The Immaculate Conception

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601140681/ref=x_gr_w_bb?ie=UTF8&tag=x_gr_w_bb-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1601140681&SubscriptionId=1MGPYB6YW3HWK55XCGG2

The Immaculate Conception by Fr. Christiaan W. Kappes

I've been involved in a few discussions concerning the Orthodox position on the Immaculate Conception. I've been told repeatedly that the Orthodox do not adhere to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, i.e., the doctrine that the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved free of the reality and stain of original sin at all times during her life, including the moment of her conception. My understanding was that the doctrine was redundant insofar as the Orthodox do not follow the doctrine of original sin.

With that understanding, this book is eye-opening. The author, Father Christiaan W. Kappes, traces in great detail the continuing understanding in the Orthodox church that Mary was at all times “prepurified,” meaning that she was preserved free of the stain of original sin. Father Kappes examines the patristic tradition prior to Palamism before discussing the Palamistic tradition itself, which is a quintessentially Orthodox tradition. This conclusion should be stunning to most people engaged in internet discussions/debates on the subject.

Father Kappes begins with a discussion of Gregory Nazianzen's designation of the Blessed Virgin Mary as “Prokathartheisa.” “Prokathartheisa” comes from the same root as “catharsis,” meaning a purification or cleansing. (Kathairo means “I clean.”) Prokathartheisa is a “re-purification.” Gregory recognized that Jesus and Mary were “purified” according to the Laws of Moses according to Luke 2:22, but this creates a conundrum because Jesus clearly did not need “purification.” According to Nazianzan, Jesus was purified – or “pre-purified” – previously because he had been “conceived from a virgin after she had been prepurified.” (p. 21.) Nazianzen's contemporary, Rufinus of Aquileia, translated “prepurified” as “immaculate.” (p. 22 – 23.)

Father Kappes explains that Nanzianzen's position was that that there were parallels between the purification of Jesus and Mary; just as Jesus “purification” was not due to any sin on the part of Jesus, Mary's purification was not due to any sin on her part. (p. 26-27.)

The language of “prepurification” was picked up by other Orthodox theologians. St. Sophronius the Hagiopolite (560-638) used the term in a way that emphasized a qualitative difference between Mary and other human beings. (p. 31.) “Prepurification is classed among absolutely positive attributes, which are in Mary's possession in a superior degree accounting for her surpassing holiness.” (p. 31.) Sophronius described Mary as “stainless.” (p. 34.) Sophronius also held that Mary surpassed John the Baptist in every respect, and John had been sanctified in his mother's womb. (See p. 173.)

The Sixth Ecumenical Counsel (Constantinople) (680 AD) described Mary as the “immaculate virgin” which was associated with the idea of prepurification. John of Damascene (675-749) relied on Nanzianzen in seeing a parallel between Jesus and Mary in that just as Jesus purified the waters of his baptism, Mary purified water. (p. 42.) Damascene also placed Mary in the category of those sanctified and hallowed in their mothers' womb, i.e., John the Baptist and Jeremiah, but affirmed that Mary was superior to both. (p. 44 – 45.) Thus, John the Baptist “is unique (per the Damascene) for possessing boththe grace of Jeremiah and of Elizabeth and Zechariah” and being “the greatest among men,” but only among “men” because Mary is the greatest among all people, men and women included. (p. 49 – 50.) (Because of the Christokos controversy, [Damascene[ simply places Mary in a transcendent category inapplicable to any other creature. (p. 51.).)

Father Kappes suggests that the Damascene's doctrine was that one of the effects of grace was to make Mary fertile. The suggestion is that Mary was not mature enough to become pregnant and required divine assistance. Alternatively, fertility was associated with concupiscence, and the lack of sexual desires meant an absence of fertility, unless God gave grace to overcome that limitation. (p. 56-57.) A point here is that because of her purity, Mary was “spared even the normal femine course of physical maturation.” (p. 58.) These are illuminating insights into the mind of the time, but also more than a little bit uncomfortable to think about.

Mary's prepurification was also a liturgical point in the Synodikon. (843 AD.)

Prepurification was also a doctrine taught by St. Gregory Palamas (1296 – 1359.) Palamas taught that Jesus was not in need of purification since he “was born from a spotless Virgin.” (p. 72.) Other theologians in the Palamite tradition held to the doctrine of prepurification, including Nicholas Cabasilas (1391) who held the title of “defender of the Immaculata.” (p. 86.) Cabasilas drew parallels between Mary and the Angels as being exempt from any moral defect due to the perfection of their created natures, which merited Mary the title “Queen of Angels.” (p. 89.) Father Kappes writes:

“In conclusion, one of the greatest Orthodox authorities (after Palamas himself) of the second millennium also endorsed the prokathartheisa as someone with an immaculate, angelic nature occasioned by her title of the “Prepurified One.” (p. 89.)
Father Kappes goes on to discuss the writings of the anti-Thomist, anti-Catholic Mark Eugenicus (circa 1430 AD), whose reflections on Mary included the understanding that there are two known examples of direct contact of humanity with divinity, i.e., Jesus and Mary. (p. 125.) Eugenicus theorized that Mary did not have a gradual sanctification and that she was graced with “theovision” – the perfect vision of the blessed in Heaven which is symbolized by the “light of Mount Tabor” in the Transfiguration “in virtue of her spotless nature.” (p. 133.) Mary's fiat parallels Jesus's baptism and her life before the Incarnation parallels that of her son even before the redemptive act of the cross. (p. 153.)

Kappes offers the following:

“Though Mary is not historically the ‘first created creature,' Mark (like Cabasilas) sees her as the primary act of divine creation. This is so since the term Theotokos (analytically) is inseparably linked to the Incarnate Word. As such, Palamite interests in Mariology are inexorably driven by her role as supreme mediatrix between both extremes of the transcendental disjunctive attributes of being in her containing womb.” (p. 154.)

Eugenicus also held that the immaculate conception of Mary followed from Mary's having surpassed John the Baptist in every respect. “A fortiori Mary's purification was at conception, for this is the only excellence withheld from the Baptist.” (p. 173.)

Father Kappes observes that Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus mirrors Palamite Mariology. (p. 185.)

Father Kappes concludes that “the Greek Fathers in the line of the Nazianzen until the introduction of Byzantine Thomism in the 14th century – never vacillated about the all-immaculate status of the BVM, from the first moment of her existence until her glorious assumption into heaven.” (p. 197.)

I found this to be an interesting and informative book in light of my own disputations about the status of the Immaculate Conception in Orthodox theology. I was too willing to accept the casual dismissal of the doctrine by those who argue that Orthodoxy has nothing comparable to this doctrine. Obviously, the spotlessness or sinlessness of Mary at all times has been a distinct understanding of at least one strand of classical Orthodoxy.

The writing in this book is generally accessible. Father Kappes sometimes drops into Greek letters without offering a parallel English word. The text is clear and supported by ample footnotes and discussions. Father Kappes does walk the reader through the argument in a patient manner, albeit, obviously, the concepts and language used by the patristic and Palamite authorities will be dense and foreign to the modern reader.