The Immaculate Conception and Ecumenism
The Immaculate Conception and Ecumenism
The Immaculate Conception and Ecumenism
2004
Recommended Citation
Kimball, Virginia M. (2004) "The Immaculate Conception in the Ecumenical Dialogue with Orthodoxy: How the Term Theosis Can
Inform Convergence," Marian Studies: Vol. 55, Article 12.
Available at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol55/iss1/12
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Marian Library Publications at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marian
Studies by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact frice1@udayton.edu.
THE IMMACUIA1E CoNCEPTION IN nm ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE wrm
OR.rnoooxv: How nm TERM THEOSIS CAN INFoRM CoNVERGENCE
2 Nicolas Zemov, "The Eastern Churches and the Ecumenical Movement in the Twen-
schism was one of the aims of the pontificate of John Paul II.
(Cf. Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen, 1995, with its glowing
tribute to the Eastern Churches, especially Eastern monasti-
cism.) In his encyclical letter Ut Unum Sint (#56), he declared:
"the structures of unity which existed before the separation are
a heritage of experience that guides our common path toward
the re-establishment of full communion. Obviously, during the
second millennium the Lord has not ceased to bestow on his
Church abundant fruits of grace and growth. Unfortunately,
however, the gradual and mutual estrangement between the
Churches of the West and the East deprived them of the bene-
fits of mutual exchanges and cooperation."
In the Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical dialogue, progress has
been made on doctrinal issues such as the Trinity, the Eucharist,
even the long-debated question ofjilioque. Unfortunately, the
present impasse deals more with jurisdictional than theological
issues, especially the position of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
The Orthodox response to documents on Mary from Paul VI
and John Paul II has been studied by Mary Ann DeTrana.
3 Mary Ann DeTrana, "Letters of Paul VI and John Paul II on the Vrrgin Mary: the
evolution of a dialogue," pp. 181-194, in Mary is for Everyone, eds. William McLough-
lin and Jill Pinnock (Herefordshire, Great Britain: Gracewing and The Ecumenical So-
ciety of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 1997), 181-182.
Immaculate Conception and Orthodox Churches 215
This phrase ["purification of memories"] was used of the lifting of the ex-
communications of 1054 and appeals for the purging of that weight of
bitterness which was collected from the past. This purging of bitterness
perhaps demands more of Orthodox than of Catholics, because it is true
in general that eastern Christians have more to forgive and forget in the
long history of East/West relations.7
Possibility of Union ofthe Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholicism, trans.
Patrick Barker (Etna, Calif.: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1992), 23.
Immaculate Conception and Orthodox Churches 217
. . . if nothing else were revealed in the Gospel than the mere fact of
Mary's existence, i.e., that Christ, God and man, had a mother and that
her name was Mary, it would have [been] enough for the Church to love
her, to think of her relationship with her Son, and to draw theological
conclusions from this contemplation. Thus, there is no need for additional
This feast [Conception of VIrgin Mary by St. Anne] was originally simply a
counterpart to another similar commemoration-the feast of the Conception
of St. John the Baptist.... The liturgies of the two feasts are very similar. 16
The cause of man's rejection of God was-and is-pride. [Note that this is
the opposite of obedience.] It is an abuse of the self-determination given
to man by God when He created him according to His image. Along with
the angels, man is created "unsinful by nature, yet free in his will. Unsin-
ful does not mean that man is not capable of sin: only the Divine is inca-
pable of sin. Man, who did not have sin in his nature, invented sin by
misuse of his freedom of choice (TipoaL peaLe;). Thus he had the possibility
(e~ouota) of remaining in harmony with the good and progressing in good-
ness through the cooperation of divine grace. But he also had the power
(e~ouata) to turn his back on the good and place himself in evil; this God
allows because of the human right of freedom of choice." ... Evil, as a state
of inauthentic existence, as a state of death and rejection of God who is
the source of life, is not the "non-existing" (i.L~ ov); but neither is it a par-
ticular "essence" since it has no separate being. Evil is the corruption of
existence. In the words of St. Basil, "evil is not a living and animate essence;
it is a disposition in the soul which opposes virtue; this attitude develops
in the slothful because of their alienation from the good." 19
ological Quarterly 21/4 (1977): 183-184. Here, Bishop Maximos cites St. Basil's In
Hexaemeron, Homily 2.
