A leggere il
contributo che segue – in lingua inglese – parrebbe di sì, visto che è stata ammessa,
nel senso in cui tale verità è stata proclamata dal beato Pio IX, quantomeno
come teoria teologica, ed in maniera autorevole, da molti autori scismatici. Le
remore verso questo dogma nascono soprattutto da due motivi. Il primo è il
classico pregiudizio anti-romano ed antipapale, dal momento che il dogma non fu
proclamato da un Concilio ma dal Papa di Roma. Il secondo, un po’ più
teologico, nasce dal timore di limitare il valore redentivo del sacrificio di
Cristo, ritenendo – erroneamente – che Maria non sia stata pur’ella redenta –
ma in anticipo rispetto agli altri – dal Figlio. In verità, i moderni teologi
scismatici, che si oppongono al dogma, dimenticano che il beato Pio IX dichiarò
che Maria fu esente dal peccato originale in vista dei meriti di Cristo: “intuitu
meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis”. Pertanto, l’azione
redentrice di Cristo fu, diciamo, operativa pure in caso di Maria, sebbene in
modo del tutto diverso da quello del resto del genere umano. D’altronde, non va
dimenticato che dinanzi a Dio il tempo e la storia non esistono, nel senso che
sono dimensioni del nostro mondo. Egli, invece, è in un eterno presente. Ogni
evento della storia, dinanzi a Lui, è presente; è come se avvenisse in quell’istante.
Per cui, ben poteva applicare a Maria, esentandola dal peccato originale, i
meriti della Redenzione della Croce; sacrificio del Figlio, che, temporalmente,
sarebbe avvenuto molti anni dopo la concezione di Maria, ma che, nell’Eterno
Presente di Dio, era come se fosse avvenuto in quel momento.
Per cui,
sebbene la verità dell’Immacolato Concepimento di Maria non sia un dogma della
c.d. ortodossia, tuttavia essa non contraddice alcun’altra verità di fede né ha
mai incontrato la disapprovazione di un universale e immutabile consenso di
opinione: anzi, al contrario, esiste una linea continua di eminenti autorità c.d.
ortodosse che hanno insegnato l’Immacolata Concezione di Maria nel senso
definito dal beato Pio IX.
 |
| Icona di Maria Fiore Immarciscibile, XVIII sec. |
The Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox Church
by Father Lev Gillet
I. It
is generally agreed, I think, that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is
one of the questions which make a clear and profound division between the Roman
Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Is this really the case? We shall try to
examine quite objectively what Orthodox theological history has to teach us on
this matter. Leaving aside the patristic period we shall start on our quest in
the time of the Patriarch Photius.
II. It seems to me that three
preliminary observations have to be made.
First,
it is an undeniable fact that the great majority of the members of the Orthodox
Church did not admit the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as it was defined
by Pius IX in 1854.
Secondly,
throughout the history of Orthodox theology, we find an unbroken line of theologians,
of quite considerable authority, who have explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Among them I shall refer to Nicephorus Gallistus in
the fourteenth century and Alexander Lebedev in the nineteenth, these two
representing the extremities of a chain with many intermediary links. There is
even an official document written against the Immaculate Conception: the letter
of the Patriarch Anthimus VII, written in 1895; we shall come later to a
discussion of its doctrinal value.
Thirdly,
we recognize the fact that Latin theologians very often used inadequate arguments
in their desire to prove that the Immaculate Conception belonged to the
Byzantine theological tradition. They sometimes forced the sense of the poetic
expressions to be found in the liturgy of Byzantium; at times they
misinterpreted what were merely common Byzantine terms to describe Mary’s
incomparable holiness, as a sign of belief in the Immaculate Conception; on
other occasions they disregarded the fact that certain Byzantines had only a
very vague idea of original sin. Speaking of the Theotokos, Orthodox writers
multiplied expressions such as “all holy”, “all pure”, “immaculate”. This does
not always mean that these writers believed in the Immaculate Conception. The
vast majority – but not all – Orthodox theologians agreed that Mary was
purified from original sin before the birth of Our Lord. By this, they usually
mean that she was purified in her mother’s womb like John the Baptist. This “sanctification”
is not the Immaculate Conception.
