Clarification on the sinlessness of Mary from the Orthodox Perspective

[GaryTaylor]

I have always wondered what Roman Catholics mean by Mediatrix of all Graces. I have never really been given a concise answer from posters on this site.

If you want to introduce the idea that it is already a belief of the church I humbly suggest you start a new thread thread on this somewhere on CAF where you can lay out the arguments and explanations. Perhaps in the Traditional Catholicism Forum, where I would think there is a lot of sympathy for the concept.

Since it has not been declared a dogma of your church even after many people have been advocating and petitioning for it, I will assume that your own church does not support or agree with your theory.

The topic came up HERE of Dogma and Doctrine which I was speaking on in the post of mine you commented on, I didn’t bring that up someone else did, your selective reading focused on what wasn’t the point in Mediatrix, my comment wasn’t in relation to this. However it gives an idea on how Dogma is developed. Which was the point.

My point is Our Ladys Sinlessness and Her position now in Heaven. Which IMHO is highly overlooked, underrated, systematically attacked, when the intent is most obvious through Her Most Divine Son to Save Souls through Her intercession by leading the Communion of Saints, for the Converstion of Sinners.

The choice through Our most precious Lord to lose not one Soul.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In fairness the stance that a belief does not matter is not contrary to the point on whether or not the Church teaches it…

Could you elaborate on this? I’m of the conviction a stance of belief contrary to what the Church teachs is going against the Apostolic Church in ones own “opinion”. I might be misunderstanding what you saying?

For example I questioned where in the liturgy the Assumption is taught, I did not question whether or not it was a teaching…

If you questioned if it was taught, how did you “not” question if it was a teaching? Could you elaborate on this also? If its taught, it is a teaching, wouldn’t you agree?

I feel that these questions are always difficult to answer because it is not clear for the beginning if you are asking whether something is taught, or whether a belief is a requirement to consider yourself an Orthodox Christian. I for one interpreted your op to be asking whether it was a required belief. That it is taught is, as established, difficult to question.

Exactly why we need to clarify questions difficult to answer together since I for one believe it is counterproductive in the Kingdom of God for souls spreading half-truths about the Apostolic Church especially in regards the Mother of God being a Sinner. My concern isn’t your church or mine, its the Truth in the Lords Kingdom. And there in nothing in that Kingdom today which wasn’t a Truth the first 300-years. The only reality which has occured since then, is the truth has either become distorted by being lost or more clarified by being preserved and developed.

Hard to imagine how in particular distortion occurs, as the Saints have continued to elaborated in every field from great orators, literature/prose, philosophy, theology, spiritual/mystical, to the elect of the Church.

And that comes right back to Dogma which are devoloped as guiding lights for Souls to follow in the Truth. In fact I’m sure the church used similar words in the CCC if I remember correctly.

But here you see a great example with Marys Sinlessness when something isn’t documented or passed along through the centuries. Pretty soon you have those stating; “Oh that was never a teaching” or “thats not true” or “my evangelical pastor told me this” or " a theologian at such and such secular college stated" etc. Just to use as examples.

Its the quasi unanomimous testimony of the ECFs which is the Bible and sacred tradition.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mary Mediatrix, as I’ve understood it, is about Mary being the channel through which all grace has entered the world, as she is the channel through which the very source of Grace has entered the world…At least that was what I was taught. That no grace comes to us without passing through her because Christ himself has come to us through her and in him are all graces.

Right, made me think of a Fathers work I read on this some time ago. Can’t think of his name off the top of my head, it will come to me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

While I appreciate your comments that the faith is meant to be experienced(the carmelites and benedictines would agree) , I cannot help but feel that orthodoxy needs a little shot if you will of a little black and white (to use your terms)

Not to place you on the spot, but could you elaborate here? Thank You!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mary Mediatrix, as I’ve understood it, is about Mary being the channel through which all grace has entered the world, as she is the channel through which the very source of Grace has entered the world…At least that was what I was taught. That no grace comes to us without passing through her because Christ himself has come to us through her and in him are all graces.

Here’s an interesting twist which relates the Dormition to our Mother in the order of Grace though.

Byzantine Liturgy “Troparion” August 15th, Feast of the Dormition.

