Clarification on the sinlessness of Mary from the Orthodox Perspective

[carlos19]

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.

I get it. beautifully said…I understand now why some Orthodox feel that certain aspects of Western Theology are unnecessary.

 

[carlos19]

that doesn’t mean I consider them unnecessary…just that I understand

 

[Cavaradossi]

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…

I think it has more to do with the fact that catechisms which have been translated into English are not common yet. I’m positive that catechisms exist in other languages.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Well said.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Where are they?

A minority opionion expressed by a few fathers? You mean like the only two mentioned in this thread without reference such as St John Chystostom and St Cyril? Here’s St John Chystostom and St Cyril is in the link I posted.

“It is truly just to proclaim you blessed, O Mother of God, who are most blessed, all pure and Mother of our God. We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim. You who, without losing your virginity, gave birth to the Word of God. You who are truly the Mother of God.”

Those are “St. John Chrysostom” actual words quoted by Bl JP-II in his encyclical Redemptoris Mater (On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Life of the Pilgrim Church) March 25, 1987, Par #32!!!

Marian Vow:
St. John Chrysostom

"Let us gather oil for our vessels while yet we live, for leaving this life we can no longer buy it, nor procure it elsewhere, save at the hands of the poor. Let us while we are here gather it abundantly, if we wish to enter in with the bridegroom; if we do not we must remain outside the Bridegroom’s chamber. “I give this resolution to the Blessed Virgin Mary”

“Thanks be to God for graces received”

Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, (Preservation Press: 1996), Volume I, 268.

So are you saying the Saint is contradicting himself?

Interesting also when we speak divinty/creature St John Chrysostom
mentions: “We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim.”

We all know the Nature of Christ not of topic.

What would you say that “this” quote states about St Marys status in Heaven? Since St John Chrysostem was bought up, as was St Cyril and his quotes are here and referenced.

And again do you have these miniority of quotes which could be read, could you post them, from which work, and the page?

For some reason as shown I have found abundant number completely contradictory which as you have seen. I have none to support this “minority” thinking. Since the Apostolic Church combined spoke as one mind. I see all similiar prose.

 

[RyanBlack]

Where are they?

A minority opionion expressed by a few fathers? You mean like the only two mentioned in this thread without reference such as St John Chystostom and St Cyril? Here’s St John Chystostom and St Cyril is in the link I posted.

“It is truly just to proclaim you blessed, O Mother of God, who are most blessed, all pure and Mother of our God. We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim. You who, without losing your virginity, gave birth to the Word of God. You who are truly the Mother of God.”

Those are “St. John Chrysostom” actual words quoted by Bl JP-II in his encyclical Redemptoris Mater (On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Life of the Pilgrim Church) March 25, 1987, Par #32!!!

Marian Vow:
St. John Chrysostom

"Let us gather oil for our vessels while yet we live, for leaving this life we can no longer buy it, nor procure it elsewhere, save at the hands of the poor. Let us while we are here gather it abundantly, if we wish to enter in with the bridegroom; if we do not we must remain outside the Bridegroom’s chamber. “I give this resolution to the Blessed Virgin Mary”

“Thanks be to God for graces received”

Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, (Preservation Press: 1996), Volume I, 268.

So are you saying the Saint is contradicting himself?

Interesting also when we speak divinty/creature St John Chrysostom
mentions: “We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim.”

We all know the Nature of Christ not of topic.

What would you say that “this” quote states about St Marys status in Heaven? Since St John Chrysostem was bought up, as was St Cyril and his quotes are here and referenced.

And again do you have these miniority of quotes which could be read, could you post them, from which work, and the page?

For some reason as shown I have found abundant number completely contradictory which as you have seen. I have none to support this “minority” thinking. Since the Apostolic Church combined spoke as one mind. I see all similiar prose.

