Immaculate conception, Original sin. . . . .

[josie_L]

I was having a discussion with several posters concerning the Immaculate conception, original sin in a thread which has now been closed down, I would like to revisit this discussion via a new thread in order to clarify my position:

While having this discussion I think I failed to express myself properly, so here goes, I do not believe that Jesus’s human nature was tainted by original sin (the Catholic view of original sin is such that it is an effect of Adam’s fault separate from that of concupiscence and/or corruptibility, death and disease, and is viewed as a real sin, a privation of grace). That being said, if he was conceived by assuming part of his humanity from Mother Mary (for she was truly the Mother of the second person of the Holy Trinity) would it not make sense being that she was immaculate (without sin), being that many Church fathers have stated that original sin/ancestral sin (hereditary stain) is passed on through generation and at conception, that she was free from this taint (a real sin)? How else could she have maintained a spotless life without there being some gift of grace from the very beginning? That Jesus’s mother would be anything but pure is inconceivable to me, she is as some fathers foretold, a type of the arc of covenant (the holy of holies). It is clear to me that a person who is immaculate could only be so because of God (I do not deny Mary’s cooperation with God’s grace), in fact, during the 6th century , a council decreed:

Canon 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or **if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” **(1 Cor. 15:10).

I can assert that she was full of Grace before the incarnation because as I mentioned she was immaculate prior/post incarnation, i.e., her whole life. To believe that she could remain sinless without divine help or interference is to believe in some form of pelagianism (a heresy which produced the above canon decreed at the Council of Orange). Having stated this, I do not deny the possibility that when Gabriel saluted her with the words 'full of Grace" the incarnation was taking effect, I have some issues, however, given that Mary did not yet give her affirmation/consent “let it be done . . .”. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Gabriel meant both, i.e., that she was full of Grace (without stain or sin) and that she was at that moment carrying Jesus.

I state what I have said and what I believe about Mother Mary and original sin based on scripture which states we are “conceived in iniquity” (psalm 51) and the Church fathers who more than imply that Jesus did not receive the stain of sin known to us as original sin (through his human mother) via conception . This one in particular caught my eye:

APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE (c. 340 AD)

For from Baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and he descends and rests upon the waters; and those who are baptized are clothed in Him. For the Spirit is ABSENT from all those who are BORN OF THE FLESH, until they come to the WATER OF RE-BIRTH; and then they receive the Holy Spirit [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. Indeed, in the first birth they are born possessed of an animal spirit, which is created within man, nor afterwards does it ever die, for it is written: “Adam became a living soul” [cf. Gen 2:7; 1 Cor 15:45]. But in the second birth, that through Baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit from a particle of the Godhead; nor is He afterwards subject to death…Of all those who have been BORN and who have PUT ON FLESH, there is ONE ONLY who is INNOCENT: namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in fact testifies to such in His own regard [John 16:33; Isa 53:9; Mal 3:6; 2 Cor 5:21; Col 2:14; 1 Cor 9:24 are then alluded to or cited]…Moreover, among the SONS OF ADAM THERE IS NONE besides Him who might ENTER THE RACE [are born] WITHOUT BEING WOUNDED or swallowed up…For SIN has ruled from the time ADAM TRANSGRESSED THE COMMAND. By one among the many was it swallowed up; MANY * DID IT WOUND, AND MANY DID IT KILL; but none among the many killed it until our Savior came, who took it on Himself and fixed it to His cross…Indeed, because the first human being gave ear and listened to the serpent, he received the sentence of malediction, by which he became food for the serpent; and the curse PASSED ON TO ALL HIS PROGENY. (Treatises 6:14; 7:1; 23:3)*

I believe that Mary was chosen to be a perfect vessel to carry our Lord Jesus, i.e., the SPOTLESS lamb, because it was fitting, and because original sin is a real sin, and as such it could not taint her or her offspring (as she was truly the mother of Jesus, the God-man). Having said this, I do not imply that Jesus’s incarnation was superfluous or that Jesus would have had a corrupt nature (sinful) if the IC didn’t occur (He had within himself the means to purify, because as one poster pointed out He is the source of Grace), but that unfortunately is not where the evidence lies when one looks at scripture and/or Tradition.

 

[Southern]

Another thing we can look at is Jesus Called his mother “Woman”. This is what was first given to Eve before the down fall of sin. Only this title in those days were given to such a human being as Our Blessed Mother from Christ lips. God Bless!!!

 

[Mickey]

“Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”
St Augustine

“The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin.”
Clement of Alexandria

---

“The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate.” **Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) **(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.)

