Clarification on the sinlessness of Mary from the Orthodox Perspective

[Cavaradossi]

Thanks Mickey, that answers my question, about there being limits on the sins of Mary as viewed by the Orthodox.

I understand that from the Orthodox perspective this is not dogma and it is not relevant because it does not really have anything to do with salvation.This issue is really fascinating to me. I did not realize the Orthodox consider Mother Mary as a sinner.

Would I find this position in St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechism? If it doesn’t appear in the Catechism of Saint St. Cyrl or the Rudder (because it doesn’t really matter to the Orthodox) then I am assuming that this the view of Mary being a sinner is held by the Eastern Fathers/saints or modern day Theologians. So its an Eastern tradition.

Thank you all. Especially those that provided links.

It’s not so much a tradition as a long-standing minority opinion. It is an allowable opinion, though it is not the most common opinion. I don’t think Gregory Palamas, for example, would ever in a million years have believed that the Theotokos committed personal sins.

 

[Mickey]

I should also say that most Orthodox Christians will tell you that she was without personal sin. The opinion that she had committed minor sins is a minority opinion, but it takes itself from a minority opinion expressed by the fathers, so it’s hard to say that it is, on the whole, wrong.

Indeed!

It is a minority opinion. And it is true that most Orthodox will say that she was without personal sin…myself included. But most Orthodox, if not all, will also tell you that she was not conceived free from ancestral sin.

 

[carlos19]

Thanks

 

[carlos19]

It’s not so much a tradition as a long-standing minority opinion. It is an allowable opinion, though it is not the most common opinion. I don’t think Gregory Palamas, for example, would ever in a million years have believed that the Theotokos committed personal sins.

Cavaradossi, thanks for your insight. You and Hesychios are tremendously smart in my opinion. I do have a follow up question…since it is an allowable opinion to believe that the Thetokos committed personal sin, what would you think would happen if this minority opinion became more prevalent? Say for example if maybe 25% or 30% or even 40% of Orthodox Christians believed it? What if Priests preached on this…

Is it an allowable opinion because it’s only a minority opinion? What if those in the minority started to become a significant part of Orthodoxy?

Granted this is just speculation now but would you feel at that point that sinlessness of the Theotokos should be defined as dogma?

 

[carlos19]

Also do you think a dogmatic book such as the catholic catechism is needed for the orthodox churches

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi, thanks for your insight. You and Hesychios are tremendously smart in my opinion. I do have a follow up question…since it is an allowable opinion to believe that the Thetokos committed personal sin, what would you think would happen if this minority opinion became more prevalent? Say for example if maybe 25% or 30% or even 40% of Orthodox Christians believed it? What if Priests preached on this…

Is it an allowable opinion because it’s only a minority opinion? What if those in the minority started to become a significant part of Orthodoxy?

Granted this is just speculation now but would you feel at that point that sinlessness of the Theotokos should be defined as dogma?

I don’t think there would be a need for a dogma in that situation, as it simply has nothing to do with our salvation. People are allowed to disagree within the Church. That being said, the constant affirmations in the liturgy that the Theotokos is blameless will probably ensure that the opinion that she possibly could have sinned remains very much in the minority.

 

[carlos19]

Not sure if we can use that standard in every situation since her perpetual virginity had nothing to do with our salvation either. but I think both catholic and orthodox would defend this position.

Thanks my friend

 

[carlos19]

Cavaradossi, thanks for your insight. You and Hesychios are tremendously smart in my opinion. I do have a follow up question…since it is an allowable opinion to believe that the Thetokos committed personal sin, what would you think would happen if this minority opinion became more prevalent? Say for example if maybe 25% or 30% or even 40% of Orthodox Christians believed it? What if Priests preached on this…

Is it an allowable opinion because it’s only a minority opinion? What if those in the minority started to become a significant part of Orthodoxy?

Granted this is just speculation now but would you feel at that point that sinlessness of the Theotokos should be defined as dogma?

what about you hesychios, do you think a dogmatic decision would be necessary Unger this scenario?

 

[Nine_Two]

Not sure if we can use that standard in every situation since her perpetual virginity had nothing to do with our salvation either. but I think both catholic and orthodox would defend this position.

Thanks my friend

Her perpetual virginity is again not dogmatic and not required belief - although again it is the overwhelming belief, and it is hard to rectify disbelief with the Liturgy.
The belief that she was a virgin when Christ was born is, however, dogmatic.

 

[carlos19]

Cavaradossi, thanks for your insight. You and Hesychios are tremendously smart in my opinion. I do have a follow up question…since it is an allowable opinion to believe that the Thetokos committed personal sin, what would you think would happen if this minority opinion became more prevalent? Say for example if maybe 25% or 30% or even 40% of Orthodox Christians believed it? What if Priests preached on this…

Is it an allowable opinion because it’s only a minority opinion? What if those in the minority started to become a significant part of Orthodoxy?

Granted this is just speculation now but would you feel at that point that sinlessness of the Theotokos should be defined as dogma?

what about you hesychios, do you think a dogmatic decision would be necessary Unger this scenario?

 

[carlos19]

Her perpetual virginity is again not dogmatic and not required belief - although again it is the overwhelming belief, and it is hard to rectify disbelief with the Liturgy.
The belief that she was a virgin when Christ was born is, however, dogmatic.