In his Homily 44 on the Gospel of Matthew, St. John Chrysostom accuses the Theotokos of vanity.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XLIV.html

Also, in his Homily 21 on the Gospel of John, St. John Chrysostom claims that the Theotokos, at the time of the wedding at Cana, failed to recognize who Christ truly is, and that she presumed to direct him, when she should have reverenced and worshipped him.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.iv.xxiii.html

 

[GaryTaylor]

sinlessness of Mary is a bit of an odd one. Some, like John Chrysostom believed that Mary had committed venial sins. Pope Leo argued in his Tome, read at Chalcedon, that Jesus inherited human nature but not sin from his mother (a view which only makes sense if one allows for the possibility that Mary had sinned in life). Some, like Gregory Palamas, speculated that righteousness and purity were heritable, and that over generations the Virgin Mary’s ancestors were purified, so that she was born pure and capable of resisting sin. Others speculated that Mary was purified at some point in her life (e.g., the annunciation, at conception, or at birth).

From the liturgical tradition, we come to a similar vagueness. I am unaware of any hymn or liturgical prayer which explicitly states that the Virgin Mary was without sin. Many hymns call her blameless or spotless, but none that I have heard call her sinless (and because we ask for forgiveness of “involuntary sins” we know that blamelessness in the East is not automatically equatable with sinlessness). The safest answer is that we simply do not know.

The question on whether this should be dogmatic is perhaps easier to answer. When we look at something which needs to be held as a matter of faith, we have to understand that misunderstanding it jeopardizes our salvation. For example, teaching that there was a time when the Son was not, as Arius did, could potentially lead people to damnation, because, as Athanasius argued, our salvation comes from our union with God, made possible through the work of the Son who is divine and without beginning with the Father… Similarly, Nestorianism and Eutychianism are both dangerous heresies, because both deny that God the Son truly became man, thereby denying that salvation is possible (this is why we must affirm that the Virgin Mary is Theotokos, not Christotokos, because she did not give birth to a man, but to the very incarnate Word of God).

Does the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary have any bearing on our salvation? I’m not entirely convinced that it does. I think that one can find salvation all the same, whether believing that the Virgin Mary committed venial sins as St. John Chrysostom did, or that she was sinless. It’s a nice pious belief, but I think that it certainly falls short of needing to be a doctrine.

Here is the original post of yours where St John Chrysostom is bought up.

Pope Leo is then bought up by you, and was commented on by Dorthy, yet you can also read Michaels statement about the Popes right below that. So is the use of what the Popes state disregarded or not, or at what point in time do use then disregrad them? I say they are ALL important how about you? Read page one if you having trouble understanding. Which I believe you’ll follow the logic.

Does the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary have a bearing on our Salvation? Of course it does as stated in brief above by Maryann C. As been stated by 2000 years of Apostolic Teaching, so what are we reduced to here, the opinion of a few posting who somehow chose the severely lacking side of this debate not supported by any Apostolic evidence? I’m sorry but that deosn’t make sense nor is it remotely logical. Isn’t the EO stance that you do not want to change Apostolic History?

When you state “I’m not entirely convinced that it does. I think” how does it coincide with 2000-years of Apsotolic Church teaching. Surely you assume all those who commented where not speaking fiction?

St John Chrysostom; “We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim.”

Yet while St John was not in heaven when he wrote these words, it is what not only he, but the church thought as one mind in this period, and had before and has continued to throughout time. In fact you hear the same basic language with all the Saints and Popes. Perhaps this is where the title Queen of Heaven and of Angels comes from?

So apparently nothing was made up one day in the past century, all has been worked on right from the Apostles and in their works, which all others take their lead form and has been shown in this thread.

The thought that Mary had other children sinned is all Reformation foward thinking. And even Luther obviously compromised his own beliefs in this regard due to the other reformers.

Sorry I fail to see where this is in the Early Church. And when you state “I’m not entirely convinced that it does. I think”

My question is what “exactly” supports this is my question. Other opinions of the EO or do you have anything pre-1500 in text which actually has a in-depth discussion from the Apostolic Church?

When you say its a bit odd? How so? Its so documented in 2000 years what seems odd is the contrary arguement. When we study the Apostolic Councils the Nature of Christ is well documented. He was not, nor could not be born into a state of sin. You agree with these councils right? He came as the redeemer to defeat the state man was in through the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Would you say St Irenaeus and St. Athanasius were correct in the work the bought foward which in truth originated again from St Polycarp and the Apostle John who taught St Irenaeus.

