The Most Holy Theotokos

Concerning the Most Holy Theotokos, the dominant Church holds completely different beliefs. Its modern missionaries and theologians reject the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception concerning the Theotokos. Archpriest A. Lebedev wrote a large work, On the Immaculate Conception, in which he proves that this teaching is a Latin heretical dogma. In the recently published brochure by Priest K. Okolovich, issued by the missionary-general V. Skvortsov, Does the Teaching of the Catholic Church on the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin Contradict the Word of God?, it is proved that this teaching is contrary to Holy Scripture. Father Aktsipetrov, the Vladimir missionary, proves the heretical nature of the teaching on the Immaculate Conception with particular zeal. Meanwhile, the most prominent archpastors of the New-Rite Russian Church held this teaching. It entered into her canonical book, was accepted conciliarly, and to this day remains an unchanged dogma of the Church. “In the seventeenth century,” says Archpriest Lebedev, “some of the Western-Russian scholars, such as St. Dimitry of Rostov, Lazar Baranovich, Ioanniky Galyatovsky, and Antony Radivilovsky, held the teaching on the Immaculate Conception and openly preached it; Father Gagarin points to this case as testimony to the universal belief of the Russian Church in the Latin dogma. But this case clearly testified that this teaching had been borrowed from the Latins under the influence of the special circumstances of the South-Russian Church, and especially of the Kiev Academy of that time; and that the Great-Russian and Greek Churches, which had no direct contact with the Latin Church, remained pure both from this and from similar Latin new teachings. Therefore, while the teaching on the Immaculate Conception remained within the bounds of the South-Russian Church, it remained unnoticed as the private opinion of certain persons; but as soon as it came into collision with the strict Orthodoxy of the Great-Russian Church, it was noticed and rejected as a Latin error, together with other similar errors.” Archpriest Lebedev speaks falsely when he says that the teaching on the spotless conception of the Most Holy Theotokos was a “private opinion” and existed only in the SouthRussian Church. We have indisputable testimony that this teaching was accepted by the whole Russian Nikonian Church and confirmed by the Council of 1666–1667, in which the Eastern Patriarchs also took part. In the book The Rod (Жезл), “constructed” by this Council, it is said: “The heavenly Bridegroom speaks thus to His bride in the Song of Songs: You are all beautiful, My beloved, and there is no blemish in you. The interpreters of Divine Scripture, first of all, apply this to the Most Pure Theotokos. For this reason, some, looking upon that same purity and holiness of Hers, do not hesitate to say that She was not subject even to ancestral sin, and with these the Orthodox Church also seems to agree, singing thus on the day of Her Most Holy Nativity: We hymn Your holy Nativity; we also honor Your spotless conception, O Bride called by God.” Professor P. S. Smirnov says that this teaching of The Rod is indeed “Latin.” But the definitions of the Council that confirmed The Rod with all its heretical thoughts have not been repealed and are recognized as true even by the contemporary Church. In the State Council, during the debates on the Old Believer bill, Archbishop Nikolai of Warsaw, in his speech, authoritatively declared that if one admits that the Council of 1667 “sinned against the truth,” then this means “to grievously insult the Orthodox Church.”

Denouncing Its Own Conciliar Teaching

According to the judgment of Archbishop Nikolai, all these denouncers of the conciliar teaching on the spotless conception of the Most Holy Theotokos — the various Lebedevs, Okoloviches, Antsipetrovs, and Smirnovs are “grievous insulters of the Orthodox Church,” for they assert that the teaching on the spotless conception is not only an “error against the truth”; it is contrary to the Word of God, a Latin heretical dogma. And yet this very teaching is contained by the whole Nikonian Church in the conciliar book The Rod (Жезл). One of the more prominent contemporary theologians of the dominant Church, Archpriest-Professor P. Ya. Svetlov, makes an attempt to defend “the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin.” This dogma, Father Svetlov says, “undoubtedly has a right to its place in the list of dogmatic differences between the Roman and Orthodox Churches. However, this difference has been exaggerated by polemics, if one sees in it, alongside others, a basis for the separation of the Churches: the communion of the Western and Eastern Churches was not hindered by the existence of this teaching in the West since the ninth century... The teaching on the Immaculate Conception... had as its purpose to serve the exaltation of the Mother of God as the merciful intercessor for men and sanctioned the reverent veneration of the Mother of God among Western Christians. Thus, it flowed from a good source... Catholics may ask by what indisputable ecclesiastical authority, or at what Ecumenical Council, their teaching was condemned as heresy.”

Conciliar Contradiction

Justice requires us to add that the Council of 1667, which “constructed” the book The Rod (Жезл), also confirmed another theological-symbolic book The Tablet and commanded that it be held “in great honor because of the many theological understandings and Church Mysteries which it has and contains within itself.” Among the “many theological understandings” of The Tablet there is also contained the following blasphemous “mystery” concerning the Most Holy Theotokos, who is glorified as “more honorable than the Cherubim”: “Therefore the Virgin did not give birth with corruption, but because the Holy Spirit came upon Her and cleansed Her by the word of Archangel Gabriel; for the ancestral defilement was in Her.” According to one conciliar book, the dominant Church acknowledges the Most Holy Theotokos as not partaking of ancestral sin; according to another, likewise conciliar book, it declares that She had “ancestral defilement.” Astonishing theology.

Summary

            Church Council
      ┌──────────┴─────────┐
 "The Rod"            "The Tablet"
      │                    │
"Theotokos free        "Theotokos had
from ancestral sin"    ancestral defilement"
      └──────────┬─────────┘
    "How can both be official?"

The official Russian Church was inconsistent in its teaching about the Most Holy Theotokos. While later Orthodox theologians condemned the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as a Latin error, the official seventeenth-century church books approved by the Council of 1666-1667 contained statements both supporting a form of the Immaculate Conception and, elsewhere, teaching that the Virgin Mary had "ancestral defilement" before being purified. The contradictions are evidence that the dominant Church accepted conflicting doctrines and lacked consistency in its theology concerning the Mother of God.