Immaculate conception

[Jana Jiráková]

Can someone from the OC christians explain to me (or send some link ??) the belief that Maria was virgin during and after the birth of Jesus Christ and forever. Do the OC christians believe that Maria is "forever virgin" and why ? She later had children with her husband Joseph - is this based only on the state of her soul (she is a virgin forever as a state of soul not of her body ???) Or did I misunderstood something ?
Please - I absolutely do not want to offend anybody´s belief !!!!! and hope these questions aren´t rude in any way. I honor Maria. I just don´t quite understand and honestly hope to get answers as a christian seeker who "seeks" the true church and want to know the teachings. Thank you.

 

[Damaris]

Can someone from the OC christians explain to me (or send some link ??) the belief that Maria was virgin during and after the birth of Jesus Christ and forever. Do the OC christians believe that Maria is "forever virgin" and why ? She later had children with her husband Joseph - is this based only on the state of her soul (she is a virgin forever as a state of soul not of her body ???) Or did I misunderstood something ?
Please - I absolutely do not want to offend anybody´s belief !!!!! and hope these questions aren´t rude in any way. I honor Maria. I just don´t quite understand and honestly hope to get answers as a christian seeker who "seeks" the true church and want to know the teachings. Thank you.

Orthodox Christians believe Mary was virgin throughout her whole life. Our icons of her usually have three stars on her forehead and shoulders (although sometimes a shoulder star is obscured by Christ sitting on her lap). The stars symbolize that she was virgin before, during, and after the birth of her son.

The Gospels name other children in Jesus's family, but before the Reformation, it was generally held that they were either Joseph's children from a previous marriage or that they were cousins adopted into the family. They would have been known as Jesus's brothers and sisters in either case because the language did not differentiate between brothers and step-brothers and so forth. It was only very late in Christian history that anyone thought that the "brothers and sisters" must mean that they were Mary's biological children. Even the early Protestant reformers openly mocked people who thought Mary had other biological children.

Please understand, though, that the term "immaculate conception" does not refer to Mary's virginal conception of Christ. It's actually a Roman Catholic teaching that Mary herself was conceived free from "original sin," when her own mother, St. Anna, conceived her. Orthodox Christians completely reject the idea of the "immaculate conception" as a late doctrinal invention from a group long separated from the Church.

You bring up virginity as a state of soul as well. Please bear with me, because this will take some explaining.

Orthodox Christians believe that the whole world became "fallen" due to Adam and Eve's introduction of sin through the Fall, and the continual sins of humankind. This is why we get sick, we suffer, and we die. It doesn't mean that when something bad happens, we must have sinned and deserved it somehow - it just means that the presence of sin, and our separation from God, has introduced suffering into our world.

Christ came to transform all of this. By becoming incarnate and experiencing all of our earthly, human pain, and taking even death itself to Himself, He transformed it into something salvific, something that could lead us to God. We see this in the Gospels when Christ healed the man born blind, others asked who committed the sin to make him this way. Christ responded that no one's particular sin made this man to be born blind: the man was born blind so that the power of God would be manifest through him.

While the Orthodox Church holds that Mary was definitely a virgin in the sense of never having sex, and that her conception of Christ was a miracle, the Church also holds that Mary was an exceptionally good and faithful woman, so much so that she never elected to sin her whole life.

She is recorded to have followed Him (even if occasionally perplexed) during His ministry, and faithfully served the new Church after Christ's ascension, awaiting Pentecost with the apostles in the upper room, even though the Holy Spirit had already come upon her at Christ's conception. When she arrived at Elizabeth's house shortly after the Annunciation, Mary proclaimed that all generations would call her blessed. Later, Christ carefully points out that it's not merely the fact that she was his mother (in that she gave birth to Him and suckled Him), but that she heard the word of God and kept it, that makes her blessed (along with anyone else who also hears the word of God and keeps it). Her profound obedience and faithfulness to God, however, is shown in her choosing to bear Christ. The bearing itself is not the point as much as her choice to do so, at great risk to herself and not much benefit in accordance to worldly values.

This eliminates a lot of modern, heretical ideas that Mary was "elected" to be Christ's mother (and thus had no choice), or that Christ could have come out of a rock or floated down from heaven with no human involvement. Mary consented to conceive and bear God into the world, happy to be part of the fulfillment of the will of God. (This is why we call her "Theotokos", which means, "Birthgiver of God", underscoring not so much something about her but the fact that Christ is truly God.) By her consent to be Christ's mother, she offered to God her fallen humanity ("the low estate of His handmaiden") to be renewed and saved.

As a human being just like all others, Mary experienced the fallenness of the world through the presence of sin, and was subject to death herself, which we commemorate as her Dormition ("falling asleep"). However, she was exceptionally strong in resisting the temptation to sin, and always directed people towards her Son.