So if the majority believe in St Marys perpetual virginity which continues from the Apostles to today. Then why shouldn’t this be dogmatic? As we clearly see its most difficult enought to retain catechised individuals generation after generation. Does it not help to define what is the truth, has been the truth, and has been bought forward for 2000 years for a reason. Because it does matter in your jouney to Christ.

Its been said for 3-M that Mary interceeds for those approaching the Cross alone. Where does the issue reside?

We are all in agreement the Saints interceed for us? We are all in agreement with as to St John Chrysostoms quotes and the reality of the Blessed Mother in Heaven?

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

I believe it should be manditory reading in all the Apostolic Churchs and one ought have a copy on hand.

Unfortunate what we often see here is cherry picked, fast google search, out of context/content statements in this regard.

Peace

 

[RyanBlack]

In Book 12 of his Commentary on the Gospel of John, St. Cyril of Alexandria accuses the Theotokos of the error of doubt.

monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/345

BTW, I’m not trying to make a case against the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church that the Theotokos was sinless. My personal position is that I’m not sure on the matter. However, it is simply not the case that the Church Father were unanimous in teaching the sinlessness of the Theotokos.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In his Homily 44 on the Gospel of Matthew, St. John Chrysostom accuses the Theotokos of vanity.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XLIV.html

Also, in his Homily 21 on the Gospel of John, St. John Chrysostom claims that the Theotokos, at the time of the wedding at Cana, failed to recognize who Christ truly is, and that she presumed to direct him, when she should have reverenced and worshipped him.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.iv.xxiii.html

My opinion is he read way to far into the comment of Christs mother looking for Her son. Mary and Joseph spent 30-years home with Jesus. I would say for fact they knew more about His reality than any other alive. I doubt Christ seen Vanity in His mother who is noted for her virtues and in particular Humility.

However we can take an indepth look at the Biblical Verse, the church has also spoke on this for centuries.

As it has the Wedding of Cana, its a mystery of the church that has been contemplated for thousands of years. You can read thousands of comments by the Saints in this regard on both scripture verse’s. How does it distract in what the church has stated for 2000 years?

No-where in Bible does Christ suggest Vanity. The point of the discourse was for mankind to know they all have the opportunity to share in Gods Kingdom, which went Biblically from Tribes to a Nation to international. And that is what the comment refers to in Bible. That is the point of Jesus Christs comment in Matthew, spoken on also for 2000 years.

The Wedding of Cana Mary as a Mother suggests to Her son the lack of Wine. Its the first miracle performed by Christ the start of His public ministry, and the final words spoken by Mary which are “Do whatever He tells you”. So then does Mary initiate the ministry of Jesus Christ after he spent 30-years at home with Her? She failed to recognize who He was? Come on now.

Aside when we read his quotes above how does this connect to the two thoughts and the reality he suggests in Heaven of St Mary?

Do you have the actual Homilys in the actual language written? For sure it was not english.

However the opinion of St Mary not living in a perpetual state of sinlessness in based on this?

And then how does all this coincide with the quotes of the Saint here; …

“all PURE and Mother of our God. We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim. You who, “without losing your virginity”, gave birth to the Word of God. You who are truly the Mother of God.”

“It is truly just to proclaim you blessed, O Mother of God, who are most blessed, all pure and Mother of our God. We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim. You who, without losing your virginity, gave birth to the Word of God. You who are truly the Mother of God.”

Those are “St. John Chrysostom” actual words quoted by Bl JP-II in his encyclical Redemptoris Mater (On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Life of the Pilgrim Church) March 25, 1987, Par #32!!!

Marian Vow:
St. John Chrysostom

"Let us gather oil for our vessels while yet we live, for leaving this life we can no longer buy it, nor procure it elsewhere, save at the hands of the poor. Let us while we are here gather it abundantly, if we wish to enter in with the bridegroom; if we do not we must remain outside the Bridegroom’s chamber. “I give this resolution to the Blessed Virgin Mary”

“Thanks be to God for graces received”

Contradictions? The Bible doesn’t indicate Mary sinned ever, anywhere.

"Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. But He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?”

