Orthodox Perspective on the Immaculate conception of Mary!

It seems that my post has been taken in completely the wrong way. I'm not jumping on inquirers nor am I accusing anyone of being a heretic! I'm just warning others, as I have been warned by theologians and monastics more learned than myself, to be cautious when reading "The Orthodox Church."It is simply an introduction to Orthodoxy there is a tendency among inquirers and recent converts to take everything it says as Gospel truth. I have the utmost respect for his eminence Metropolitan Kallistos. Some of the views he expresses in the book are considered problematic by the majority of Orthodox theologians (note, I said problematic, I did not say heretical, or semi-heretical). The views I have expressed on the IC are those espoused by my professor of dogmatics His Eminence Bishop Kyrillos of Abydos, as well as other professors of dogmatics, both at the Theology schools of the University of Athens and of Thessaloniki (notably, the late professor Nikos Matsoukas.) I find it very problematic that one could hold as a "pious opinion" a teaching that has christological and soteriological consequences that are nothing short of heretical. (Please note, again, I have called no one a heretic )

Michael the Iconographer said:

Being a former Roman Catholic I do not care to be reminded of what they believe.

Click to expand...

Then stay away from threads about what they believe. It's that simple!

ikonographics said:

It seems that my post has been taken in completely the wrong way. I'm not jumping on inquirers nor am I accusing anyone of being a heretic! I'm just warning others, as I have been warned by theologians and monastics more learned than myself, to be cautious when reading "The Orthodox Church."It is simply an introduction to Orthodoxy there is a tendency among inquirers and recent converts to take everything it says as Gospel truth. I have the utmost respect for his eminence Metropolitan Kallistos. Some of the views he expresses in the book are considered problematic by the majority of Orthodox theologians (note, I said problematic, I did not say heretical, or semi-heretical). The views I have expressed on the IC are those espoused by my professor of dogmatics His Eminence Bishop Kyrillos of Abydos, as well as other professors of dogmatics, both at the Theology schools of the University of Athens and of Thessaloniki (notably, the late professor Nikos Matsoukas.) I find it very problematic that one could hold as a "pious opinion" a teaching that has christological and soteriological consequences that are nothing short of heretical. (Please note, again, I have called no one a heretic )

Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying! I hope you didn't feel jumped on either.

Macarius said:

There has been an odd number of them recently... not sure why.

But if they bother you, just don't participate in them. I may be odd on this, but I welcome them (and welcome the further questions offered by the RCC posters) because they offer us an opportunity to expound the heart of the Orthodox faith, rather than turning to less healthy topics (like inter-church Orthodox politics).

But that's me...

In Christ,
Macarius

Click to expand...

If i can say something here y'all maybe we can ease off the tension ???
I think this being our congregation it is true there should be NO DEBATE about EO views...But the Immaculate Conception is (whether we like it or not ) a "theologoumenon" for our church.... That is it is a pious belief that the church is dealing with and is "under examination". Bottom line it is not viewed as an RC doctrine... It is a belief that some can indeed hold if they like. Unlike the RC that 'dogmatizes" all matters concerning the faith we do not. To believe that Mary was somehow held in a "special" position as a human than the rest is true in our Theology. Mary is indeed "full of Grace" and the "platytera twn ouranwn" "most spacious than the heavens", our hymnology uses such epithets. We just do not make that a doctrine. We do not "know" how it is that she is fully graced by God but she is. IMHO that is where the Orthodox idea of the Theotokos takes place.

If we are pulled to believe that this has anything to do with the doctrinal view of the Immaculate conception of the RC we are in error... We are mistaken to think that there is any point of reference between a pious opinion as expressed in our worship and dogma. Figurative language has not too much to do and the West did indeed developed dogma based on such claims...From Papal supremacy to the Marian dogmas.....