 

[Coralie]

Hi Jana! I don't have much time but I will give you an overview --

1. The "Immaculate Conception" is a Catholic teaching that refers to Mary's conception. Not Christ's -- and don't worry, even some Catholics don't know that
2. We believe Mary never lost her physical virginity. The 'brothers of Christ' referenced in the Bible were His step-siblings: Joseph's children from an earlier marriage. (The word used in Scripture that is usually translated 'brother' actually means 'kinsman' -- so, it can mean brother, stepbrother, halfbrother, or cousin.)

Hope this helps!!

ETA: Aaaaaand Damaris beat me to it

 

[Macarius]

I would only add that it is important to realize that the Greek term used for "siblings" (i.e. brothers) can mean / imply extended family (half-brothers / cousins). Its closest translation is "kin." As a result, there is nothing about the Orthodox position that is inconsistent with Scripture. Yes, it is possible that the Scripture is saying Jesus had literal brothers from the same mom - it is just as possible (in the original Greek meaning) that the Scriptures were refering to his extended family.

Given that those who speak Greek have overwhelmingly held that she was ever-virgin (and that Greek people are smart enough to understand their own language) we can be certain that what we teach doesn't contradict Scripture.

Also, the Immaculate Conception is a term not referring to Mary's virginity, but rather to Mary's holiness. It is a Roman Catholic teaching that she was born free from the stain of original sin. Since we do not view original sin the same way as the RCC, we do not agree with nor preach the Immaculate Conception. It is, however, dogmatic in the Roman Catholic Church (and remains a bit of a sticking point in negotiating possible reunification).

 

[MrPolo]

What do you guys think of Metropolitan Kallistos' comments on the Immaculate Conception? He says, "Orthodoxy, for the most part [denies] the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary."

However, he also says this:"

The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God’s special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter. In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing.​

Link.

 

[buzuxi02]

Dear Jana,

When Christ was on the cross he looked down and saw His mother Mary standing next to John. In the gospel we read in John 19.25:

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

Jesus was Mary's only child and he entrusted her care to John. It does not mean that Mary decided to pack her bags right away and moved out of her other son's home, God forbid!
Jesus act on the cross demonstrates that Mary was a widow with no other children to take care of her.

Joseph was the betrothed of Mary, A jewish marriage is twofold, the betrothal and later the wedding. The betrothal was legally binding but no sexual relations could take place and cohabitation was forbidden. Thus after Joseph and Mary officially married and moved in they were found to still be in a state of betrothal Luke 2.5:

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6 And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered.


Notice how the Virgin Mary also had a sister named Mary (Jn 19.25). This is not her blood sibling, for no parent named both their daughters by the same name. It is her sister-in-law. Likewise brothers and sisters can refer to half-siblings, step-brothers or sisters and even cousins.

 

[Jana Jiráková]

Thank you for explanations. This is how I understood - English is not my mother tongue, so correct me, if I misunderstood something :
Mary was a widow in the moment of Jesuse´s crucifixion. She has been married to Joseph, but they lived as if they were still betrothed and she didn´t have any other children. The "brothers" reffered to in the Scripture are other relatives. That was the reason she was given under the care of the beloved disciple. And the fact she is an ever-virgin (I mean that literally now) is a miracle. Did I get that right ??

 

[Macarius]

What do you guys think of Metropolitan Kallistos' comments on the Immaculate Conception? He says, "Orthodoxy, for the most part [denies] the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary."

However, he also says this:"

The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God’s special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter. In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing.
​

Link.

One of the most controversial things Kalistos has said. I personally agree with him, but there are a lot of vocal people (here) who strongly disagree with him (and I understand why). The issue, to me, is more about the implied logic of original sin behind the IC, not the IC itself. If I isolate the IC from the RCC idea of original sin, then I have to agree with it for a simple reason: of course Mary was born free of the guilt of sin - we are all born free of the guilt of sin. Mary was unique in that she chose to remain that way.

If, on the other hand, we borrow the original sin doctrine from the RCC and combine it with the IC, then we have a problem. At that point, Mary isn't just like the rest of us - she's a totally different species (literally, her nature is altered from our nature; she inherits a different humanity from our humanity), and / or she doens't have a free-will choice not to sin, but is instead forcibly elected by virtue of her birth. This, to us, totally undermines the power of her saying "yes" to the Incarnation.

So if, in this passage, Kalistos is implying the full IC (implying the doctrine of original sin behind it) then I strenously disagree with him. If, as I think, he is refering to the IC in isolation from original sin, then I agree with him.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Damaris]

So if, in this passage, Kalistos is implying the full IC (implying the doctrine of original sin behind it) then I strenously disagree with him. If, as I think, he is refering to the IC in isolation from original sin, then I agree with him.