“In giving birth you kept your virginity, in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the Living God and, by your Prayers, will deliver our Souls from death.”

In the CCC the paragraphs are 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, and so on. Still can’t remember the Father who wrote that book though

Peace

 

[carlos19]

Not to place you on the spot, but could you elaborate here? Thank You!

I just meant that an orthodox catechism is needed so dopes like me wouldn’t ask so many questions

 

[Hesychios]

The topic came up HERE of Dogma and Doctrine which I was speaking on in the post of mine you commented on, I didn’t bring that up someone else did, your selective reading focused on what wasn’t the point in Mediatrix, my comment wasn’t in relation to this. However it gives an idea on how Dogma is developed. Which was the point.

This may surprise you, but I don’t have problems with everything you write.

My ‘selective reading’ as you call it is nothing more that pointing out an issue with a detail.

As to your point, it is true that this is how development of doctrine works, also development of error. They can both be developed in the same general way.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This may surprise you, but I don’t have problems with everything you write.

My ‘selective reading’ as you call it is nothing more that pointing out an issue with a detail.

As to your point, it is true that this is how development of doctrine works, also development of error. They can both be developed in the same general way.

Michael I am just seeking the Truth, be it the EO or CC and often through other Apostolic Churchs. I guess I’m understanding more and more about the early years which is so similar its enlightening.

But yes, we found ourselves into the Assumption, Dormition, Doctrine again etc. Really just put me on another throught process and search.

Theotokos has been a light for me. No surprize I guess.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

I just meant that an orthodox catechism is needed so dopes like me wouldn’t ask so many questions

I suppose we are both finding ourselves reading other than the CCC in teachings.

 

[murtad]

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).

Nestorianism and Eutychianism are indeed dangerous heresies to some but to others they were bitter political struggles and they exist in today’s Arab World. Egypt has the largest Monophysite or Eutychian Christians in the world. Please read up about the Coptic Monophysites and Chaldo-Assyrian Nestorians.

Some Nestorians have become Uniates and entered into communion with the Pope. They are called Chaldeans. Likewise some Monophysites have become Uniates and they are called Coptic Catholic Church.

Vatican recently declared Saint Nestorios as a saint! Both Mar Ashur Bawai Soro and Pope Benedict XVI pray to Saint Nestorios of blessed memory. This proves the anathemas have been lifted.

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.

St John Chrysostom was a Nestorian! He was after all an ANTIOCHIAN like Mar Nestorios and his teacher Mar Theodoros of Mopsuestia, who was anathemised in person at the Fifth Ecumenical Council ( Second Council of Constantinople 553 AD) called by Justinian.

Mar Theodoros of Mopsuestia rejects the title Theotokos as Apollinarianism and he furthers speaks of Maria the Virgin as “a sinful whore”. The Assyrians deny Jesus is God-man and insist he is a mere man. Islam is Nestorianism.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Nestorianism and Eutychianism are indeed dangerous heresies to some but to others they were bitter political struggles and they exist in today’s Arab World. Egypt has the largest Monophysite or Eutychian Christians in the world. Please read up about the Coptic Monophysites and Chaldo-Assyrian Nestorians.

The Copts, as far as I know, do not believe in the heresy of Eutyches, that is that the divinity of the Son swallowed up his humanity, making him not fully man. Severus of Antioch, for example, was hardly Eutychian in his Christology.

Some Nestorians have become Uniates and entered into communion with the Pope. They are called Chaldeans. Likewise some Monophysites have become Uniates and they are called Coptic Catholic Church.

Yes, I’m not so sure how the Roman Catholic Church secured union with both groups, considering how vigorously Coptic and Assyrian Christology are opposed. Almost seems like one party must have entered into union with a great measure of indifference.

Vatican recently declared Saint Nestorios as a saint! Both Mar Ashur Bawai Soro and Pope Benedict XVI pray to Saint Nestorios of blessed memory. This proves the anathemas have been lifted.

So what you are saying is that the Catholic Church has betrayed the faith of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople II, by admitting that a prosopic union is orthodox Christology? I find that hard to believe.

St John Chrysostom was a Nestorian! He was after all an ANTIOCHIAN like Mar Nestorios and his teacher Mar Theodoros of Mopsuestia, who was anathemised in person at the Fifth Ecumenical Council ( Second Council of Constantinople 553 AD) called by Justinian.