Is the comment form Matthew, first of all we do not even know what St Mary actually stated for this is a relayed message from a third party. How could anyone deduce what the “exact” words stated were? Further the actual point alluded to is as I mentioned. And hpw anyone can extract sin out of Mary from what they do not know and are not positive as to what she stated is beyond me. Nor does anyone in the Bible do this.

Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[RyanBlack]

The Bible doesn’t indicate Mary sinned ever, anywhere.

Then again, the Bible doesn’t indicate-at least not directly-that the Theotokos was without sin. But, then again, we’re not Sola Sciptura Christians. My point is simply this: it is not the case that the Church Father unanimously taught the sinlessness of the Theotokos, and I believe some of the remarks you directed towards another poster, in which you refused to believe his claims (consequently calling his honesty into question) that there are saints who taught that the Theotokos did sin, were a bit over the top.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Then again, the Bible doesn’t indicate-at least not directly-that the Theotokos was without sin. But, then again, we’re not Sola Sciptura Christians. My point is simply this: it is not the case that the Church Father unanimously taught the sinlessness of the Theotokos, and I believe some of the remarks you directed towards another poster, in which you refused to believe his claims (consequently calling his honesty into question) that there are saints who taught that the Theotokos did sin, were a bit over the top.

Not at all. Mark there are thousands who coincide with a perpetual sinlessness St Mary. One would have to put a list side by side and that list is so staggering upholding the perpetual sinlessness of Mary it would outnumber the other by sich a ridiculous number there would be no point in even doing this. Here I’m sure we can all agree its been the Apostolic teaching for thousands of years most significant in the East. As I showed earlier. By those who actually were there, the Apostles.

When I state post after post of statements rejecting a sin state of Mary and as you say those posts are refused to be believed [as you state of me] are the other posters calling in question the honesty of the Saints I posted? You guys are the ones stating their is no need for Dogmatic staements. Then why should this one be read as dogmatic? It cannot come into question? The points I raised are not valid and posts are not in question?

For that matter you can read St Theresa of Avila and disagree’s without doubt with a female commebt made bt St Paul. Those homilys are but two. The homily is last weeks with St Johns quotes from Pope Benedict. How does one resolve the first with the second?

“all PURE and Mother of our God. We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim. You who, “without losing your virginity”, gave birth to the Word of God. You who are truly the Mother of God.”

“It is truly just to proclaim you blessed, O Mother of God, who are most blessed, all pure and Mother of our God. We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim. You who, without losing your virginity, gave birth to the Word of God. You who are truly the Mother of God.”

Those are “St. John Chrysostom” actual words quoted by Bl JP-II in his encyclical Redemptoris Mater (On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Life of the Pilgrim Church) March 25, 1987, Par #32!!!

Marian Vow:
St. John Chrysostom

"Let us gather oil for our vessels while yet we live, for leaving this life we can no longer buy it, nor procure it elsewhere, save at the hands of the poor. Let us while we are here gather it abundantly, if we wish to enter in with the bridegroom; if we do not we must remain outside the Bridegroom’s chamber. “I give this resolution to the Blessed Virgin Mary”

“Thanks be to God for graces received”

St. John Chrysostom what does St John mean by the last paragraph in your opinion?

"Let us gather oil for our vessels while yet we live, for leaving this life we can no longer buy it, nor procure it elsewhere, save at the hands of the poor. Let us while we are here gather it abundantly, if we wish to enter in with the bridegroom; if we do not we must remain outside the Bridegroom’s chamber. “I give this resolution to the Blessed Virgin Mary”

 

[RyanBlack]

Not at all. Mark there are thousands who coincide with a perpetual sinlessness St Mary. One would have to put a list side by side and that list is so staggering upholding the perpetual sinlessness of Mary it would outnumber the other by sich a ridiculous number there would be no point in even doing this. Here I’m sure we can all agree its been the Apostolic teaching for thousands of years most significant in the East. As I showed earlier. By those who actually were there, the Apostles.

When I state post after post of statements rejecting a sinless Mary and you say and those posts are refused to be believed [as you state of me] are the other posters calling is question the honesty of the Saints I posted? You guys are the ones stating their in no need for Dogmatic staements. Then why should this one be read as dogmatic? It cannot come into question? The points I raised are not valid?