The
question must be framed in precise theological terms. We do not want to know if
Mary’s holiness surpasses all other holiness, or if Mary was sanctified in her
mother’s womb. The question is: Was Mary, in the words of Pius IX, “preserved
from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her conception” (in primo instanti suae
conceptionis)? Is this doctrine foreign to the Orthodox tradition?
Is it contrary to that tradition?
III. I shall begin by quoting several
phrases which cannot be said with absolute certainty to imply a belief in the
Immaculate Conception but in which it is quite possible to find traces of such
a belief.
First
of all – the patriarch Photius. In his first homily on the Annunciation, he says
that Mary was sanctified ek Brephous. This
is not an easy term to translate; the primary meaning of Brephos is that of a child in the embryonic
state. Ek means origin or starting point. The
phrase seems to me to mean not that Mary was sanctified in the embryonic state,
that is to say, during her existence in her mother’s womb, but that she was
sanctified from the moment of her existence as an embryo, from the very first
moment of her formation – therefore – from the moment of her conception. (1)
A
contemporary and opponent of Photius, the monk Theognostes, wrote in a homily
for the feast of the Dormition, that Mary was conceived by “a sanctifying
action”, ex arches – from the beginning. It seems to me
that this ex arches exactly corresponds to the “in primo instanti”
of Roman theology. (2)
St
Euthymes, patriarch of Constantinople (+917), in the course of a homily on the
conception of St Anne (that is to say, on Mary’s conception by Anne and
Joachim) said that it was on this very day (touto
semerou) that the Father fashioned a tabernacle (Mary) for his Son,
and that this tabernacle was “fully sanctified” (kathagiazei). There again we find the idea of Mary’s
sanctification in primo
instanti conceptionis. (3)
Let
us now turn to more explicit evidence.
(St)
Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of the hesychasm (+1360)
in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed an entirely original
theory about her sanctification. On the one hand, Palamas does not use the
formula “immaculate conception” because he believes that Mary was sanctified
long before the “primus
instans conceptionis”, and on the other, he states quite as
categorically as any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied
by the stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as far
as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God progressively purified
all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and each to a greater degree than his
predecessor so that at the end, eis telos, Mary was
able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a spotless stem “on the
limits between created and uncreated”. (4)
The
Emperor Manuel II Paleologus (+1425) also pronounced a homily on the Dormition.
In it, he affirms in precise terms Mary’s sanctification in
primo instanti. He says that Mary was full of grace “from the
moment of her conception” and that as soon as she began to exist … there was no
time when Jesus was not united to her”. We must note that Manuel was no mere
amateur in theology. He had written at great length on the procession of the
Holy Spirit and had taken part in doctrinal debates during his journeys in the
West. One can, therefore, consider him as a qualified representative of the
Byzantine theology of his time. (5)
George
Scholarios (+1456), the last Patriarch of the Byzantine Empire, has also left
us a homily on the Dormition and an explicit affirmation of the Immaculate
Conception. He says that Mary was “all pure from the first moment of her
existence” (gegne theion euthus).
(6)
It
is rather strange that the most precise Greek affirmation of the Immaculate
Conception should come from the most anti-Latin, the most “Protestantizing” of
the patriarchs of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris (+1638). He too gave a sermon
on the Dormition of Our Lady. He said that Mary “was wholly sanctified from the
very first moment of her conception (ole
egiasmene en aute te sullepsei) when her body was formed and when
her soul was united to her body”; and further on he writes: “As for the Panaghia,
who is there who does not know that she is pure and immaculate, that she was a
spotless instrument, sanctified in her conception and her birth, as befits one
who is to contain the One whom nothing can contain?” (7)
Gerasimo,
patriarch of Alexandria (+1636), taught at the same time. according to the
Chronicle of the Greek, Hypsilantis, that the Theotokos “was not subject to the
sin of our first father” (ouk
npekeito to propatopiko hamarte mati); and a manual of dogmatic
theology of the same century, written by Nicholas Coursoulas (+1652) declared
that “the soul of the Holy Virgin was made exempt from the stain of original
sin from the first moment of its creation by God and union with the body.” (8)
I
am not unaware that other voices were raised against the Immaculate Conception.