20 John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes
25; PG 87:3248A.
222 Immaculate Conception and Orthodox Churches
... the inheritance from Adam is mortality, not guilt, and there was never any
doubt among Byzantine theologians that Mary was indeed a mortal being. 24
behind the altar is the place where the so-called "Platytera" is repre-
sented, i.e., the Mother of God who has already conceived in her womb
the Word of the Father, Whom no space can contain. The apse is the part
of the church building which unites it with the main representation of
the Mother of God, who has similarly united heaven and earth. 29
... detach the Theotokos from fallen humanity to which she brings sal-
vation. Mary has been a privileged creature from before birth, a portion
of humanity set aside from the outset, but this can be true without re-
course to exemption of original sin. In the synergy between human na-
ture and the gift of God, it is Mary's freedom that is at stake. But the
difference between East and West lies precisely in the conception of
human nature.3o
... the culmination and fulfillment of the whole history. God gradually
brought Israel towards communion with Himself through the giving of
the Law, the liturgy of the Temple, and through the Prophets. He was
preparing Israel to say Yes, to live in obedience, which is communion in
love, with Him. In Mary, in her "yes" to God, this whole history was ful-
filled when she responded to the Annunciation of Gabriel.3 1
She is the treasure of virginity, the rod of Aaron springing forth from the
root of Jesse, the preaching of the prophets, offshoot of the righteous
Joachim and Ann ... She is the holy Temple, the Receiver of the God-
head: the instrument of virginity, the Bridal Chamber of the King,
wherein was accomplished the marvelous mystery of the ineffable union
of the natures which come together in Christ.32
34 Axton Esttn (Thou are holy), hymn following consecration in the Orthodox Di·
vine Liturgy.
35 Kallistos Ware, Mary Tbeotokos in the Orthodox Tradition (Great Britain: The
Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Vrrgin Mary, 1997), 4. This paper had previously ap-
peared in the Orthodox periodical Epiphany 9/2, published in San Francisco, and in
Marlanum, no. 140, published in Rome.
36 Ware, Mary Tbeotokos, 13.
37 Ware, Mary Tbeotokos, 14.
38 Ware, Mary Tbeotokos, 4.
Immaculate Conception and Orthodox Churches 227
On the one hand, in her role as Mother of God she may be seen as unique.
In all the history of the human race there is only one Incarnation, and so
there can only be one Mother of the Incarnate. But, on the other hand,
she is also our pattern and exemplar, and we are to perceive not only her
uniqueness but [also] what we share in common with her. As the New
Eve she expresses our universal humanity.39
to be the Mother of God incarnate: "She was chosen from ancient gener-
ations, through the preordained counsel and good pleasure of God the
Father.... The Father forechose her, the prophets through the Holy
Spirit proclaimed her in advance."41
John is certainly convinced that the Holy Vrrgin was free from all actual
sin, but he nowhere speaks explicitly of any exemption from the "stain"
of original sin. He does, however, specify that she bore Christ without
enduring the pangs of childbirth due to the fall (Gen. 3:16), which sug-
gests that she was indeed exempt from the effects of the fall. But we must
in any case allow for the fact that John's understanding of the fall and of
original sin is not the same as that upheld by St. Augustine and normally
accepted in the Latin West. 42
Christ the Redeemer and the holiness of Mary, whose human destiny is even now per-
fectly and definitively realized in God." See also: Schrnemann, Sennons: The Virgin
Mary, 66: "She-Mary-is the ultimate 'doxa' of creation, its response to God."
45 Ware and Yarnold, The Immaculate Conception, 11. As explained on p. 5, the
three levels are:
1) "physical consequences: tiredness, illness, bodily pain, and finally physi-
cal death";
2) "moral consequences: weakness of will, inability to make any decision
at all, doing what we know is wrong when we want to do what is right, moral
paralysis";
3) "juridical consequences: original sin is understood in terms of inherited
guilt" suggested "particularly by St. Augustine" who believed it was "transmit-
ted through the sexual act."
