Orthodox Perspective on the Immaculate conception of Mary!

[Dostoevsky]

well, from a purely technical standpoint, yes, we do believe in the immaculate conception. That is, we believe Mary was born without original sin. But we believe that about everyone else, too, so there's really no need for a special doctrine stating this. However, I wouldn't call any Orthodox person "borderline heretical" for believing in it...maybe just a little bit confused about the Orthodox position on original sin. I'd like to know what Bishop KALLISTOS has to say about original sin.

 

[Michael G]

well, from a purely technical standpoint, yes, we do believe in the immaculate conception. That is, we believe Mary was born without original sin. But we believe that about everyone else, too, so there's really no need for a special doctrine stating this. However, I wouldn't call any Orthodox person "borderline heretical" for believing in it...maybe just a little bit confused about the Orthodox position on original sin. I'd like to know what Bishop KALLISTOS has to say about original sin.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds that Mary was conceived in a different manner than the rest of humanity in order to preserve her from the stain of sin. That is not how the Orthodox Church sees things.

 

[ProScribe]

There's a book called 'Orthodox veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God' by St. John Maximovitch.

 

[Macarius]

Then Kalistos Ware would be a borderline heretic because the doctrine of the IC is heretical.

No it is not. What council has declared this??

I mean, it certainly isn't dogma - and I don't believe it - but neither would I refuse to take communion with someone who did believe it. We proclaim Mary to be all-holy at every Divine Liturgy. If someone wants to say that this is true from birth (which it certainly must be if she is indeed all-holy) then how can I call that heretical?

The issue isn't the IC itself, but the lateness of its declaration and the means of its declaration (i.e. by papal fiat), as well as the ideology of inherited guilt that lies behind it. I would agree that St. Augustine was wrong to believe that we inherit guilt as part of our fallen nature, but proclaiming Mary as free from sin is perfectly legitimate.

Again, I agree that Mary's nature must be as ours is (she had the same potential for sin that we do, as did Christ), but the reason that IC (in the RCC) conflicts with that has everything to do with the RCC view of original sin, and very little to do with the idea of the IC itself.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Michael G]

No it is not. What council has declared this??

I mean, it certainly isn't dogma - and I don't believe it - but neither would I refuse to take communion with someone who did believe it. We proclaim Mary to be all-holy at every Divine Liturgy. If someone wants to say that this is true from birth (which it certainly must be if she is indeed all-holy) then how can I call that heretical?

The issue isn't the IC itself, but the lateness of its declaration and the means of its declaration (i.e. by papal fiat), as well as the ideology of inherited guilt that lies behind it. I would agree that St. Augustine was wrong to believe that we inherit guilt as part of our fallen nature, but proclaiming Mary as free from sin is perfectly legitimate.

Again, I agree that Mary's nature must be as ours is (she had the same potential for sin that we do, as did Christ), but the reason that IC (in the RCC) conflicts with that has everything to do with the RCC view of original sin, and very little to do with the idea of the IC itself.

In Christ,
Macarius

Do you even know what the IC teaches? It teaches that when the Theotokos was conceived in her Mother's womb, she was conceived specially, without sin. Proclaiming that Mary was born free of sin and was not able to sin because of some special action of God in her life completely removes free will from her and makes her "fiat" pointless. This is not an Orthodox teaching, and yes it is heretical. You do not need a council to define something as heresy for it to be heresy. Just as the other 2 new Marian doctrines promulgated by Rome under the rule of JP2 are heresy.

 

[Macarius]

Do you even know what the IC teaches?

Yes, Michael, I do. You didn't answer my question. On what basis do you have the right to declare it heresy? What council has declared this, or do you make yourself a bishop and a council?

It teaches that when the Theotokos was conceived in her Mother's womb, she was conceived specially, without sin.

And in Orthodox theology, which of us is born with sin?

Proclaiming that Mary was born free of sin and was not able to sin because of some special action of God in her life completely removes free will from her and makes her "fiat" pointless.

Agreed. But we would teach that Mary was born free of sin and did not sin during her life. The only reason that the proclamation of her inability to sin is relevent to the RCC is because of their different conception of original sin. In other words, as I said above, the issue is original sin, not the IC per-say.

But for all intents and purposes, we likewise teach that she was born free of sin (as we ALL are), and that she is all-holy (free of sin).

You do not need a council to define something as heresy for it to be heresy.