For that matter you can read St Theresa of Avila and disagree’s without doubt with a female commebt made bt St Paul. Those homilys are but two. The homily is last weeks with St Johns quotes from Pope Benedict. How does one resolve the first with the second?

“all PURE and Mother of our God. We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim. You who, “without losing your virginity”, gave birth to the Word of God. You who are truly the Mother of God.”

“It is truly just to proclaim you blessed, O Mother of God, who are most blessed, all pure and Mother of our God. We magnify you who are more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim. You who, without losing your virginity, gave birth to the Word of God. You who are truly the Mother of God.”

Those are “St. John Chrysostom” actual words quoted by Bl JP-II in his encyclical Redemptoris Mater (On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Life of the Pilgrim Church) March 25, 1987, Par #32!!!

Marian Vow:
St. John Chrysostom

"Let us gather oil for our vessels while yet we live, for leaving this life we can no longer buy it, nor procure it elsewhere, save at the hands of the poor. Let us while we are here gather it abundantly, if we wish to enter in with the bridegroom; if we do not we must remain outside the Bridegroom’s chamber. “I give this resolution to the Blessed Virgin Mary”

“Thanks be to God for graces received”

St. John Chrysostom what does St John mean by the last paragraph in your opinion?

"Let us gather oil for our vessels while yet we live, for leaving this life we can no longer buy it, nor procure it elsewhere, save at the hands of the poor. Let us while we are here gather it abundantly, if we wish to enter in with the bridegroom; if we do not we must remain outside the Bridegroom’s chamber. “I give this resolution to the Blessed Virgin Mary”

Gary,

I never said there was no need for dogmatic statements, and I don’t think anyone else on this thread has either, although some have said that they don’t see how belief in the sinlessness of the Theotokos is related to our salvation (a position with which I hold great sympathy). Furthermore, I never said that teachings by St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyril of Alexandria that the Theotokos committed a few minor sins are dogmatic, and neither has anyone else in this thread, so why are you suggesting that we have attached the level of dogma to these teaching? Also, no one is calling into question the honesty of the saints you have quoted. What I said about calling honesty into question was with respect to what seemed to me to be your calling into questions the honesty of some of the posters in this thread who had pointed out that there are indeed saints who taught that the Theotokos was not sinless. Finally, I don’t think any Catholic or Orthodox poster on this thread has a problem with the belief that the Theotokos was sinless. What some question is why it needs to be a matter of dogma; also, some of us are pointing out that it is simply not the case that the Church Fathers unanimously taught the Theotokos never sinned.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary,

I never said there was no need for dogmatic statements, and I don’t think anyone else on this thread has either, although some have said that they don’t see how belief in the sinlessness of the Theotokos is related to our salvation (a position with which I hold great sympathy). Furthermore, I never said that teachings by St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyril of Alexandria that the Theotokos committed a few minor sins are dogmatic, and neither has anyone else in this thread, so why are you suggesting that we have attached the level of dogma to these teaching? Also, no one is calling into question the honesty of the saints you have quoted. What I said about calling honesty into question was with respect to what seemed to me to be your calling into questions the honesty of some of the posters in this thread who had pointed out that there are indeed saints who taught that the Theotokos was not sinless. Finally, I don’t think any Catholic or Orthodox poster on this thread has a problem with the belief that the Theotokos was sinless. What some question is why it needs to be a matter of dogma; also, some of us are pointing out that it is simply not the case that the Church Fathers unanimously taught the Theotokos never sinned.

I’m trying to place together an actual gauge throughout time so we can objectively and correctly view this.

You start the above paragraph with this; “I never said there was no need for dogmatic statements”

you end with this…

“What some question is why it needs to be a matter of dogma; also, some of us are pointing out that it is simply not the case that the Church Fathers unanimously taught the Theotokos never sinned”

And what I’m saying it is “Unanimous” there is but a small amount. as opposed to the abundant. When we go along with the lesser than we are questioning the belief of the unanimous?