On these three levels of the discussion of original sin and its effects, Fr. Yarnold indi-
cated there can still be hope for convergence. On page 8, in reference to the first level,
Father Yarnold could agree:
But for Mary were death and suffering spiritual problems? It seems to me-
though this is really another subject-that just as her Son was tempted, though
we do not know psychologically speaking what it meant for him to be tempted,
even more it must be true that Mary was liable to temptation. Therefore pre-
sumably death and suffering could have been sources of temptation to her. To
that extent I think we could say that she shared our fallen nature.
Concerning level two, Fr. Yarnold, on page 8, seems to agree:
1f one wants to think of that as a characteristic of fallen nature [the weakness
of the will, or the division of the will], then Mary too, it seems to me, should
be said to share fallen nature. But let us remember that we are not talking about
actual, personal sin; it is not a matter of disagreement between East and West
whether Mary personally sinned or not. We are talking about this mysterious
entity "original sin."
230 Immaculate Conception and Orthodox Churches
What one would want to say in the Western tradition is that for the
Blessed Vrrgin Mary at every age, whether immediately after conception,
or at birth, or at the age of thirty or forty, that hole was filled, and she re-
ceived grace as God wished and as he was able to give it to a human being
of that age. 46
so St. Augustine of Hippo, "From Augustine to Boniface; in Letters, New Advent Fa-
thers, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm (24 July 2004).
51 A. N. Williams, The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas
5 4 Jules Gross, The Divinlzation of the Christian according to the Greek Fathers
(Anaheim, Calif.: A & C Press, 2002). Originally published as La divinisation du chre·
tien d'apres les peres grecs: Contribution historlque a Ia doctrine de Ia grace (Paris:
]. Gabalda, 1938), xvi.
55 Williams, The Ground of Union, 6.
56 Williams, The Ground of Union, 6.
57 Williams, The Ground of Union, 7, citing Yves Congar: "This same soteriology
(of Oriental theology) supposes a concept of deification and of the relationship of what
we call nature and grace quite different from that which animates the Latin theological
construction for the same mysteries. This Latin construction depends on a distinction
of nature and grace, whose categories and vocabulary are foreign to Greek Theology."
Immaculate Conception and Orthodox Churches 233
with God: "God does this through His Logos who 'became what
we are, so that we might become what He is:"58 In one of the best
contemporary descriptions of Orthodox perception on deifica-
tion, representing what the majority of Greek Fathers uphold,
Bishop Maximos wrote:
The clear result of our investigation is that from the fourth century the
doctrine of divinization is fundamental for the majority of the Greek fa-
thers. It forms a kind of center for their soteriology. The whole redemp-
tive work of Christ, from the incarnation to the resurrection, as well as
the action of the Holy Spirit and of the church which continues this work,
converge on deification as the completion of our salvation.62
a. The Scriptures
Beginning with Irenaeus, many concluded from the account
in Genesis that Adam and Eve experienced a "certain deifica-
tion ... distinguishing between image [ELKWv] and likeness
[of!ol.waLa], they understood this latter item in the sense of a
more perfect similarity, which would surpass by far what hu-
mankind possess in their nature."65 The center of their act in-
volved "obedience." Adam and Eve were to grow in the garden,
via "obedience." Let us pause and remember the biblical cen-
trality of Virgin Mary's "obedience."
The idea of "divine filiation" or being called a "son of God"
is a critical phrase in the Old Testament, where the king (i.e.
Solomon) is called a "son of God (2 Samuel7:14; 1 Chronicles
17: 13; 22:9; 27; 28:6)." However, "the analogy of divine filiation
[in the Hebrew Scriptures] seems to express a rather external
relationship, a favor which, as its principal goal, assures the sal-
vation of the Jewish nation and thereby the triumph of its
God."66 It should be noted here that the "favor," perhaps called
divine daughter-ship in Mary as described by the Catholic
dogma, is not "external" where Christ is the one who fulfills the
image to a likeness in God, through the nurturing gift of the
Holy Spirit.
