By JAMES LIKOUDIS
It is not only Protestants who seriously misunderstand the Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church. Surprisingly, various Eastern Orthodox who have traditionally manifested a deep and devout veneration of the Theotokos (Mother of God) are seen to deviate from their own ancient traditions. Thus one finds astonishing the views of Archbishop John Maximovitch (1896-1966) who possessed a reputation as a holy ascetic (he was “glorified” [canonized] by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in 1994, this being later acknowledged by the patriarchate of Moscow in 2008).
In his The Orthodox Veneration of the Birthgiver of God (given wide circulation by the St. Herman Brotherhood, fourth printing, 1994), he vigorously denied that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, was sinless throughout her life (see pp. 59-60). Regarded as a saint by many Orthodox, he proceeded to contradict the common teaching of other Orthodox who confess “the perfect personal immaculateness and perfect sanctity of the Mother of God” (cf. Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, p. 195).
The sinlessness of Mary is professed in various Orthodox catechisms as well as in the Byzantine liturgy and the writings of the Greek Fathers who excluded any possibility of sin in her. Exalted in Byzantine Greco-Slav piety as next to Christ and the holiest of human beings, as “full of grace,” “more glorious than the Cherubim and more honorable than the Seraphim,” “more worthy than all creatures and holier than all the Saints,” the Blessed Virgin is praised for surpassing all creatures in purity. Venerable liturgical expressions that the Theotokos was “alone absolutely immaculate” and “alone ever blessed” were understood by centuries of Eastern Christians as meaning she was ever free from actual sin.
As St. Thomas Aquinas would affirm: “The Blessed Virgin was chosen by Heaven to be the Mother of God; but she would not have been a Mother fitting for God, had she ever sinned. Therefore we must simply confess that the Blessed Virgin Mary never committed any kind of [actual] sin whatsoever” (Summa Theologiae, III, Q. xxvii, art. 4).
Moreover, such expressions as the above would soon be seen as pointing to her being conceived without original sin and so graced as to never having been under the power of the Devil. When Blessed Pius IX defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 to the consternation of some Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox theologian Professor Christopher Damalas stated in 1855: “We have always held and taught this doctrine. This point is too sacred to give rise to quarrels.” The Russian Orthodox theologian Lev Gillet would affirm more recently 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.”
However, Archbishop Maximovitch combined his assault on the “Papal Church” with rejection of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which, in fact, finds support in the teaching of Eastern Fathers and saints and later Greek and Russian theologians. “This [Catholic] teaching denies all her virtues. After all, if Mary by the grace [of the Immaculate Conception] was preserved from sin even after her birth, then in what does her merit exist?”
Catholic theologian Robert Stackpole in a superb chapter “The Immaculate Conception in Catholic Apologetics” in the volume The Immaculate Conception in the Life of the Church (Marian Press, Stockbridge, Mass.: 2004) handily refuted this and other objections of the archbishop.
What the latter had failed to understand is that the Holy Spirit could and did preserve Mary from the stain of original sin so that she was holy from the very beginning of her earthly life. She was never deprived of the Holy Spirit and His divinizing grace, the absence of which results in a disordered nature and the inclination to sin (concupiscence). Mary was without concupiscence and did not lose free will and could cooperate with grace to surrender her will in faith and love and obedience to the Lord. It was precisely her cooperation with the grace of the Holy Spirit that enabled the All-Holy Virgin Mary to freely surrender herself to the will of God at the Annunciation. As Dr. Stackpole observed, “It is in this surrender to God that her merit consists.”
The Orthodox archbishop also mistakenly charged St. Augustine and St. Ambrose as including Mary among those infected with the taint of original sin. St. Augustine actually wrote that he excepted from sin the Holy Virgin Mary “concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins.” St. Ambrose called Mary “a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Neither St. Augustine nor St. Ambrose may be said to have explicitly taught the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., she was holy in her very conception) but neither can it be said that they (and other fathers of the ancient Church) contradicted it. They rather prepared the way for its doctrinal development.
The archbishop also took to task the term “Co-Redemptrix” for our Lady which, like “Mother of God” is also so misunderstood by Protestants. The term “co” does not mean “co-equal” to suggest that she is a redeemer co-equal with Christ. Rather, the prefix “co” comes from the Latin “cum,” meaning “with.” The term as applied to the Mother of our Lord refers to her role of cooperating in and of participating in the unique redemptive saving work of Christ. She participated in a special way in the actions, sufferings, and death of Christ, so as to be a co-redemptrix with Christ but never the equal of our Redeemer. She is always a creature though the first to be redeemed by Christ and in the most excellent way, as the great Franciscan doctor, Blessed John Duns Scotus, would affirm.
In noting the great Catholic renaissance in Marian theology that took place in the 19th and 20th centuries, a contemporary Orthodox theologian, M.C. Steenberg, has fortunately provided a fitting antidote to Archbishop Maximovitch’s mistaken criticism:
“The language of ‘mediatrix,’ ‘co-redeemer,’ ‘advocate’ — the terms and concepts at the heart of Catholic renewal in Marian devotion — have had a long history in Orthodox tradition. . . . Multiple services petition Mary as the ‘mediatrix of our salvation’…and the Akathistos hymn to the Mother of God ends with a prayer that proclaims Mary as the only help and protection of Christians. . . . In Orthodox devotional practice, Mary is also proclaimed ‘co-redemptrix,’ ‘mediatrix,’ ‘advocate’.”
In conclusion, a more profound examination of the rich theological resources retained in the apostolic tradition of both East and West regarding the exalted sanctity of the Mother of God will do much to remove the obstacles which impede the long-hoped-for dogmatic Reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
May the prayers of the Most Holy Virgin Mother of God, Mother of the Church, and Help of Christians, hasten that day.
+ + +
(James Likoudis is author of three books and many articles dealing with Eastern Orthodoxy. See his website www.jameslikoudispage.com.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress