Icon of St. Anne and the Blessed Virgin Mary
I had some dialogue with two people after my recent post on the second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. They both pointed out to me that this doesn’t refute the Eastern Orthodox position because they believe that the Virgin Mary was made spotless and Immaculate at the annunciation.
The post wasn’t meant to be a polemic against Eastern Orthodoxy. To be honest, I wasn’t aware that the Orthodox position was that she was purified at the annunciation. I knew that the Orthodox don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception but I just thought that they believed that Mary was born with the sin of Adam and committed very few sins while on Earth; less sins than anyone who ever walked the Earth save Christ.
Since two people brought up the same point I will comment on the issue of the annunciation. I think from the words spotless and immaculate we can make a good case for being spotless and immaculate from conception.
In both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, there is devotion to St. Anne, the mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This devotion has existed long before the iconoclast crisis in the 8th century.
There exists icons of St. Anne holding the Virgin Mary as a young child, similar to icons of the adult Virgin Mary holding the child Jesus Christ. Although, few pre-Iconoclast icons survive, I think it’s reasonable to assume that icons of St. Anne and the Blessed Virgin existed since devotion to St. Anne is very early in Church history.
If the Virgin Mary is spotless and immaculate as a child, that rules out the possibility of Mary becoming spotless and immaculate at the annunciation. Now, I will concede that this doesn’t make the conception necessary. However, it would have to indicate that Mary was made spotless and immaculate at a very early point in her life.
The Orthodox catechumen who I was talking with said that Mary becoming spotless and immaculate at the annunciation is the position put forward by Gregory Palamas, a very much revered Orthodox Saint in the late medieval period. However, he did say that some other Byzantine saints argued for Mary becoming spotless and immaculate at an earlier point in her life. As far as I understand the immaculate annunciation is a preferred position, not a dogmatic one. This would allow for an earlier(and not necessarily conception) period of purification for the Virgin Mary.
I’m interested in what my Orthodox readers have to say on this.
Well this Catholic’s view is that it was unnecessary for the pope to declare the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption as matters of Doctrine.
As far as I am aware there have only been these two “infallible” statements declared by the Papacy. There was no need for them, they have not helped the Church and they do nothing to advance the Faith in following Jesus Christ.
The statements may be true, but we cannot know for sure. The Assumption is plausible, but I do not see the evidence for the Immaculate Conception. That could be my ignorance and I should probably look into it but does it really matter to our Christianity?
Hi Christopher;
I don’t know why they were made into infallible dogma but I’ve never personally had a problem with it. I’d recommend the book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary is you need help grasping some of the roots of the doctrine.
God bless,
Allan
Allan,
This is something I need to learn about. I have ordered a copy. Thank you for the recommendation.
Christopher
Some Orthodox theologians have wrote on this issue, and they certainly provide better explanation than what I could come up with. I’ll present a quotation from the book “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Michael Pomazansky and Seraphim Rose, which is succinct exposition of the Eastern Orthodox position:
“The Orthodox Church does not accept the Latin system of arguments concerning original sin. In particular, the Orthodox Church, confessing the perfect personal immaculateness and perfect sanctity of the Mother of God, whom the Lord Jesus Christ by His birth from her made to be more honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim — has not seen and does not see any grounds for the establishment of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the sense of the Roman Catholic interpretation, although it does venerate the conception of the Mother of God, as it does also the conception of the Holy Prophet and Forerunner John.
On the one hand, we see that God did not deprive mankind, even after its fall, of His Grace-giving gifts, as for example, the words of the 50th Psalm indicate: “Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me…. With Thy governing Spirit establish me”; or the words of Psalm 70: “On Thee have I been made fast from the womb; from my mother’s womb Thou art my Protector”.
On the other hand, in accordance with the teaching of Sacred Scripture, in Adam all mankind tasted the forbidden fruit. Only the God-Man Christ begins with Himself the new mankind, freed by Him from the sin of Adam. Therefore, He is called the Firstborn among many brethren (Rom. 8:29), that is: the First in the new human race; He is the “new Adam.” The Most Holy Virgin was born as subject to the sin of Adam together with all mankind, and with him she shared the need for redemption (“Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs,” par. 6).9 The pure and immaculate life of the Virgin Mary up to the Annunciation by the Archangel, her freedom from personal sins, was the fruit of the union of her spiritual labor upon herself and the abundance of Grace that was poured out upon her. “Thou hast found Grace with God,” the Archangel said to her in his greeting: “thou hast found,” that is, attained, acquired, earned. The Most Holy Virgin Mary was prepared by the best part of mankind as a worthy vessel for the descent of God the Word to earth. The coming down of the Holy Spirit (“the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee”) totally sanctified the womb of the Virgin Mary for the reception of God the Word.
One must acknowledge that the very principle of a preliminary “privilege” is somehow not in harmony with Christian concepts, for there is no respect of persons with God (Rom. 2:11).
As for the tradition concerning the assumption of the body of the Mother of God: the belief in the assumption of her body after its burial does exist in the Orthodox Church. It is expressed in the content of the service for the feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God, and also in the Confession of the Jerusalem Council of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1672. St. John Damascene in his second homily on the Dormition relates that once the Empress Pulcheria (5th century), who had built a church in Constantinople, asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Juvenal, a participant in the Council of Chalcedon, for relics of the Most Holy Virgin Mary to place in the church. Juvenal replied that, in accordance with ancient tradition, the body of the Mother of God had been taken to heaven, and he joined to this reply the well-known account of how the Apostles had been assembled in miraculous fashion for the burial of the Mother of God, how after the arrival of the Apostle Thomas her grave had been opened and her body was not there, and how it had been revealed to the Apostles that her body had ascended to heaven.10 Written church testimonies on this subject date in general to a church testimonies on this subject date in general to a relatively late period (not earlier than the 6th century), and the Orthodox Church, with all its respect for them, does not ascribe to them the significance of a dogmatic source. The Church, accepting the tradition of the ascension of the body of the Mother of God, has not regarded and does not regard this pious tradition as one of the fundamental truths or dogmas of the Christian faith.” (excerpt from Chapter 6: God and the Salvation of Mankind, section “Dogmas Concerning the Most Holy Mother of God”).
Hey Orangehunter,
Thanks for your input. I’ll make sure to add that book to the list(which is long, including many Orthodox books). Just one question:
“The pure and immaculate life of the Virgin Mary up to the Annunciation by the Archangel, her freedom from personal sins, was the fruit of the union of her spiritual labor upon herself and the abundance of Grace that was poured out upon her.”
So the only sin that the blessed virgin had on her soul was the sin of Adam? She had no other sins?
God bless,
Allan
Well, that’s a good question. I think these provide the answer:
http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Veneration.html
https://ortodoks.dk/ortodoks-tro-og-praksis/de-hellige/the-orthodox-veneration-of-mary-the-birthgiver-of-god#Anchor-Th-41962
I’ve actually read that book from St. John Maximovitch! It was a while ago though. My Russian teacher told me that she venerated his relics in San Francisco so I wanted to know who he was. I have the book so I’ll give it another read. It’s pretty short.
God bless,
Allan