And the question of Dogma not being relevant was bought up. I also understand there are many souls in all the Apostolic Churchs who have no issue with this. Not of question to me. My point are generations and of most recent badly catechised, obviously everywhere in Christianity, and I’m of the belief it is of most importance when we consider not venial sin or its possibility of Mary after Christs birth, but as St John stated and has been stated by the churchs for thousands of years now in relation to Marys reality now in intercession.

Thus when divine comes up on earth surely we understand this most Blessed and Virtuous creature on earth. How does that coincide with higher than the highest Angels as stated by St John C?

So many issues come into play. And we are back to the main point of the arguement of mine on this thread with all due respect.

“it is simply not the case that the Church Fathers unanimously taught the Theotokos never sinned” [your statement]

The unamimous testimony by the ECFs clearly indicates otherwise, so it would be the burden of you to provide the counter proof.

 

[RyanBlack]

I’m trying to place together an actual gauge throughout time so we can objectively and correctly view this.

"You start the above paragraph with this “I never said there was no need for dogmatic statements”

you end with this…

“What some question is why it needs to be a matter of dogma; also, some of us are pointing out that it is simply not the case that the Church Fathers unanimously taught the Theotokos never sinned”

And what I’m saying it is “Unanimous” there is put a small amount as opposed to the abundant. When we go along with the lesser than we are questioning the belief of the unanimous?

And the question of Dogma not being relevant was bought up. I also understand there are many souls in all the Apostolic Churchs who have no issue with this. Not of question to me. My point are generations and of most recent badly catechised, obviously everywhere in Christianity, and I’m of the belief its is of most importance when we consider not venial sin or its possibility of Mary after Christs birth, but as St John stated and has been stated by the churchs for thousands of years now in relation to Marys reality now in intercession.

So many issues come into play. And we are back to the main point of the arguement of mine on this thread with all due respect.

“it is simply not the case that the Church Fathers unanimously taught the Theotokos never sinned”

The unamimous testimony by the ECFs clearly indicates otherwise, so it would be the burden of you to provide the counter proof.

No, the unanimous testimony by the ECFs does not indicate otherwise, as the ECFs were not unanimous on the matter, as I have shown. It is clear that an abundance of the ECFs believed in the sinlessness of the Theotokos, but not all ECFs believed this, so they were not unanimous (of one mind, having the agreement of all) on the matter.

The reason why I wrote “I never said there was no need for dogmatic statements…” was because, in fact, I never had said that, while you seemed to be including me in a group you accuse of having said there was no need for dogmatic statements.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No, the unanimous testimony by the ECFs does not indicate otherwise, as the ECFs were not unanimous on the matter, as I have shown. It is clear that an abundance of the ECFs believed in the sinlessness of the Theotokos, but not all ECFs believed this, so they were not unanimous (of one mind, having the agreement of all) on the matter.

Unanimity is agreement by all people in a given situation. When unanimous, everybody is of the same mind and acting together as one. Though unlike uniformity, it does not constitute absolute agreement.

A couple contrary statements doesn’t negate the majority. Especially when the Apostles are concerned therew resides unanimous. I fail to see where but a couple statements alluding to “venial” is provided here. St John C staements seem to suggest different thinking in this question, and indicate other thoughts in other works of his, which I shown.

In favor of Mary’s perpetual virginity are the Church Fathers, such as Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Ephraem, John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. And a very long list, many more who I noted their actual quotes and of course St. Athanasius did much in regards to this entire developement whom I never mentioned.

Also in support of Our Lady’s virginity is the overwhelming historical evidence. With one voice, the Church Fathers affirmed that Mary was ever-virgin. In fact, the novel theory of Mary losing her virginity after the birth of Christ was placed by the early Christians in a catalogue of heresies! Where Our Lady could be documented as ever encountering a Stain of Sin’ I believe thats the proper phrase of the ECFs] could probly be counted on one hand and thats about it looks like so far and alluding to “venial sin” at that. So their is “NO” existing ECF with any statement to Our Ladys perpetual virginity not being a Fact taught and believed by ALL the ECFs. And that a couple that allude to the “possibility” of venial sin? Isn’t this in fact what we are talking about now?