Damascene the Studite, in the sixteenth century, Mitrophanes Cristopoulos,
patriarch of Alexandria and Dosithes, patriarch of Jerusalem in the seventeenth
century, all taught that Mary was sanctified only in her mother’s womb.
Nicephorus Gallistus in the fourteenth century and the Hagiorite in the
eighteenth century taught that Mary was purified from original sin on the day
of the Annunciation. But the opinions that we have heard in favour of the
Immaculate Conception are not less eminent or less well qualified.
It
was after the Bull of Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus,
of 8 December, 1854, that the greater part of the Greek Church seems to have
turned against belief in the Immaculate Conception. Yet, in 1855, the Athenian
professor, Christopher Damalas, was able to declare: ”We have always held
and always taught this doctrine. This point is too sacred to give rise to
quarrels and it has no need of a deputation from Rome”. (9)
But
it was not until 1896 that we find an official text classing the Immaculate
Conception among the differences between Rome and the Orthodox East. This text
is the synodal letter written by the Oecumenical Patriarch, Anthimes VII, in
reply to the encyclical Piaeclara Gratulationis addressed by Leo XIII to the people of
the Eastern Churches. Moreover, from the Orthodox point of view, the
Constantinopolitan document has only a very limited doctrinal importance.
Although it should be read with respect and attention, yet it possesses none of
the marks of infallibility, nor does ecclesiastical discipline impose belief in
its teachings as a matter of conscience, and it leaves the ground quite clear
for theological and historical discussions on this point.
IV. Let us now consider more
closely the attitude of the Russian Church towards the question of the
Immaculate Conception.
Every
Russian theological student knows that St Dmitri, metropolitan of Rostov (17th
century), supported the Latin “theory of the epiklesis” (10); but young
Russians are inclined to consider the case of Dmitri as a regrettable
exception, an anomaly. If they knew the history of Russian theology a little
better they would know that from the middle ages to the seventeenth century the
Russian Church has, as a whole, accepted belief in the Immaculate Conception.
(11)
The
Academy of Kiev, with Peter Moghila, Stephen Gavorsky and many others, taught
the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology. A confraternity of the
Immaculate Conception was established at Polotsk in 1651. The Orthodox members
of the confraternity promised to honour the Immaculate Conception of Mary all
the days of their life. The Council of Moscow of 1666 approved Simeon Polotsky’s
book called The Rod of Direction,
in which he said: “Mary was exempt from original sin from the moment of her
conception”. (12)
All
this cannot be explained as the work of Polish Latinising influence. We have
seen that much was written on the same lines in the Greek East. When as a
result of other Greek influences, attacks were launched in Moscow against the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, a protest was made by the Old Believers
– a sect separated from the official Church by reason of its faithfulness to
certain ancient rites. Again in 1841, the Old Believers said in an official
declaration that “Mary has had no share in original sin”. (13) To all those who
know how deeply the Old Believers are attached to the most ancient beliefs and
traditions, their testimony has a very special significance. In 1848, the “Dogmatic
Theology” of the Archimandrite Antony Amphitheatroff, approved by the Holy
Synod as a manual for seminaries, reproduced Palamas’ curious theory of the
progressive purification of the Virgin’s ancestors, a theory which has already
been mentioned and which proclaims Mary’s exemption from original sin. Finally,
we should notice that the Roman definition of 1854 was not attacked by the most
representative theologians of the time, Metropolitan Philaretes of Moscow and
Macarius Boulgakov.