Yes you do. Or at the least, you need the implicit support of the bishops by virtue of an Orthodox Christian being excommunicted for teaching something (and that excommunication being upheld by the other bishops). On either count, do you have evidence that this has occured or do you personally possess the authority to declare it?

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Michael G]

Yes, Michael, I do. You didn't answer my question. On what basis do you have the right to declare it heresy? What council has declared this, or do you make yourself a bishop and a council?



And in Orthodox theology, which of us is born with sin?



Agreed. But we would teach that Mary was born free of sin and did not sin during her life. The only reason that the proclamation of her inability to sin is relevent to the RCC is because of their different conception of original sin. In other words, as I said above, the issue is original sin, not the IC per-say.

But for all intents and purposes, we likewise teach that she was born free of sin (as we ALL are), and that she is all-holy (free of sin).



Yes you do. Or at the least, you need the implicit support of the bishops by virtue of an Orthodox Christian being excommunicted for teaching something (and that excommunication being upheld by the other bishops). On either count, do you have evidence that this has occured or do you personally possess the authority to declare it?

In Christ,
Macarius

If you are so insistent on the matter of bishops delcaring it, I can easily ask His Grace, Bishop MELCHISEDEK, Bishop of Pittsburgh and the Archdiocese of Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania if he thinks the IC is heresy on Sunday.

Btw, just curious, on what basis do you have the authority to declare it in line with Orthodox teaching? I mean, you are not a bishop so who gave you the ability to rightly divide the word of God's truth?

 

[Macarius]

If you are so insistent on the matter of bishops delcaring it, I can easily ask His Grace, Bishop MELCHISEDEK, Bishop of Pittsburgh and the Archdiocese of Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania if he thinks the IC is heresy on Sunday.

Please do so - I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say. I'll ask my bishop the next time I see him and report back.

Btw, just curious, on what basis do you have the authority to declare it in line with Orthodox teaching?

I didn't. Declaring one statement false does not make the converse true. My own view is this: I disagree with the immaculate conception and believe that it doesn't fit within the Orthodox conception of original sin, but I'm fine if an Orthodox bishop continues to commune someone who does believe it (so long as that person isn't tring to force others to believe it as well).

As always, I'm open to correction on that. But you were one step away from declaring one of the most widely read and respected Orthodox writers a heretic for merely suggesting that the IC might be ok within an Orthodox context (but wasn't properly dogma). And you were doing this on your own authority. I happen to agree fully with Met. Kallistos Ware on this; and I've never heard anything from my priest, spiritual father, or bishop to suggest that +Ware erred on this point. We don't teach the IC, but neither is it explicitly condemned - the bigger issue is original sin and how it is viewed in east and west.

I mean, you are not a bishop so who gave you the ability to rightly divide the word of God's truth?

No one. Which is why my first instinct on the IC is to think of it as theologumenon until the Church clearly declares otherwise, especially when respectable and fully-Orthodox theologians (and bishops / metropolitans no less) believe likewise. If other bishops believe it to be heresy, and some believe it to be theologumenon, then we really do need a council at somepoint to declare definitively on it. Until then, I don't feel comfortable doing so - I certainly don't feel comfortable declaring it heresy. Odd / unnecessary / confusing / based-on-a-faulty-undersanding-of-original-sin yes; but heresy is a rather strong thing to declare.

I just felt very uneasy about that. Forgive me if I offended.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Lucysmom]

Soooo...not wanting to get into a heated debate about this, but I always thought immaculate conception meant Roman Catholics thought Mary was conceived in the same manner as Jesus...without seed, which would then make her, well the daughter of God. I just never understood how they could believe that. So my question is then that is my understanding incorrect?

 

[fuerein]

.

 

[buzuxi02]

The Latin dogma of the IC is certainly heretical by an Orthodox perspective. The Latin doctrine of the IC states that Mary was spared of the stain of original sin at the very moment of conception thru the excess merits of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Thus at the very moment of her conception through the union of Sts Joachim and Anna she was the same as Adam and Eve before the fall. And this is why the RC church HAD to abandon the tradition surrounding the Dormition of the Theotokos as depicted on the icon, replaced by a vague definition by the pope which no longer requires a belief in her death.