If you fellas want to discuss the IC, could I ask you to use another thread? Although the title of this thread is "Immaculate conception", it's obvious the OP meant something different by it, and I think it would be nice to keep inquirers' threads on their topic.

 

[Joshua G.]

What do you guys think of Metropolitan Kallistos' comments on the Immaculate Conception? He says, "Orthodoxy, for the most part [denies] the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary."

However, he also says this:"

The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God’s special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter. In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing.
​

Link.

Metropolitan KALLISTOS is a very generous man. he is the least quick among our prolific contemporary writers to dismiss something simply because it isn't Eastern or doesn't follow the norm. While he is careful not to adapt suspect teachings to his own repetoire or religious "curriculum" (if you will) he is also one who is willing to say/admit "Although we believe [fill in the blank], AB and C are good points that I can't simply shoot down." He is very intellectually honest in regards to history. He is not afraid to recognize and point out apparent conflicting data and at the same time continue to teach that which is organically Orthodox.

I would have to see the quotes he is referring to that seem to almost "affirm" the immaculate conception but taking his word for it for now I would say this: Everything has been said in throughout the Church even if we just look at those Saints that are honored for their words (theology) and at times those things will conflict with what I am going to call Organic Orthodoxy (that which is considered Orthodox not simply because there was a council or a bishop threw down the gable, but because it has become the general understanding). When you look at the Whole of (Eastern) Orthodoxy, you find that some of the presuppositions behidn the IC at BEST are like a square peg in a round hole (and yes, some of those square pegs probably come from the East, but that doesn't mean they fit in organically) and at worst doesn't only not fit in but actually works to corrupt the organic-ness of our Theology like hormones do to fruits (if I can run with this analogy lol).

My personal take on this is that IC IN AND OF ITSELF is not a problem worthy of schism (or maintaining schism), but still a square peg. The history behind the DOGMATIZATION of IC is in and of itself problematic because it addresses issues which are very western and not on the whole Eastern; it addresses the western augustinian understanding of original sin which has (if not officially- de facto) been adapted into the Western understanding (Catholic and protestant although the protestants took it and kept running).

I can't say with any kind of certainty what would have to happen in order for us to reconcile on this issue. Such a question is actually quite beyond any of us adn, not to sound cliché (but), is something that needs to be guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit through our theologians and bishops.

However, it woudl SEEM to me that in REALITY, if things could be cleaned up between our Churches on Original Sin (both stating what it is and what it is NOT... the latter is the problem as I see it) then the west could just hold on to Immaculate Conception as VERY STRONGLY held theologumena, much as how they might view the Dormition vs Live Assumption that some still hold in the West.

You see, the dogma of IC is meant to take care of a problem that arose in the West (how could Mary concieve God if she had OS as the west understands it). That problem doesn't exist at all within Eastern theology. It's like giving a dog a polio vaccination... but they don't get polio so... is the vaccine just going to do nothing... or will it hurt the dog. We don't know, but it definitely won't help the dog because it can't have polio. So the dog has absolutely nothing to gain from the shot and could very well get hurt. (I don't know if dogs get polio so don't debate me on that lol). Why in the world would the IC be something that should be taught at all in the East except to historians who like to read obscure writings from Eastern Saints that never really became a part of the mindset of the Eastern Church.

I have to say, watching Eastern Catholics defend and teach the IC is as awkward as watching democrats in this coming election year defend the President while still maintainign that they are Washington outsiders. Yet, they don't really have a choice. Eastern Catholics are put in the awkward position of having to take on and propogate a dogma imposed on them from the West that has absolutely nothing to do with them nor does it offer clarity within their perspective on God and Salvation.

So, to sum up my ramblings, the real issue of the IC, as I see it, is not the IC itself, but 1) what it worked to remedy (western understanding of OS) and 2) the fact that it is dogmatized while being completely irrelevant (and even harmful) to the delicate balance of Eastern theology.

I apologize if I've offended you with anything I have said. While I mean to be frank, I don't mean to be flippant or disrespectful but merely to offer insight into what is (admittedly) a complex issue if spoken of in terms of possible reconciliation.

Josh

 

[Macarius]

If you fellas want to discuss the IC, could I ask you to use another thread? Although the title of this thread is "Immaculate conception", it's obvious the OP meant something different by it, and I think it would be nice to keep inquirers' threads on their topic.

Sure thing. I felt it was on-topic as it relates to Mary's holiness and, indirectly, to the virgin-birth. It can, and probably will, spin way away from the original point, though - so your insight it well recieved.

 

[Damaris]

Thank you for explanations. This is how I understood - English is not my mother tongue, so correct me, if I misunderstood something :
Mary was a widow in the moment of Jesuse´s crucifixion. She has been married to Joseph, but they lived as if they were still betrothed and she didn´t have any other children. The "brothers" reffered to in the Scripture are other relatives. That was the reason she was given under the care of the beloved disciple. And the fact she is an ever-virgin (I mean that literally now) is a miracle. Did I get that right ??