It
was in 1881 that the first important writing appeared in Russian literature in
opposition to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It was written by
Professor A. Lebedev of Moscow who held the view that the Virgin was completely
purified from original sin at Golgotha. (14) In 1884, the Holy Synod included
the question of the Immaculate Conception in the programme of “polemical”, that
is to say, anti-Latin theology. Ever since then, official Russian theology has
been unanimously opposed to the Immaculate Conception.
This
attitude of the Russians has been strengthened by a frequent confusion of Mary’s
immaculate conception with the virgin birth of Christ. This confusion is to be
found not only among ignorant people, but also among many theologians and
bishops. In 1898, Bishop Augustine, author of a “Fundamental Theology”,
translated “immaculate conception” by “conception sine
semine”. More recently still, Metropolitan Anthony then Archbishop
of Volkynia, wrote against the “impious heresy of the immaculate and virginal
conception of the Most Holy Mother of God by Joachim and Anne.” It was a theologian
of the Old Believers, A. Morozov, who had to point out to the archbishop that
he did not know what he was talking about. (15)
V. There are three principal
causes which provide an explanation for the opposition with which the doctrine
of the Immaculate Conception has been met in the Orthodox Church.
First
and foremost, there is the mistrust felt a priori by many Orthodox about any doctrine
defined by Rome since the separation of East and West. That, of course, is
primarily a psychological reason.
There
is also the fear of formulating a doctrine which might not seem to have
sufficient foundation in Holy Scripture and the patristic tradition. We have
left the patristic age outside the bounds of our discussion, limiting ourselves
to the Orthodox theology of Byzantium: but it seems that (from St Andrew of
Crete to St Theodore the Studite) much evidence can be produced from Greek
sources in favour of the Immaculate Conception.
Finally
there is the fear of restricting the redemptive work of Christ. Once you have exempted
Mary from original sin, have you not exempted her from the effects of her Son’s
redemption? Is it not possible for a single exception to destroy the whole
economy of salvation? The Orthodox theologians who think on these lines have
not given careful enough consideration, or indeed any at all, to the fact that
according to Pius IX’s definition, Mary was only exempt from original sin in
view of the merits of Christ: “intuitu
meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis”. Therefore,
Christ’s redemptive action was operative in Mary’s case although in a quite
different way from that of the rest of mankind.
We
will add this, too. Orthodox theology has always insisted on the beauty of
human nature in its integrity before the fall. Now it is the doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception which alone can justify this ‘humanism’. It is only in
Mary conceived without sin, that human nature has reached its fulfilment and
actualized all its possibilities. Mary is the one and only success of the human
race. It is through her and in her that humanity has escaped total failure and
has offered to the divine a point of entry into the human. Mary, said
Metropolitan George of Nicomedia (19th century) “was the magnificent first
fruit offered by human nature to the Creator.” (16) “She is”, said Nicholas
Cabasilas (14th century), “truly the first man, the first and only being to
have manifested in herself the fullness of human nature.” (17)
VI. Let us draw our conclusions:
1.
The Immaculate Conception of Mary is not a defined dogma in the Orthodox
Church.
2.
One can say that since the first part of the nineteenth century the majority of
Orthodox believers and theologians have taken their stand against this
doctrine.
3.
Nevertheless. it is impossible to say that from the Orthodox point of view the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception constitutes a heresy; for canonically it
has never been defined as such by an oecumenical council and in fact it has
never met with the disapproval of a universal and unchanging consensus of
opinion.
4.
There does exist a continuous line of eminent Orthodox authorities who have
taught the Immaculate Conception.
5.
Therefore the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has every right to its
existence in the Orthodox Church as an opinion of a school or as a personal theologoumenon based on a tradition worthy of
respect.
6.
It follows therefore that the Roman definition of 1854 does not constitute an
obstacle to the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches.