Whereas in the present life the divine filiation of the righteous seems to
be of a purely moral nature, it blossoms out in the hereafter in this way:
it even makes the separated soul actually participate in the specifically di-
vine properties of blessed immortality, power, and glory. Is this not a gen-
uine deification of the soul-even though it is not so described [in the
Old Testament]-to the entire extent in which its position as creature,
which, of course, never disappears, allows?67
b. Irenaeus
For Irenaeus, there is a constant reference to the phrase that
humanity was created "according to the image and likeness of
God" (ElKwv and Of.!oLwcrL<;). For him, the terms are nearly syn-
onyms. When he describes salvation, he paints a picture that
could easily form a paradigm for the relationship between the
Virgin Mary and God at the Annunciation:
So this means that this Word was revealed when the Word of God became
human, being Himself assimilated to humankind and assimilating hu·
mankind to Himself. And this was in order that the humankind might be-
come more dear to the Father, due to their likeness with the Son. In the
past, it was indeed said that humankind was made in the image of God,
but this was not manifest. Actually, the Word was still invisible by whose
image humankind had been made. This is why they easily lost the simili-
tude [of.Lo(waw]. But when the Word of God became flesh, He strength-
ened both, because He revealed the true image by becoming Himself
what was His image, and He firmly restored the similitude by making
them with Himself like [auve~Of.LOLWaa~] the invisible Father, through the
visible Word.74
Fall "any more than they lost the human nature; the OjJ.oLwaLc;,
on the contrary, was erased by the sin of Adam."75 The terms
"image" and "likeness" for Irenaeus were not as precise as in
the thinking of later fathers, but the issue is to see the impor-
tance of the Incarnation and the work of Christ. The method
of union with Christ and His Spirit "takes place through faith,
love, and the customary practice of sacraments, such as bap-
tism and the Eucharist."76 This is the way, according to Ire-
naeus, that God works.
c. Methodius
Methodius had the same understanding that it is Christ
who brings human nature back "to what it was at the begin-
ning before falling-to immortality:'77 Again, we have a good
schema to reflect on the Virgin Mary and her salvation at the
Annunciation:
Christ became exactly what Adam was, because upon this one has come
the Logos who is before the ages. Indeed, it was right that the Firstborn
of God, His first offspring, His Monogene, His Wisdom, mingling with the
protoplast, the first and the firstborn of humankind, became human ....
So therefore God, taking up again His work of the beginning and re-form-
ing it once again with the Vrrgin and with the Spirit, fashions the same
[being], just as at the beginning, when the earth was virgin and not yet
plowed.7B
d. Athanasius
It is Christ who fashions "with the Virgin and with the Spirit"
the new Adam, the new creation. Perhaps, we can argue that
the Virgin Mary's deification comes with her contact with God
in her flesh, or in reception of the nurturance of the Spirit, but
the mechanism of salvation appears here to be exclus~vely
begun with Christ's union with the flesh of Adam. For Athana-
sius, the intimate contact of God with the human in the womb
of Mary is the mechanism of deification:
This is why the contact [ouva<jl~] was thus made, in order that the human
nature might be united with the divine nature and that the salvation and
deification [0E01TOLT]OLc;] of the former might be assured.79
e. Gregory of Nyssa
For Gregory of Nyssa, "the immutable takes residence in the
mutable."81 From the divine heights, God "mingled with our
nature in order that, by virtue of its mingling with the divine,
our nature might become divine:•sz The "apogee of Greek doc-
trine" takes place in the thought of the Cappadocians. Gregory
of Nazianzus uses the word tbeopoiesis. The incarnation "is a
remote cause of the redemption, insofar as it allows the Savior
to give in ransom body for body, soul for soul." 83
echism], 25.
83 Gross, The Divintzatton, 196.
240 Immaculate Conception and Orthodox Churches
How well this description fits the profile of the Virgin Mary
at the Annunciation and at her Dormition, where her soul is
seen iconographically borne by Christ.
1) St.John Chrysostom
Here is the peak of highest virtue and what helps arrive at the very sum-
mit of benefits: to make ourselves like God as much as is possible for us
[1:o 1rpoc; eeov ~oLw9fiva.L, Ka.1:& To EYXwpouv ~ll1v]. 88
Love is the root of the "benefits" because love is what humans
have in common with God, and all virtues, as well, are inferior
to love.