Anyone can read St John of Damascus and the liturgical texts for the feast days of the Theotokos and see that the IC is a dangerous heretical teaching. And if everyone else is afraid to say it, im not. Bishop Kallistos is a borderline heretic, add his denial that Origens universal restoration is heretical, and his confusion over the possibility of ordination of women, piles on the evidence. And his books ive never found impressive, there quite simplistic.

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Goodness gracious there is a lot of discussion about Roman Catholic dogmas that have nothing to do with Orthodoxy lately!

 

[Michael G]

Lucysmom, I am by no means an expert on Catholic doctrine but your understanding is incorrect. Mary, according to Catholic doctrine, does have both male and female human parents. From my understanding, the concept of the immaculate conception teaches that from the point of conception Mary was kept from having the stain of original sin. The idea is that God could not enter an unclean vessel and thus the woman who bore him must be clear of all sin, including original sin.

Possibly one of the former Catholics, or possibly current Catholics, could give a better and more thorough explanation but that is what I remember from the theology classes I had to take while attending a Catholic middle school.

You are correct. The Romans do not believe that she was born with out any seed as Lucysmom suggests, but just that God kept her completely clean of any stain of sin from the moment of conception.

 

[Ambrosius]

The idea of immaculate conception was contrived to deal with the issues created by believing in Augustine's idea of "Original Sin." The west started going astray and instead of ever turning back just ran faster and faster until you arrive at all the demoniac issues it is infested with today.

 

[zhilan]

As my priest rather bluntly put it, the IC means that Christ didn't save us because if Mary was of an inherently different nature than us (ie born "differently"), then Christ didn't actually take on our nature and thus didn't redeem us.

 

[ikonographics]

As my priest rather bluntly put it, the IC means that Christ didn't save us because if Mary was of an inherently different nature than us (ie born "differently"), then Christ didn't actually take on our nature and thus didn't redeem us.

QFT

 

[SeraphimSarov]

As my priest rather bluntly put it, the IC means that Christ didn't save us because if Mary was of an inherently different nature than us (ie born "differently"), then Christ didn't actually take on our nature and thus didn't redeem us.

Bam! The hammer of Truth lays to waste all other arguments.

/thread

 

[Kristos]

As my priest rather bluntly put it, the IC means that Christ didn't save us because if Mary was of an inherently different nature than us (ie born "differently"), then Christ didn't actually take on our nature and thus didn't redeem us.

that is a strawman.

the issue is really original sin. The IC of the RCC actually brings them back to the Orthodox belief that Mary is the Theotokos, Ever-Virgin, without sin, spotless. Orthodox theology does not really explain HOW this happened, but certainly is was through grace, otherwise, Mary saved herself. The main difference I see here is the the RCC fills Mary with grace right from the beginning - this does not mean that her nature was different from our, otherwise, the same would apply to other grace filled saints; while Orthodox would see a perfected process of theosis, a growth through grace, so that at the time of the Annunciation, Mary was "full of grace" but we didn't necessarily pin point exactly when this happened. Another issue that must be considered are the theophanies of Christ in the OT and the encompassing of Mary's Ever-Virginity wrt those appearances.

Is this a barrier to union? Perhaps, but a minor one, probably ranked below unleavened bread...

 

[Michael G]

As my priest rather bluntly put it, the IC means that Christ didn't save us because if Mary was of an inherently different nature than us (ie born "differently"), then Christ didn't actually take on our nature and thus didn't redeem us.

Exactly!

 

[Michael G]

that is a strawman.

the issue is really original sin. The IC of the RCC actually brings them back to the Orthodox belief that Mary is the Theotokos, Ever-Virgin, without sin, spotless. Orthodox theology does not really explain HOW this happened, but certainly is was through grace, otherwise, Mary saved herself. The main difference I see here is the the RCC fills Mary with grace right from the beginning - this does not mean that her nature was different from our, otherwise, the same would apply to other grace filled saints; while Orthodox would see a perfected process of theosis, a growth through grace, so that at the time of the Annunciation, Mary was "full of grace" but we didn't necessarily pin point exactly when this happened. Another issue that must be considered are the theophanies of Christ in the OT and the encompassing of Mary's Ever-Virginity wrt those appearances.

Is this a barrier to union? Perhaps, but a minor one, probably ranked below unleavened bread...

No, it is not a strawman. If Mary was born of some special, super human way, then there was no ability for Christ to be born of a woman, because that would have made Mary super-woman. And if Christ was not born of a woman, he was not human in his human nature, but super human. Without Christ's human nature he did not save man for only man could save man.