And that certainly isn’t unanimous. Very much contrary! No Stain of Sin is the constant cry of the ECFs.
Unanimous is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary with NO Stain of Sin. Sorry I see it no other way, in history, ECF, Bible, or Apostolic teaching and definately not provided here on this thread.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am very drawn to learning about Orthodoxy–and need the unity with our Eastern brethren…I see the Orthodox as our brethren although they might not see me or us as in the same way.

What I do come up to is when you use just one particular Saint to make a sweeping statement that Mary made some personal sins. In the spirit of the Church, to make such a profound statement…that does not directly affect our way to salvation, nevertheless, all of creation was affected by the Incarnation of which Mary was the means for Christ in the Holy Spirit to take on His humanity.

The early Church Fathers were not enough to decide on whether or not she sinned…it has taken the Church 1800 years of reflection, drawing on the faith and wisdom of many saints, as well as the resonation of such a dogma by the laity.

Profound decisions by the Church draw not only on many theologians, but also reflecting on the faith of all believers. Just using one Father as your point of reference to incline one’s self that Mary had sinned…doesn’t reflect the spirit of the Church deciding such matters.

 

[FrKimel]

I am reminded of this story told by St Silouan:

“In church I was listening to a reading from the prophet Isaiah, and at the words, ‘Wash you, make you clean,’ I reflected, ‘Maybe the Mother of God sinned at one time or another, if only in thought.’ And, marvelous to relate, in unison with my prayer a voice sounded in my heart, saying clearly, ‘The Mother of God never sinned even in thought.’ Thus did the Holy Spirit bear witness in my heart to her purity.”

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:

After thy birth, O Lady and Bride of God, thou hast gone up dwell in the temple of the Lord, there to be brought up in the Holy of Holies, for thou art thyself holy: and Gabriel then was sent to thee, O virgin all-undefiled, to bring thee food. All the powers of heaven stood amazed, seeing the Holy Spirit dwell in thee. Therefore, O mother of God without stain or blemish, glorified in heaven and on earth, save our kind.

Thy wonders, O pure Theotokos, surpass the power of words. For in thee I see something beyond speech: a body that was never subject to the taint of sin.

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

In its countless divine services dedicated to the Mother of God, the Holy Orthodox Church firmly and clearly teaches the absolute sinlessness of Mary in her birth, her holy childhood and adolescence, in the Annunciation, in the birth of her Son and throughout her entire life. We shall pause at only the most important dogmatic witnesses borrowed from the services of Theotokos feasts. As is evident from these witnesses, the Most Holy Virgin is called in her very birth “Holy of Holies,” “living heaven,” “temple of all kings and thrones,” “sole immaculate one,” “the true temple pure from infancy on,” “hostile to the course of sin,” etc. The question arises: is the idea of any sort of assault of sin, which even some fathers of the church, and with them other orthodox theologians, allow, compatible with this veneration? Obviously not. The Mother of God was sinless, not a single attack of sin approached her most pure soul, the bearer of perfect virginity. But in that case is she not made equal “to the one sinless” Lord Jesus? No, and therein is the whole point. Sinlessness belongs in a unique and exclusive sense to the Son of God conceived without seed from a virgin who had never known a man, in that He was a stranger not only to every personal sin but also to original sin. The latter had absolutely no power over the new Adam. … It is quite the opposite in the case of the Most Pure and Immaculate One: in her, original sin preserved its entire power with all its fatal consequences–weakness and mortality of the body (for death is only the final revelation of this weakness). The Theotokos died a natural death in fulfilment of the natural law, which she bore in her human nature. Death was defeated only by the salvific power of Christ’s resurrection and was ultimately annulled by it. The Lord Jesus is in this sense the Saviour for the entire human race, and in it of His mother as well.

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.”

 

[KathleenGee]

Thank you so much, Fr Kimel…your sharing reflects the presence of Christ in your consecrated soul.

My RC pastor shared with us that the earliest Christians considered Mary sinless…not just our ECF’s and teachers.

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.

 

[RyanBlack]

Unanimity is agreement by all people in a given situation. When unanimous, everybody is of the same mind and acting together as one. Though unlike uniformity, it does not constitute absolute agreement.

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”?