysis, thanks Michael!
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.

 

[countrymousenc]

We don't teach the Immaculate Conception because we don't believe that children are concieved and/or born with the guilt of Adam.

If it's ok with Lux and everybody else, this raises for me a related question. To Protestant thinking, this sounds like Pelagianism. What is the difference between Pelagianism and Orthodox teaching about the results of Adam's sin and its effects on the whole human race?

 

[LuxPerpetua]

OH, MICHAEL! That makes tons of sense to me (and no need to worry about hindering my view of Orthodoxy, as you've increased it quite a bit!). I've often wondered, too, about why it was important for Mary to be sinless for Jesus' sake but it wasn't necessary for her parents' to be sinless to make her sinless (like, if God could transform Mary in utero to be immaculate, why not just do that with his own birth as Christ??). You've cleared a lot up, and thanks to all the other responses as well.

 

[Patristic]

If it's ok with Lux and everybody else, this raises for me a related question. To Protestant thinking, this sounds like Pelagianism. What is the difference between Pelagianism and Orthodox teaching about the results of Adam's sin and its effects on the whole human race?

Pelagius stated that mankind was completely unaffected by Adam's sin and still retained the exact same faculty of free will that Adam possessed. In other words, Adam was in a completely neutral position and free to sin or not to sin according to whichever way he chose. Pelagius said that Adam was nothing more than a bad example to his posterity, the parent who set the precedent which most if not all followed. According to Pelagius, all of Adam's descendants are just like him and posses a neutral will either free to sin or not to sin, but we sin because we mimic Adam's example and bring ruin on ourselves.

The Orthodox understanding of the issue is that in contradiction to Pelagius we do not posses a neutral will. Instead, our wills are bent toward sin and we sin because we are mortal beings who don't put others needs above ours, and seek to fulfill our selfish desires thus not living up to the second half of the great commandment. Nevertheless, Augustine and the West took this a step further and said not only are we inclined to sin, but that we inherit Adam's guilt and are thus condemned for an action not our own. The Orthodox have never accepted the notion of original guilt, but have always agreed that we are creatures who are not what we were called to be and have fallen short of God's calling for us as His children.

 

[countrymousenc]

Thanks Patristic

That clears it up. I had been taught (as a Methodist) that Adam passed on to all of us a bent toward or tendency to sin, and that all of us (who live long enough) will sin, as a result, which seems to line up with the Orthodox view.

 

[LuxPerpetua]

Post away, countrymouse We're in the same boat so I don't mind at all if you steer the ship a while

 

[Patristic]

Thanks Patristic

That clears it up. I had been taught (as a Methodist) that Adam passed on to all of us a bent toward or tendency to sin, and that all of us (who live long enough) will sin, as a result, which seems to line up with the Orthodox view.

You're welcome. Yes, the more ancient undestanding says that men will sin inevitably while the harsher Augustinian view teaches that men sin out of necessity. At first glance, the two statements may seem to say the same thing, but they are actually world's apart.

 

[Reader Nilus]

If it's ok with Lux and everybody else, this raises for me a related question. To Protestant thinking, this sounds like Pelagianism. What is the difference between Pelagianism and Orthodox teaching about the results of Adam's sin and its effects on the whole human race?

Pelagius – To Demetrias: An Orthodox Perspective on the West's Chief Heresiarch – by Father Geoffrey Ready
That link gives an Orthodox view of Pelagius. I would think it highlights the Orthodox problems with Blessed Augustine.
Jeff the Finn

 

[countrymousenc]

Ok, I'm pursuing this a little further, partly because I'm going to have to explain it to a few people who no doubt already think I've lost my marbles.

Checking for understanding: The classical Augustinian/Calvinist view is that we sin because God has forced it on us, since Adam sinned. (Also, we are forensically guilty through Adam's guilt.) ?

The Orthodox view is that human will has been deformed, since we are descended from Adam, who sinned and therefore corrupted his nature. Adam passed this corruption on to us all. ?

The Pelagian view is that no one is born with an already corrupt nature. (That would make everyone's first deliberately disobedient act pretty much the same as Adam's, and how old are we when we first look at our mom's and screw up our faces and say "No!" ?)

 

[Patristic]

Ok, I'm pursuing this a little further, partly because I'm going to have to explain it to a few people who no doubt already think I've lost my marbles.

Checking for understanding: The classical Augustinian/Calvinist view is that we sin because God has forced it on us, since Adam sinned. (Also, we are forensically guilty through Adam's guilt.) ?

The Orthodox view is that human will has been deformed, since we are descended from Adam, who sinned and therefore corrupted his nature. Adam passed this corruption on to us all. ?

The Pelagian view is that no one is born with an already corrupt nature. (That would make everyone's first deliberately disobedient act pretty much the same as Adam's, and how old are we when we first look at our mom's and screw up our faces and say "No!" ?)

The Augustinian/Calvinist view says men sin of necessity. I once conducted a discussion with a Calvinist who said, "man sins freely, but by necessity." I kindly tried to point out that freely and necessity cannot be placed in the same sentence without contradicting each other, but this person obstinately said that this is the way it is. When pressed about such a contradiciton most will just argue it's a mystery that man can freely choose sin but do so out of necessity. Furthermore, this school of thought teaches inherited guilt either because we all participated in this sin because we existed in Adam, or becasue Adam was our figurehead and sinned representing all of us. Since every person born into this world is guilty of this great sin, we all stand condemned before God, and the logical outcome of this view is automatic damnation of infants and young children.

Orthodoxy teaches that mankind is fallen, wayward, and imperfect and therefore we sin because that is what we are inclined to do and because our environment and this world makes it easy to do so. We are stuck in this condition because of our forefather Adam who chose to sin and incur death rather than obey and choose life. We suffer the consequences of his sin: sinful inclination, mortality, spiritual alienation, and physical pain, but we are not personally guilty of his sin.

Basically, Pelagius glorified nature more than he should have. By stressing human nature so much, he either taught or made others to believe he taught, that people could be good, moral and righteous by effort and toil. This resulted in a minimalization of grace and distorted the truth of the effects of the fall.

 

[countrymousenc]

Thanks for explaining it further - that makes good sense!

And thanks to Jeff, too, for the link to the article. I'm going to print all this up (having to replace this computer soon), so that I can refer to it.