Really? The OCA’s Web page says it’s doctrine

 

[carlos19]

You know I am going to stop here for now and read st cyrl and or the rudder. Is it possible that the different orthodox churches teach things as it relates to what they deem to be unessential areas? Thanks everyone for your time

 

[Maryann_C]

Not sure if we can use that standard in every situation since her perpetual virginity had nothing to do with our salvation either. but I think both catholic and orthodox would defend this position.

Thanks my friend

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.

 

[Hesychios]

what about you hesychios, do you think a dogmatic decision would be necessary under this scenario?

No, because some ideas are not salvific, and this would be one.

For instance, if a person knows or believes that Jesus Christ of the Gospel witness is truly God and truly man born of a woman the rest is really just commentary.

Dogmas have anathemas attached to them, which are (in effect) either condemnations outright or abandonment by the church. Therefore, a belief which in an of itself cannot save or is not essential to salvation should not thereby be made an excuse to condemn people. Some proposed dogmas are like that, they do not in themselves save, they can only damn people and are catalysts of schism.

To put a pleasant spin on this I quote Pope John XXIII of blessed memory:
"… But the common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.”
Finally, with regard to those ideas and doctrines of which can be said that one’s salvation would necessarily depend, I quote a sure and simple orthodox guide to help in determining the Apostolic Truth. It is quite old but still relevant to us today.

… in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally.

This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
Saint Vincent of Lérins: Commonitorium Cap 2 434AD]

 

[carlos19]

Beautiful Maryann thank you.

 

[carlos19]

Hesychos would than you she’s with Maryann that perpetual virginity is salvific? Since perpetual virginity, adheres to universitality, antiquity and consent?

 

[carlos19]

With all due respect for our orthodox brethren, for a church to permit the thinking that the blessed one who carried the Word of God in her body committed sin is abhorrent to me.
Even if it’s a venial sin which by definition a partial loss of grace.

I know it is not the norm but it is still allowed.
Maybe I should study what is entailed in doctrine or dogma. I certainly will review the materials you all gave me.

PS
Sorry I know I said I was done but this is really fascinating to me

 

[Cavaradossi]

With all due respect for our orthodox brethren, for a church to permit the thinking that the blessed one who carried the Word of God in her body committed sin is abhorrent to me.
Even if it’s a venial sin which by definition a partial loss of grace.

I know it is not the norm but it is still allowed.
Maybe I should study what is entailed in doctrine or dogma. I certainly will review the materials you all gave me.

PS
Sorry I know I said I was done but this is really fascinating to me

Do you find St. John Chrysostom to be abhorrent? Do you find the idea that some of the Theotokos’ ancestors were pretty grievous sinners also to be abhorrent? One consequence of Leo’s tome which was approved at Chalcedon is that it doesn’t matter because the Lord inherited the virgin’s human nature (common to all of us), but not sin, because sin is not part of human nature (this pope Leo attributes to Christ’s birth not of human seed). Again, the sinlessness of Mary is a beautiful pious opinion held by most Orthodox Christians, but it holds no importance for our salvation either way.

Believe me, people get into heated discussions over this, but in the end it’s just not a question on the same level as a theological or christological question. Sacred tradition also holds that St. Basil the Great refused to suckle from his mother’s breast on fast days. People who choose not to believe in this, while they may be frowned upon for doubting the sacred tradition, are nonetheless not heretics, nor can they be branded as such.

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychos would than you she’s with Maryann that perpetual virginity is salvific? Since perpetual virginity, adheres to universitality, antiquity and consent?

There is a lot of highly speculative theory in that post.

I think the belief that Jesus is God incarnate is salvific. Ours is incarnational theology, it is the basis for the sacraments.

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. But these are not the most important facts of faith and I do not need to speculate as to the meaning of them. 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, 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.

“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.

 

[carlos19]

Do you find St. John Chrysostom to be abhorrent? Do you find the idea that some of the Theotokos’ ancestors were pretty grievous sinners also to be abhorrent? One consequence of Leo’s tome which was approved at Chalcedon is that it doesn’t matter because the Lord inherited the virgin’s human nature (common to all of us), but not sin, because sin is not part of human nature (this pope Leo attributes to Christ’s birth not of human seed). Again, the sinlessness of Mary is a beautiful pious opinion held by most Orthodox Christians, but it holds no importance for our salvation either way.

Believe me, people get into heated discussions over this, but in the end it’s just not a question on the same level as a theological or christological question. Sacred tradition also holds that St. Basil the Great refused to suckle from his mother’s breast on fast days. People who choose not to believe in this, while they may be frowned upon for doubting the sacred tradition, are nonetheless not heretics, nor can they be branded as such.

No Cavaradossi, I do not find St. John Chrysostom to be abhorrent, I am not as knowledgeable as you so I do not understand the connection.

However, I do find abhorrent that this idea (whether relevant or not to salvation) that the Virgin succumbed to sin at any point in her life. It is hard to believe that the majestic Pan-Orthodox churches would permit such thoughts without challenging them.

I will take your comments to heart and reflect on them.

Something occurred to me while I asked the question as to whether or not a dogmatic book in the same vein as the CC was needed for the Pan Orthodox churches.

Do you think such book has not been developed because the Eastern Churches did not deal with the challenge of the reformed churches to their theology?

I am trying to understand why there is such vagueness (in my view) to various areas of Eastern theology. I know that many Orthodox view this vagueness as a pathway to spirituality (at least by my understanding of reading Orthodox forum posters).

Could it be cultural? or again maybe the lack of historical attacks of a competing Christian branch…