2) Theodore of Mopsuestia
Although Theodore and Theodoret held "views on divini-
zation ... irreparably compromised by an erroneous Chris-
tology,"B9 we fmd the continuing thought that salvation is
accomplished only through Christ and is manifested in the
Virgin Mary as in a container. Theodore describes deification:
"This is by virtue of God the Word who dwells in Christ as in a
temple and makes Him both the type and agent of our immor-
talization."90 And Theodoret gives us an idea of theopoiesis, in-
spired by Gregory of Nazianzus, that we can find interesting in
relationship to the Virgin Mary:
Indeed He intercedes also as a human being and even now, for my salva-
tion. This is because He is with the body which He assumed in order to
make me god (Ewe; &v EllE 1TOL~o11 0e6v) by the power of His incarnation,
although He is no longer seen according to the flesh.9 1
[the] "restoration of the ancient beauty of nature" [to &pxa'iov tfic; <jlucrewc;
&vaKOI.LLOIXf.IEVOL KaUoc;], an elevation "because of Christ to the high posi-
tion above nature" [de; to UTTEP <jlucrLV a(LWf.lll], namely, the adoptive di-
vine filiation, which merits for us the titles children of God, even god,
according to Psa 82."93
We are called, and we are, temples of God, and even gods. Why? Ques-
tion the adversaries whether we actually partake only of a grace, bare and
devoid of hypostasis [e'(nep EOEV &J..T]Swc; <jltA.fic; Kat &vunoatatou xapttoc;
f.!EtOXOL]. But it is not so. For we are temples of the Spirit, who exists and
subsists; because of Him, we are also called gods insofar as, by our union
with Him, we have entered into communion with the divine and ineffa-
ble nature. If the Spirit who deifies [8eonowilv] us through Himself is ac-
tually foreign and separate, as to essence, from the divine nature, then we
have been defrauded of our hope, assuming for ourselves who knows
what vain glory.95
92 Gross, The Dtvtntzation, 219. "In the vast domain of being, Cyril, in his turn,
distinguishes 'two narures': the uncreated nature, 'incorruptible and indestructible by
essence [a<j>9ap<ov Kat avwA.e9pov ouotwOGJ~]; and the created narure, 'necessarily sub-
ject to corruption' and to the return to its origin, which is nothingness."
93 Gross, The Dtvtntzatton, 222, citing Comm.]o. [Commentary on john], 1.12,
with reference also to Fragmenta commentarlt tn Lc. 5.19 [Commentary on Luke,
fragments].
94 Gross, The Dtvtntzatton, 223.
95 Gross, The Dtvtntzation, 230. Reference to Cyril of Alexandria, De Trlnttate Dt-
alogt [Dialogues on the Trinity], 7.
Immaculate Conception and Orthodox Churches 243
4) John of Damascus
John of Damascus in the ninth century "presents the deifi-
cation of the Christian as a return to original perfection."%
Using the physical theory of divinization, John of Damascus de-
scribes a soteriological event in Christ where human nature is
ignited like molten iron.
We were really sanctified when [a<jl' ov] the Logos-god became flesh, hav-
ing been likened to us in everything except sin, when He was mingled
with our nature without confusion, and when, without changing it
[af!Eta~l..~twc;], He deified [e8ewoe] the flesh by the mutual penetration
[i!EPLXWPTJ<Hc;], without fusion, of His divinity and His flesh.97
Conclusion
In the work of A. N. Williams that seems so relevant to this
topic, she concludes:
East and West may thus be said to make different uses of the idea of theo-
sis, but this study indicates that at least until the Middle Ages, one can-
not characterize the differences between East and West as deriving from
two wholly divergent conceptions of either divinization or sanctification,
broadly speaking, and there is increasing reason to believe such a divide
cannot even be asserted before the Enlightenment.99
Humankind transcend their own nature: from mortal they become im-
mortal; from perishable, imperishable; from fleeting, eternal; in a word,
from human beings they become gods. Indeed, made worthy of becom-
ing children of God, they will have in themselves the dignity of the Fa-
ther, enriched with all the paternal benefits. 0 munificence of the Lord
most rich! ... How great are the gifts of unutterable treasures POt