That's right, Jana.

 

[Joshua G.]

If you fellas want to discuss the IC, could I ask you to use another thread? Although the title of this thread is "Immaculate conception", it's obvious the OP meant something different by it, and I think it would be nice to keep inquirers' threads on their topic.

I missed this somehow. I can see your point.

 

[MrPolo]

Metropolitan KALLISTOS is a very generous man. he is the least quick among our prolific contemporary writers to dismiss something simply because it isn't Eastern or doesn't follow the norm.
.... it addresses issues which are very western and not on the whole Eastern

You see, the dogma of IC is meant to take care of a problem that arose in the West (how could Mary concieve God if she had OS as the west understands it). That problem doesn't exist at all within Eastern theology. It's like giving a dog a polio vaccination... but they don't get polio so... is the vaccine just going to do nothing... or will it hurt the dog. We don't know, but it definitely won't help the dog because it can't have polio. So the dog has absolutely nothing to gain from the shot and could very well get hurt. (I don't know if dogs get polio so don't debate me on that lol). Why in the world would the IC be something that should be taught at all in the East except to historians who like to read obscure writings from Eastern Saints that never really became a part of the mindset of the Eastern Church.

I see nothing offensive in your post, of course....anyway, it's me the guest who should especially be considerate in your forum! Would you say the mindset of a teaching being "Eastern" or "Western" sometimes muddies each side from considering "Is it true?" You mentioned "that's not Eastern" or some paraphrase several times.

Also, I don't believe the IC was dogmatized to solve any "problem" with Catholics not knowing how Jesus could be born of her if she had Adam's sin. It is fitting, but of course God can do things however He wants. He hung out with sinners all the other time. It may be fitting for her to be without sin, but not necessary since God can choose to fulfill His will as He sees fitting.

 

[buzuxi02]

Thank you for explanations. This is how I understood - English is not my mother tongue, so correct me, if I misunderstood something :
Mary was a widow in the moment of Jesuse´s crucifixion. She has been married to Joseph, but they lived as if they were still betrothed and she didn´t have any other children. The "brothers" reffered to in the Scripture are other relatives. That was the reason she was given under the care of the beloved disciple. And the fact she is an ever-virgin (I mean that literally now) is a miracle. Did I get that right ??

Correct, we believe James and his other siblings may have been children that Joseph had from a previous marriage. When Jesus started his ministry, Joseph had already died suggesting he was much older than Mary and may already had a family. Joseph was chosen by God to soley be a guardian to Mary and Her Child. Guardianship and not a husband is how scripture sees Joseph: (Matt 2)

12And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

13And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: 15And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. ..
19But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,

20Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life. 21And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

In these passages the angel doesnt tell Joseph to take his wife or son or family but to 'take the child and his mother'. The only reference to son, is in the Prophecy of God and doesnt involve Joseph.

 

[Joshua G.]

I see nothing offensive in your post, of course....anyway, it's me the guest who should especially be considerate in your forum! Would you say the mindset of a teaching being "Eastern" or "Western" sometimes muddies each side from considering "Is it true?" You mentioned "that's not Eastern" or some paraphrase several times.

Also, I don't believe the IC was dogmatized to solve any "problem" with Catholics not knowing how Jesus could be born of her if she had Adam's sin. It is fitting, but of course God can do things however He wants. He hung out with sinners all the other time. It may be fitting for her to be without sin, but not necessary since God can choose to fulfill His will as He sees fitting.

To respect Damaris' request, I've taken this to PM. If anyone wishes to discuss these issues here further (they're great topics... especially the first one) it would probably be best to start a new thread.

Josh

 

[Jana Jiráková]

Correct, we believe James and his other siblings may have been children that Joseph had from a previous marriage. When Jesus started his ministry, Joseph had already died suggesting he was much older than Mary and may already had a family. Joseph was chosen by God to soley be a guardian to Mary and Her Child. Guardianship and not a husband is how scripture sees Joseph: (Matt 2)

12And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

13And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: 15And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. ..
19But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,

20Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life. 21And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

In these passages the angel doesnt tell Joseph to take his wife or son or family but to 'take the child and his mother'. The only reference to son, is in the Prophecy of God and doesnt involve Joseph.

I found in Luke 2:33 words about parents, father and mother ???

 

[choirfiend]

Some texts say "Joseph and his mother," but even then, Joseph was Christ's adoptive father. He was his father by Jewish Law, having named Jesus the name the Angel told him to name him. Even then, it doesn't say, "Joseph and his wife," or "Jesus's parents." There's no indication in this passage that Joseph and Mary had children together.

 

[Joshua G.]

The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Thanks for pointing that out, Jana.

Josh