By Archbishop Nathanael (Lvov) A book by A. Merzlyukin was recently published, examining the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin…
By Archbishop Nathanael (Lvov)
A book by A. Merzlyukin was recently published, examining the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This book provides a wealth of material, but its shortcomings include an uneasy presentation of the subject and some fundamentally serious historical errors, especially at the beginning. On page 16, the renowned church historian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, who was known to be an Arian, is named a saint. On page 12, even Tryphon the Jew, with whom St. Justin the Philosopher debated, is named a saint. On page 23, the Latin Council of Basel is confused with the Council of Ferrara-Florence. We consider it necessary to point out these errors in an Orthodox publication, lest subsequent Catholic critics attribute them to Orthodox theology as a whole. However, the need to repeatedly recall the differences in the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary between the Orthodox and Latin communities is correctly understood by A. Merzlyukin, and we, for our part, would like to address this issue ourselves.
The Roman Catholic teaching on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, set forth in the decree “Ineffabilis Deus” [“Ineffable God”] of December 8, 1854, by Pope Pius IX, states the following:
“The doctrine which holds that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by special grace and advantages from Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the human race, was preserved from all taint of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore must be firmly and resolutely confessed by all the faithful.”
(A. Merzlyukin, in his book, cites this definition in the original Latin and in a slightly different translation (p. 10).
Explaining this dogmatic statement, the renowned Catholic theologian Ullarthorn writes: “The subject of such an exception to original sin is the person of the Virgin Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its introduction (infusio) into her body. The word ‘conception’ does not imply an active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in her mother’s womb, and her father had the usual participation in its formation. The question is not about the immaculateness of the birth act of her parents. Nor is it about passive conception (conceptio seminis carnis inchoata) [imperfect reception of carnal seed], which, according to the order of nature, precedes the introduction of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and introduced into the body. Mary was preserved from every stain of original sin from the first moment of her incarnation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have any effect on her soul. The active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by Baptism. This essence of original sin was excluded; it had never existed in her soul. Simultaneously with her removal from sin, the state of original holiness, innocence, and righteousness, as the opposite of original sin, was bestowed upon her. By this gift, every stain and vice, all the corrupted spiritual distortions, passions, and infirmities inherent in original sin, were eliminated. But she was also exempted from Adam’s temporal punishments: suffering, bodily weakness, and death. Immunity from original sin was granted to Mary by a single exception to the universal law, thanks to the same merits of Jesus Christ by which other people are cleansed from sin through Baptism. Mary needed a Redeemer to obtain this exception and be delivered from the universal necessity and debt of enslavement to original sin. Mary’s person, by virtue of her descent from Adam, was bound to be enslaved to sin, but as the New Eve, destined to become the Mother of the New Adam, she was, by God’s eternal counsel and by the merits of Christ, exempted from the universal law of original sin. Her redemption was the work of Christ’s redemptive wisdom. “He is a greater redeemer who pays a debt before it is incurred than he who pays it after the debt has been imposed on the debtor.” 1
This is the teaching of the Immaculate Conception as expounded by Ullarthorne, an English Roman Catholic theologian, in his work specifically devoted to explaining this dogma to Anglicans and English Roman Catholics who have recently converted from Anglicanism.
In support of this dogma, Ullarthorne cites the testimony of the so-called “proto-Gospel,” the words of God to the serpent when He expelled our first parents from Paradise: “I will put enmity between thee and the woman… and her seed. She shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise her heel.” But then he conscientiously explains that the reading “she will crush your head” is incorrect, correct: it – the Seed – will crush the head of the serpent, the Seed of the Woman – Christ.
Ullarthorn cites the words of the Archangel Gabriel, “Hail, O Thou Who art full of grace,” and rightly sees this as evidence that the Blessed Virgin Mary is filled with grace. Furthermore, he agrees that this should be seen merely as an illustration of the Virgin Mary’s abundant grace, not as proof of dogma. He cites the testimony of the Old Testament (see Proverbs 8) and especially the Song of Songs (4:7), but acknowledges the inadequacy of this evidence and, in conclusion, frankly states that this dogma cannot be deduced from Holy Scripture, which is why no reference to Holy Scripture was included in the official definition of the dogma by Pope Pius IX.
* * *
The history of this dogma is noteworthy for us. Its origin is linked to the introduction to the West of our Eastern Orthodox feast of December 9—the Conception of St. Anne, the day the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived. Until the 18th century, this feast was usually called the “Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary” in our liturgical books.
As this feast spread to the West in the Middle Ages, legends began to develop around it, leading some Western theologians, such as Richard of Marseille, Peter Comestor, Nicholas of Albania, and the renowned Catherine Emmerich, to the doctrine that the Virgin Mary, like Christ the Savior, was born not in the usual way, but by divine inspiration. This extreme view, however, did not gain currency, but Roman scholasticism hastened to develop the compromise doctrine outlined above. But many authoritative Catholic theologians also spoke out against this doctrine, [such as] Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (the late Metropolitan Anthony called Bernard of Clairvaux an Orthodox saint, despite his Latinity), Peter Damian, Peter Lombard, Alexander of Gol, Bonaventure, Albert the Great, and, finally, Thomas Aquinas.
However, the latter’s objections to the dogma under discussion can be seen as an example of how even non-Orthodox doctrine can be objected to in a non-Orthodox manner. In his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas returns to this topic more than ten times and disagrees with the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, perplexed by how the Virgin Mary could have been redeemed if she had not sinned in any way.
Disputes over this teaching in the Western Church continued for a very long time. On pp. 19–20 of his book, A. Merzlyukin presents a vivid and entirely Orthodox objection to this teaching from Saint Bernard of Clairvaux.
Due to the active resistance to the introduction of this teaching into the dogma of the influential Dominican Order, this dogma was not officially affirmed in the Middle and early modern centuries.
To limit debate over this dogma, Pope Sixtus IV issued a decree in 1483 threatening excommunication for those who considered any controversial opinion to be heretical. Pius V, recognized as a saint by the Latin Church, forbade any debate on this matter in the bull “Ex omnibus afflicti opibus” [“Those who have fallen away from all riches”] on October 1, 1567. Only in the 19th century, when, according to Overbeck, the Roman Curia, in preparation for the soon-to-follow recognition of papal infallibility, required an initial manifestation of this infallible authority in the area of dogmatic teaching, did they choose the dogma of the Immaculate Conception for their purpose.
Notes:
1 Ullarthorne. Immaculate Conception [Ullarthorne. Immaculate Conception].
2 Cf.: Gen. 3:15. – Ed.
Source in Russian: Reader in Comparative Theology: A Textbook for the Third Year of the Theological Seminary / [Ed. by Nun Juliana (Samsonova)]. – Moscow: Publishing House of the Moscow Metochion of the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra, 2005. – 846 p. / Archbishop Nathanael (Lvov). On the Latin Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, p. 672-692.
(to be continued)