It is possible to understand Antiochene Christology in an Orthodox manner, as the councils of Chalcedon and Second Constantinople show, and it is entirely within the realm of possibility that St. John Chrysostom understood it in this way. Even if he did believe in Nestorianism, he neither taught the heresy nor left evidence in it of his writings, so it would be incorrect to charge him with being a heretic.

Mar Theodoros of Mopsuestia rejects the title Theotokos as Apollinarianism and he furthers speaks of Maria the Virgin as “a sinful whore”. The Assyrians deny Jesus is God-man and insist he is a mere man. Islam is Nestorianism.

Theodore of Mopsuestia was of course wrong to say so. It is no mistake that he was posthumously declared a heretic and anathematized, owing to the offensive and impious nature of his writings.

 

[RyanBlack]

Where did Theodore of Mopsuestia refer to the Theotokos as a “sinful whore?”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Where did Theodore of Mopsuestia refer to the Theotokos as a “sinful whore?”

I too am curious to know. As Nestorian as his writings were, that seems extreme even for him.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Never read that have read this…

google.com/url?q=http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.09.en.highlights_in_the_debate_over_theodore.01.htm&sa=U&ei=THlmT5XJK-Ly0gGgh4iLCA&ved=0CBkQFjAC&sig2=9V3iCFZYFPOeO2tT984pqw&usg=AFQjCNGcCRcz5UjQBDsy50YbU39CO3BA5g

 

[johnnykins]

But I am not a theologian and not capable of offering a sustained and persuasive argument.

Coulda fooled me on both accounts.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Propagandized Church History is a fact of life. They are so ingrained now that even presenting the facts is unlikely to change someone’s mind, you just get accused of being an apologist.

The reason why the Council talked about Mary was because it was held to judge the orthodoxy of Nestorius who refused to call Mary the “Theotokos” and instead called her the “Chrisotokos” due to an over-zealos distinction between Christ and God. This is attested in all the documents pertaining the Council.
As for the idea that the Council “elevated” Mary that also is false. Yes, the Council officially anathemised those who refused to recognise her as “Theotokos” (the Nestorians) however all evidence shows that christians have been using the title since the 3rd Centuary (which is why Nestorianism was condemned). Also note that although the Nestorians refuse to call her “Theotokos” they still ask for her intercession and hold her in high esteem. The Assyrian Church also rejects the title however a mere glance at their liturgy and prayers shows that they venerate Mary just as the EO does.

google.com/url?q=http://www.nestorian.org/nestorian_theology.html&sa=U&ei=XzJnT8u9B6L30gHeuNjUBA&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=90v4Adnn9oQMyQqeboo0dw&usg=AFQjCNG3ZFUNftUM2AP7qpQea03c18MkKw

The modern Assyrian Church of the East has shunned the “Nestorian” label. The church’s present head, Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV, explicitly rejected the term on the occasion of his consecration in 1976,

But “Saint Nestorius” , no, in good standing, and possibly misunderstood in his work on Christ is still in question and not accepted. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, finally agreed to anathematize him in 451 (during the Council of Chalcedon); from then on he had no defenders within the empire. But the Church of the East (that is, the Church in eastern Mesopotamia and Persia, under Sassanian rule) never accepted his condemnation.

This led later to western Christians giving the name the ‘Nestorian Church’ to the Church of the East (the modern Assyrian Church of the East), even though it never regarded him as an authoritative teacher. The discovery and publication of his 'Book [or Bazaar] of Heraclides at the beginning of the 20th century led to a reassessment of his theology in western scholarship. It is now generally agreed that his intentions were orthodox, but the adequacy of his formulation of the doctrine of Christ is still controversial.

2001 “Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East” allows Assyrians and Chaldeans to accept the Eucharist from one another. The prior year, Assyrians and Roman Catholics also produced “A Common Statement on Sacramental Life” that assessed the importance of sacraments in both churches. Assyrians have also been allowed to study at Baghdad’s Chaldean Catholic College and unmarried deacons and priests can study at Catholic universities in Rome

Theotokos has been a non-issue is all the church’s now and is venerated in Hymns in all the Churchs now.