By Archbishop Nathanael (Lvov)
A. Merzlyukin’s book, recently published, delves into the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, offering extensive material. However, it has shortcomings, such as a challenging presentation and some significant historical errors, particularly at the onset. On page 16, the respected church historian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, an Arian, is incorrectly called a saint. On page 12, Tryphon the Jew, who debated with St. Justin the Philosopher, is also wrongly named a saint. Furthermore, the Latin Council of Basel is mistakenly equated with the Council of Ferrara-Florence on page 23. It’s vital to highlight these inaccuracies in an Orthodox publication to prevent Catholic critics from attributing them to Orthodox theology broadly. Nonetheless, A. Merzlyukin aptly recognizes the necessity of continually acknowledging the differences in how the Blessed Virgin Mary is venerated between Orthodox and Latin communities, an issue we wish to address ourselves.
The Roman Catholic perspective on the Immaculate Conception, as outlined in the decree “Ineffabilis Deus” [“Ineffable God”] of December 8, 1854, by Pope Pius IX, is as follows:
“The doctrine which states that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, from her conception’s first moment, by God’s special grace and favor, in view of Jesus Christ’s merits, the human race’s Redeemer, was preserved from original sin’s stain, is divinely revealed and must be firmly confessed by all the faithful.”
(Merzlyukin presents this definition in original Latin and a different translation on page 10 in his book).
Explaining this dogmatic statement, notable Catholic theologian Ullarthorn writes: “The unique exception to original sin concerns the Virgin Mary at her soul’s creation and its infusion into her body. ‘Conception’ doesn’t imply her parents’ active or generative conception. Her body formed in her mother’s womb, with her father’s regular participation. The issue isn’t with her parents’ birth act’s purity, nor with passive conception (conceptio seminis carnis inchoata) [imperfect reception of carnal seed], which, by nature’s order, precedes rational soul infusion. True conception occurs when the soul is created and placed into the body. Mary was free from original sin from her incarnation’s first moment, receiving sanctifying grace before sin impacted her soul. Original sin’s active essence wasn’t removed from her soul, unlike others’ baptismal cleansing; it never existed in her soul. Alongside her sin removal, original holiness, innocence, and righteousness, opposing original sin, were given to her. This gift eradicated every stain, vice, corrupted spiritual distortions, passions, and infirmities tied to original sin. She was also exempt from Adam’s temporal punishments: suffering, bodily weakness, and death. Mary received immunity from original sin through a single exceptional measure to the universal law, due to Christ’s merits that cleanse others through Baptism. Mary needed a Redeemer for this exemption, freeing her from the universal necessity and original sin’s enslavement. By descent from Adam, Mary was subject to sin’s enslavement, but as the New Eve, destined to mother the New Adam, she was, by God’s eternal counsel and Christ’s merits, freed from original sin’s universal law. Her redemption was Christ’s redemptive wisdom’s effort. “A greater redeemer pays a debt beforehand than one who settles after the debtor incurs it.” 1
This is Ullarthorne’s explanation of the Immaculate Conception dogma, aimed at newly converted Anglicans and English Roman Catholics.
Supporting this dogma, Ullarthorne references the “proto-Gospel,” where God tells the serpent upon expelling humanity 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.” He clarifies that “she will crush your head” is incorrect, while the Seed – Christ – will crush the serpent’s head.
Ullarthorne cites the Archangel Gabriel’s words, “Hail, O Thou Who art full of grace,” as evidence of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s gracefulness, seeing it as an illustration, not a dogmatic proof. He refers to the Old Testament (see Proverbs 8) and especially the Song of Songs (4:7), acknowledging the evidence’s insufficiency, ultimately confessing that
Leave a Reply