7.
It is my own view that not only does the Immaculate Conception not contradict
any Orthodox dogma but that it is a necessary and logical development of the
whole of Orthodox belief. (18)
Regina
sine labe concepta, ora pro nobis.
Footnotes:
1.
Photius, homil. I in Annunt.,
in the collection of St. Aristarchis, Photiou logoi kai homiliai, Constantinople 1901, t. II, p. 236.
2.
Theognostes, hom. in fest. Dormitionis,
Greek Cod. 763 of the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, fol. 8. v.
3.
Euthemius, hom. in concept. S. Annae,
Cod. laudianus 69 of the Bodleian Library, fol. 122-126.
4.
Photius, In Praesentat. Deiparae,
in the collection of Sophoclis Grigoriou tou Palama homiliai kb’, Athens 1861.
5.
Manuel Paleologus, orat. in Dormit., Vatic.
graecus 1619. A Latin
translation is to be found in Migne P.G. t. CLVI, 91-108.
6.
Scholarios, hom. in Dormit.,
Greek Cod. 1294 of the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, fol. 139 v.
7.
Lukaris, hom. in Dormit.,
Cod. 263 of the Metochion of the Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople, fol.
612-613, and hom. in Nativ.,
Cod. 39 of the Metochion, fol. 93.
8.
Hypsilantis, Ta meta ten alosin,
Constantinople, 1870, p. 131. Coursoulas, Sunopsis ten ieras Theologias,
Zante, 1862, vol. I, pp. 336-342.
9.
Quoted by Frederic George Lee, in The Sinless Conception of the
Mother of God, London 1891, p. 58.
10.
See Chiliapkin, St Dmitri of Rostov and his
times (Russian), in
the Zapiski of the Faculty of history and philology of the University of St.
Petersberg, t. XXIV, 1891, especially pp. 190-193.
11. See
J. Gagarin, L’Eglise russe et L’immaculee
conception, Paris 1876.
12.
See Makary Bulgakov, History of the Russian Church (Russian) 1890, t. XII, p. 681. On the
Polotsk brotherhood, see the article by Golubiev, in the Trudv of the Academy
of Kiev, November 1904, pp. 164-167.
13.
See N. Subbotin, History of the hierarchy of
Bielo-Krinitza (Russian),
Moscow, 1874, t. I, p. xlii of the Preface.
14.
An article by M. Jugie, “Le
dogme de l’immaculee conception d’apres un theologien russe,” in Echos
d’Orient, 1920, t. XX, p. 22, gives an analysis of Lebedev’s
monography.
15.
Letter of Archbishop Anthony of Volhynia to the Old Believers, in the organ of
the Russian Holy Synod, The Ecclesiastical News of 10 March 1912, p. 399.
Morozov’s reply is contained in the same periodical on 14 July 1912, pp.
1142-1150.
16. Hom.
III in Praesentat., Migne P.G. t. C, col. 1444.
17. Hom.
in Nativ. B. Mariae, Greek Cod. 1213 of the Bibliotheque Nationale
of Paris, fol. 3, r.
18.
On the whole subject see M. Jugie, “De
immaculata Deiparae conceptione a byzantinis scriptoribus post schisma
consummatum edocta”, in Acta II conventus Velehradensis,
Prague 1910; and article “Immaculee
Conception,” in Dictionnaire de theologie
catholique, Paris 1922, t. VII, col. 894-975. This last article by
Jugie gives a complete bibliography of the subject. Much will also be found in
P. de Meester, “Le dogme
de l’immaculee conception et la doctrine de l’Eglise grecque”: 5
articles published in the Revue de l’Orient chretien,
Paris, 1904-1905.
(From Chrysostom,
Vol. VI, No. 5 [Spring 1983]: 151-159).
Fonte: Eclectic Orthodoxy, Sept. 1, 2015. L'articolo è anche in Mistagogy Resource Center, Sept. 8, 2016
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento