Clarification on the sinlessness of Mary from the Orthodox Perspective

  • Thread starter Thread starter carlos19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FrKimel said:
I am reminded of this story told by St Silouan:

While some Church Fathers can be cited in support of the view that the Virgin Mary was guilty of weakness or venial sin, this does not represent, in my opinion, the long dominant position of the Orthodox Church, as expressed in prayer and hymnody. Read the appointed canons and prayers, for example, for the Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple:

The following passage from Sergius Bulgakov represents the faith of many in the Orthodox Church:

Bulgakov asks if the condition of Romans 7 can be applied to the Theotokos (“I do not do what I want, but what I hate to do”). Bulgakov replies, “If anyone dares to touch God’s Ark with these words, let him provide a full account of his audacity and show where, when and in what the Most Pure committed the evil that she herself hated. It suffices merely to pose this question in order to be horrified by it.”

It is precisely the prayer of the Church that makes it difficult, perhaps impossible, to ever accuse the Theotokos of actual sin. Perhaps, like St Sophrony, one might momentarily entertain the question; but our devotional relationship with the Panagia resolves all doubt. Orthodox may debate when the Blessed Virgin entered into theosis (her conception? entrance into the Holy of Holies? the conception of Christ Jesus in her womb?); but they do not seriously debate her sinlessness. My experience may be limited, but I have yet to meet an Orthodox believer who believed that Mary was a sinner, just like the rest of us. Like us she shared in the ancestral sin of mortality, but was she ever guilty of actual sin? If she was, could we sing these words: “It is truly right to bless thee, O Theotokos, ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim. Without corruption thou gavest birth to God the Word. True Theotokos, we magnify thee.”
Click to expand...
They are few and far between in real life. On the internet they are a bit more common.
 
KathleenGee said:
Thank you so much, Fr Kimel…your sharing reflects the presence of Christ in your consecrated soul.

Jesus’ constant prayer was that we would be one so the world may believe. How much the world needs the Lord. Many American Catholics hunger more for deeper expression in the sacred mysteries as we witness in the Orthodox. Certainly Vatican II fulfilled renewal and correction of religious practices that were in need, as well as help seekers of God throughout the world connect with the Divine through the use of the vernacular…

But how much I would love to see the blending of Latin and Orthodox faith, more beautiful and evangelical and and a most profound statement that God exists among us to the world.
Click to expand...
Dito well put and how much I pray with Jesus that all Christians become one again. Praying especially for the Church of England through which I was baptized.
 
RyanBlack said:
I think we are working from different definitions of the term “unanimous.” To me, unanimous means 100% agreement. By that definition, the Early Church Fathers did not unanimously teach that the Theotokos was sinless, and that’s really the only point I was setting out to make. Now if you want to say that there was overwhelming agreement among the ECFs that she was sinless, I certainly agree. I would add that you contradict yourself in your own explanation of “unanimous.” You state that is “agreement by ALL people in a given situation,” and that “EVERYBODY is of the same mind and acting together as one,” and then you state “it does not constitute absolute agreement.” Since when do “all” and “everybody” mean “the entire group minus a small number”?
Click to expand...
I was thinking how the church through the elect works, for example the Ecumenical Councils are unanimous though every single mind may not be in agreement by vote as in V-II with over 1000 in favor and 200 against. However when that decision in final the other 200 do-not propose or promote their difference in voting against the majority in finality, and the church continues with one-mind in the decision thus being guided by the Holy Spirit.

And it is church we are speaking of. However I would agree there are different examples where I believe you are right as in the Jury process in Court etc.

However, it shines light onto where I’m coming from. I get what you are saying also. Point well taken.
 
Hesychios said:
There is a lot of highly speculative theory in that post. *With all due respect ,pray tell what is the difference between “highly speculative theory” and discerning through reasoned study of scripture, Church History and teachings and the writings of the Saints …indeed you have quoted saints writings and teachings to uphold your position? My position is not mine alone *

I believe that the Holy Theotokos never had any other children because it is traditional fact, in much the same way I believe that she died, was buried and was assumed to heaven. The traditional faith teaches these things as fact but we cannot actually know them to be true, we can believe them to be so if we can be assured that church tradition has not been tampered with over time. Do you not believe what Jesus said when he told his disciples that He would not leave them alone that He would send them the Holy Spirit? With all due respect I have heard this kind of argument used from our separated protestant brethren/I] But these are not the most important facts of faith and I do not need to speculate as to the meaning of them. *Again with all due charity meant because as I explained, I have been in your position, this is exactly the argument I hear daily from our protestant brethren when they …based on the Bible alone but claiming they have the truth because they have the Holy Spirit ,argue with each-other both believing they are right and the other wrong and indeed they can not both be right and yet we have over 30,000 denominational churches all believing something a little different and all claiming to be Christians and that the differences are not ultimately important to their salvation- to me this is a relativistic argument * There is no reason to get expansive on them. They are only important insofar as they support the saving message of Christ and derive all of their meaning from that, not the other way around.

I don’t accept the arguments laid out in Maryann’s post on Saint Mary of Nazareth’s perpetual virginity as salvific,* I think you misunderstood me, I did not specifically say that Mary’s perpetual virginity is salvific in and of it’s own- Jesus is our salvation, but Mary’s perpetual virginity IS part of God’s plan of salvation because it is part of the whole essence of who Jesus is for us. Your line of thinking I have seen most Protestants use ( sorry I use this example always because it is what I deal with daily because of my work- I do not mean to say that you are a Protestant). They say “you only have to believe in Jesus” but fail to expand on the entire mystery of what that actually means and in doing so often subconsciously reject core teachings of Jesus even though it is in the Bible that they state they use as their sole authority- The real presence for example.* It is one person’s explanation for what he/she believes. My strong belief in her perpetual virginity is based on the tradition handed to us, but (all other things being equal) *if *I had never been aware of this tradition my salvation would not be in danger on that count, it is secondary and does not influence one’s faith, actions or life choices. ***You are right that your salvation would not be in danger if you had not been aware of this fact of Mary’s perpetual virginity BUT that is a dangerous argument to make because some have used the “ignorance is bliss” argument to claim that perhaps the un- evangelized are better off not knowing the Gospel because then they will be ignorant and not held accountable due to their ignorance but this idea contradicts Jesus. As far as we know Jesus did not specifically teach about the perpetual virginity of Mary because he did not need to since Mary was there for the Apostles to ask and factual history of that was already known. As we know St John said that if all the things about Jesus were written the book would cover the entire earth and not be enough to contain all the truth. No wonder Jesus sent the Holy Spirit ***

“When comparing doctrines with one another, they [theologians] should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.”
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO Rome 1964

There is a hierarchy of belief, some things are indispensably true and some things are true but not necessary, then there are false beliefs or myths which are not necessarily dangerous or even troublesome and other false beliefs which are certainly dangerous. There are all kinds of ideas being shared out there in the world which are not important for salvation yet right or wrong, people obsess over them, sometimes to the point of alienating or even condemning their brothers and sisters in Christ.

Well perhaps I should not have left the table so soon. Thank you for all the comments to my post. I would like to address this one ( my comments in color - I still have not figured out how to do the line by line quote followed by my comment.)
Click to expand...
 
Maryann_C said:
Well perhaps I should not have left the table so soon. Thank you for all the comments to my post. I would like to address this one ( my comments in color - I still have not figured out how to do the line by line quote followed by my comment.)
Click to expand...
Someone else asked me what I thought and I answered the question.

Sorry if you don’t like it.
 
Nine_Two said:
Dogma and doctrine are not synonyms. I believe I strongly implied that it is doctrine.
Click to expand...
doc·trine (dktrn)
n.
  1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
  2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
  3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
  4. Archaic Something taught; a teaching.
not to be uncharitable about this but they are synonyms

doctrine [dok-trin]  
Example Sentences
Main Entry: doctrine  [dok-trin] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: opinion; principle
Synonyms: article, article of faith, attitude, axiom, basic, belief, canon, concept, convention, conviction, credenda, creed, declaration, dogma, fundamental, gospel, implantation, inculcation, indoctrination, instruction, position, precept, pronouncement, propaganda, proposition, regulation, rule, statement, teaching, tenet, tradition, universal law, unwritten rule
 
carlos19 said:
doc·trine (dktrn)
n.
  1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
  2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
  3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
  4. Archaic Something taught; a teaching.
not to be uncharitable about this but they are synonyms

doctrine [dok-trin]  
Example Sentences
Main Entry: doctrine  [dok-trin] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: opinion; principle
Synonyms: article, article of faith, attitude, axiom, basic, belief, canon, concept, convention, conviction, credenda, creed, declaration, dogma, fundamental, gospel, implantation, inculcation, indoctrination, instruction, position, precept, pronouncement, propaganda, proposition, regulation, rule, statement, teaching, tenet, tradition, universal law, unwritten rule
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I have grown used to using dogma to denote that which is essential for the faith, verses doctrine which is the teaching of the faith. Certainly a distinction between the two concepts is necessary, as it exists in all religions and sects. For example in Roman Catholicism, the dormition is a teaching of the church (regardless of what some claim), while the assumption is proclaimed necessary to believe.

I guess what I’m saying is that not all teachings of the church are equal.
 
FrKimel said:
I am reminded of this story told by St Silouan:

While some Church Fathers can be cited in support of the view that the Virgin Mary was guilty of weakness or venial sin, this does not represent, in my opinion, the long dominant position of the Orthodox Church, as expressed in prayer and hymnody. Read the appointed canons and prayers, for example, for the Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple:

The following passage from Sergius Bulgakov represents the faith of many in the Orthodox Church:

Bulgakov asks if the condition of Romans 7 can be applied to the Theotokos (“I do not do what I want, but what I hate to do”). Bulgakov replies, “If anyone dares to touch God’s Ark with these words, let him provide a full account of his audacity and show where, when and in what the Most Pure committed the evil that she herself hated. It suffices merely to pose this question in order to be horrified by it.”

It is precisely the prayer of the Church that makes it difficult, perhaps impossible, to ever accuse the Theotokos of actual sin. Perhaps, like St Sophrony, one might momentarily entertain the question; but our devotional relationship with the Panagia resolves all doubt. Orthodox may debate when the Blessed Virgin entered into theosis (her conception? entrance into the Holy of Holies? the conception of Christ Jesus in her womb?); but they do not seriously debate her sinlessness. My experience may be limited, but I have yet to meet an Orthodox believer who believed that Mary was a sinner, just like the rest of us. Like us she shared in the ancestral sin of mortality, but was she ever guilty of actual sin? If she was, could we sing these words: “It is truly right to bless thee, O Theotokos, ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim. Without corruption thou gavest birth to God the Word. True Theotokos, we magnify thee.”
Click to expand...
that was so beautiful Fr. Kimel. Are you clergy?
 
Nine_Two said:
Fair enough. I have grown used to using dogma to denote that which is essential for the faith, verses doctrine which is the teaching of the faith. Certainly a distinction between the two concepts is necessary, as it exists in all religions and sects. For example in Roman Catholicism, the dormition is a teaching of the church (regardless of what some claim), while the assumption is proclaimed necessary to believe.

I guess what I’m saying is that not all teachings of the church are equal.
Click to expand...
I hear you my friend…did you read Hesychos’s post he explained this beautifully
 
FrKimel said:
Yes … and I suspect that many are converts from Protestantism.
Click to expand...
That was in my mind too. The underlying theology in the posts that I was reading seem to indicate to me that some of them might have been former protestants. It just sounded so much like the protestants who say that Blessed Mary was both a sinner and had other children. Of course I can’t know for sure.

That brings me back to one question that I do not think has been answered. Do you think it is necessary for the pan orthodox churches to either translate an existing dogmatic book or create one?

While dogma might be included in the liturgy maybe it would be necessary to create one.
 
Maryann_C said:
I know I am coming into this a bit late and am certainly not Orthodox but I have read the whole discussion and I am so glad that you made this last point ,so I hope you don’t mind my weighing in.

I think many theologians would beg to differ with you on the fact that Mary’s perpetual virginity has nothing to do with our salvation. I go to this comment of yours because I was recently in a Bible Study about the whole plan of salvation that went from Genesis to Jesus - in fact that is what it is called. I was dumbfounded that during our table’s discussion on the very last day of the 8 weeks of study, one participant brought up the opinion that Mary had other children because of the Bible translations that use the words for “brother of Jesus” as opposed to “kinsman” when talking about James.

1.In the bigger picture of our salvation when looking at the OT as fulfilled in the NT many point to the sign that virginity of the mother of the Messiah would be a sign of His coming.
One could contend that this still has nothing to do with our salvation but it pertains to WHOM we actually believe that Jesus IS and that recognition* is* necessary for our salvation. One can not say ‘I believe in Jesus’ without meaning ‘I believe in all that he is’.
  1. To the point of her perpetual virginity this too is important to our salvation because of Jesus’ teachings and the teachings about Him. If Jesus had brothers it would be very hard to make the argument that we are co-heirs to the kingdom by our adoption into the family through Jesus because there would be other potential claims to what Jesus is heir of, outside of Him.
  2. Also to Mary’s perpetual virginity- no one has brought up that surely St Joseph, earthly spouse of Mary, being a good and faithful son of Israel, fully knowing who Mary had become and what he himself had been called to do - by an angel no less- would have *dared * violate the dwelling of the Messiah. People who suggest that Joseph and Mary would have had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus are not thinking bigger picture and that Mary and Joseph had their history , teachings and the angels telling them that something sacred was going on here. Let us not forget that God didn’t choose just the first random sinner off the street to say yes…that is just not how He works. God always has had a bigger plan.
  3. Finally to the point of her immaculate conception which is of course different to her perpetual virginity. This is one of those teachings that I used to shy away from and simply accept on faith and obedience when I entered the Catholic Church 4 years ago . I too used to say “well it is not necessary for my salvation really and I believe everything else the Church teaches so they must be right on this too”, BUT I used to think "does it really matter if she was sanctified at her conception or when she said “Yes” or when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and Christ was conceived in her womb? Well as I have grown in my knowledge of the Church as I mine it’s treasuries I have danced around Mary until recently and I came to appreciate who she is much more.
So I put to you something I heard on the CA radio program today … it went something like this " If Mary is the new Eve and Mary as Jesus is the new Adam this was part of God’s plan of salvation to undo what Adam and Eve had done then you have to ask, was Eve created without sin?" If you answer NO to that then you are saying that God created Adam and Eve WITH sin so therefore their “original sin” can not have been THE original sin which leads you down a whole different path. BUT if you agree that Adam and Eve were created creatures , created withoutt sin and if Mary is the new Eve then I ask you WHY would God create Mary WITH sin. The point is again… Mary IS part of the plan of salvation she points to whom Jesus is and you can not believe in Jesus void of God’s great and merciful plan, which includes Mary.

To the person who says that we are talking about Mary who is a creature and to say that if she were created without sin would indicate she was divine I would say … see my previous point and we are talking about God the creator here, for whom all things are possible.
Great discussion thanks it has really helped me know what I believe.
Click to expand...
This was nicely put.
 
FrKimel said:
Yes … and I suspect that many are converts from Protestantism.
Click to expand...
I know of a few who are former atheists or even former Catholics. The only ones whom I have not seen express this view are the cradle Orthodox.
 
Nine_Two said:
Fair enough. I have grown used to using dogma to denote that which is essential for the faith, verses doctrine which is the teaching of the faith. Certainly a distinction between the two concepts is necessary, as it exists in all religions and sects. For example in Roman Catholicism, the dormition is a teaching of the church (regardless of what some claim), while the assumption is proclaimed necessary to believe.

I guess what I’m saying is that not all teachings of the church are equal.
Click to expand...
There is indeed a theological distinction between dogma and doctrine, in spite of the dictionary definition provided above. To quote my theology professor, “I don’t go to Webster for my theological definitions.” Dogma is binding on the faithful to a greater degree than dogma. Assent to dogma is understood as being necessary to one’s salvation, while assent to doctrine is not. For example, it is a matter of Catholic dogma that Christ is truly God and truly man, and belief in this is necessary to salvation, while just war theory is a matter of Catholic doctrine, but one can subscribe to other positions on war (pacifism on the one hand, or on the other hand, the belief that there is no such thing as a just war, but some wars are still necessary) and not jeopardize one’s salvation.
 
carlos19 said:
doc·trine (dktrn)
n.
  1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
  2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
  3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
  4. Archaic Something taught; a teaching.
not to be uncharitable about this but they are synonyms

doctrine [dok-trin]  
Example Sentences
Main Entry: doctrine  [dok-trin] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: opinion; principle
Synonyms: article, article of faith, attitude, axiom, basic, belief, canon, concept, convention, conviction, credenda, creed, declaration, dogma, fundamental, gospel, implantation, inculcation, indoctrination, instruction, position, precept, pronouncement, propaganda, proposition, regulation, rule, statement, teaching, tenet, tradition, universal law, unwritten rule
Click to expand...
Doctrine and dogma are not the same thing. Don’t rely to closely on a generic dictionary for understanding theological terms. One could say, I suppose, that all dogmas are doctrines, but it would not be correct to say that all doctrines are dogmas.
 
RyanBlack said:
There is indeed a theological distinction between dogma and doctrine, in spite of the dictionary definition provided above. To quote my theology professor, “I don’t go to Webster for my theological definitions.” Dogma is binding on the faithful to a greater degree than dogma. Assent to dogma is understood as being necessary to one’s salvation, while assent to doctrine is not. For example, it is a matter of Catholic dogma that Christ is truly God and truly man, and belief in this is necessary to salvation, while just war theory is a matter of Catholic doctrine, but one can subscribe to other positions on war (pacifism on the one hand, or on the other hand, the belief that there is no such thing as a just war, but some wars are still necessary) and not jeopardize one’s salvation.
Click to expand...
Actually in answer to that post I decided to check the etymology, rather than the definition. The etymology of the two is very similar in meaning. I think a distinction between the two may be a newer innovation. Of course I do not disagree with this innovation, as I said a distinction is necessary at that level, and I will do my utmost to spread this definition of the words.
 
I find the distinction between doctrine and dogma largely artificial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top