I think it is okay to answer questions of other faiths..Nothing wrong with the RC views but ...in this specific case a proper examination of the IC is needed and you cannot do a conversation and if this will indeed come to a debate then maybe the St. Justin's debate forum would be more appropriate.

ikonographics said:

It seems that my post has been taken in completely the wrong way. I'm not jumping on inquirers nor am I accusing anyone of being a heretic! I'm just warning others, as I have been warned by theologians and monastics more learned than myself, to be cautious when reading "The Orthodox Church."It is simply an introduction to Orthodoxy there is a tendency among inquirers and recent converts to take everything it says as Gospel truth. I have the utmost respect for his eminence Metropolitan Kallistos. Some of the views he expresses in the book are considered problematic by the majority of Orthodox theologians (note, I said problematic, I did not say heretical, or semi-heretical). The views I have expressed on the IC are those espoused by my professor of dogmatics His Eminence Bishop Kyrillos of Abydos, as well as other professors of dogmatics, both at the Theology schools of the University of Athens and of Thessaloniki (notably, the late professor Nikos Matsoukas.) I find it very problematic that one could hold as a "pious opinion" a teaching that has christological and soteriological consequences that are nothing short of heretical. (Please note, again, I have called no one a heretic )

Click to expand...

Thanks Ikonographics, I appreciate it.

Absolutely nothing wrong with quoting a bishop as others have said likewise we can criticise a bishop if he openly teaches something that is very problematic. Bishop Kallistos should not be as influential as he is and in my opinion his book should be dropped as an introductory to orthodoxy.

Now back to the OP. Here is the official doctrine of the IC:
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
—Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

If any Orthodox think the IC can be held as a pious belief , i would like to know what the orthodox teaching on "merits" are, and if its common that these "merits" work backwards in time even before the incarnation.
Now I would like to know how Bishop Kallistos squares away what he wrote about the IC with the dogma of the church as defined in the definition of faith at Chalcedon:

"we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects, except sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

According to, "Insights into the Orthodox Faith" by Protopresbyter Lawrence R. Barringer, the difference between "original sin" and "original guilt" is the crux of this issue. St. Augustine was not very fluent in Greek, a fact he laments in his Confessions. In his polemics with the disciples of Pelagians he appealed to the witness of St. Paul's in Romans 5:12 but unfortunately the Latin translation he used was incorrect.


Incorrect translation: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and this way death came to all men in whom (in quo) all men sinned."


Here is the correct translation: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned."


The incorrect translation Augustine used implies that all humanity shared in the guilt of Adam's sin.


Orthodox view: we understand original sin as an inherited mortality and an innate tendency to commit sin but not an "utter necessity" as Calvin argued and the IC implies because it is ultimately a denial of human freedom of choice.


Basically, everyone sins and falls short of the glory of God, but its a choice and not what we've been compelled to do.


Barringer points out that the IC in the Orthodox Church is, "...recognized as negating the free cooperation of Mary with God in the conception of the Lord."


In Christ,

John

Honestly - I guess the biggest thing from my understanding - is just that there is no need for the Immaculate Conception...since she already is born without sin - just as every person is. To believe in the Immaculate Conception - you need to believe that people are born with the guilt of sin. THAT is the part that is heresy. So....the heretical teaching of the RC understanding of original sin is a prerequisite for the IC - hence making the IC inherently heretical. For anyone who is interested - here is an article I found to be helpful about why the RC understanding of Original Sin is considered to be a heresy.

Philothei said:

If i can say something here y'all maybe we can ease off the tension ???
I think this being our congregation it is true there should be NO DEBATE about EO views...But the Immaculate Conception is (whether we like it or not ) a "theologoumenon" for our church.... That is it is a pious belief that the church is dealing with and is "under examination". Bottom line it is not viewed as an RC doctrine... It is a belief that some can indeed hold if they like. Unlike the RC that 'dogmatizes" all matters concerning the faith we do not. To believe that Mary was somehow held in a "special" position as a human than the rest is true in our Theology. Mary is indeed "full of Grace" and the "platytera twn ouranwn" "most spacious than the heavens", our hymnology uses such epithets. We just do not make that a doctrine. We do not "know" how it is that she is fully graced by God but she is. IMHO that is where the Orthodox idea of the Theotokos takes place.

If we are pulled to believe that this has anything to do with the doctrinal view of the Immaculate conception of the RC we are in error... We are mistaken to think that there is any point of reference between a pious opinion as expressed in our worship and dogma. Figurative language has not too much to do and the West did indeed developed dogma based on such claims...From Papal supremacy to the Marian dogmas.....

Click to expand...

I fail to see how any Orthodox Christian could hold to the belief of the IC.