“It belongs alone to the immaculate lamb to have no sin at all.”
**Pope Gelasius (492 a.d.) **(Gellasii papae dicta, vol. 4, col 1241, Paris, 1671)

 

[josie_L]

Another thing we can look at is Jesus Called his mother “Woman”. This is what was first given to Eve before the down fall of sin. Only this title in those days were given to such a human being as Our Blessed Mother from Christ lips. God Bless!!!

Yes, I have heard of this too, thanks for putting it out there. God bless you too!!

 

[jimmy]

All of Tradition indicates that Jesus inherited fallen human nature. They continually insist that what wasn’t assumed, wasn’t healed. Did you see the quotes I posted from the fathers that indicated that Jesus had the same fallen nature as us? Human nature fell, and by assuming it, Jesus healed it.

Tradition doesn’t indicate that Mary was conceived immaculately, although there are many fathers who believed she didn’t sin. Some believe she was purified in the womb, some believe she was purified at the incarnation or the Annunciation. The Syriacs in particular followed this latter idea. The touch of Christ was her baptism.

I don’t like the form of argument, because it combines a bunch of different ideas, that don’t necessarily deal with each other, and then it argues into a corner, condemning those who don’t follow the logic. You start with the idea of Mary as mother of God; add to that the new Eve; assume that it is ideal that she be completely pure; modify it with the council of Orange; and etc. The end result is the Immaculate Conception. In the end I feel like I’ve been had: I wonder what just happened and how did I get to this position. I feel like I do when I read about some physicist proposing string theory because he developed a math equation that seems to explain some things, but it requires eleven dimensions. Things seem to fit in certain ways, so it must be true.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”
St Augustine

“The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin.”
Clement of Alexandria

---

“The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate.” **Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) **(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.)

“It belongs alone to the immaculate lamb to have no sin at all.”
**Pope Gelasius (492 a.d.) **(Gellasii papae dicta, vol. 4, col 1241, Paris, 1671)

These can’t be located to be confirmed anywhere. All link to anti Catholic protestant sights.

These could…

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4236,in NPNF1,V:135

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” "Ephraem,Nisibene Hymns,27:8(A.D. 370),in THEO,132

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose,Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166

“As he formed her without my stain of her own,so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople,Homily 1(ante A.D. 446),in ULL,97

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446),in THEO,339

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140(A.D. 449),in ULL,97

 

[dvdjs]

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me {ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1{A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity 15:23 {A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns 27:8 {A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin 71:216 {ante AD 373}.

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22, 30 {A.D. 388}.

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace 4, 36 {A.D.415}.

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 {ante A.D. 446}.

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily 6, 11{ante A.D. 446}.

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 {A.D. 449}.

“The very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug {ante A.D. 521}.

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption 5:6 {ante A.D. 650}.

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God…. The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon 1 On the Birth of Mary {A.D. 733}.

“Truly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali {ante A.D. 733}.

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! Oh glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily 1 {ante A.D. 749}.

 

[josie_L]

All of Tradition indicates that Jesus inherited fallen human nature. They continually insist that what wasn’t assumed, wasn’t healed. Did you see the quotes I posted from the fathers that indicated that Jesus had the same fallen nature as us? Human nature fell, and by assuming it, Jesus healed it.

You see that’s the rub Jimmy, you and I, differ on what it means to have inherited a fallen human nature and what the fathers meant by that, i.e., I believe that Jesus did not inherit the effect of original sin (a real sin), and for confirmation just look at Mickey’s post about Jesus being born without sin (obvious reference to original sin as a newborn cannot have any personal or actual sins of its own).

Tradition doesn’t indicate that Mary was conceived immaculately, although there are many fathers who believed she didn’t sin. Some believe she was purified in the womb, some believe she was purified at the incarnation or the Annunciation. The Syriacs in particular followed this latter idea. The touch of Christ was her baptism.

Yes, there were many fathers who said she didn’t sin, i.e, she is immaculate according to Catholic and Orthodox tradition, but my view on her being conceived immaculately is derived in large part from the Church fathers (and scripture), did you not see the many quotes I posted by the fathers concerning this? Furthermore, whether there was absolute consensus on the matter of when, one thing is for sure, we both agree she was immaculate and that she could not have achieved such a state on her own. There had to be some divine intervention from the get go, i.e., for me, the removal of original sin, which is the privation of grace, at conception. The thing is you cannot be immaculate and not be full of grace.

I don’t like the form of argument, because it combines a bunch of different ideas, that don’t necessarily deal with each other, and then it argues into a corner, condemning those who don’t follow the logic. You start with the idea of Mary as mother of God; add to that the new Eve; assume that it is ideal that she be completely pure; modify it with the council of Orange; and etc. The end result is the Immaculate Conception. In the end I feel like I’ve been had: I wonder what just happened and how did I get to this position. I feel like I do when I read about some physicist proposing string theory because he developed a math equation that seems to explain some things, but it requires eleven dimensions. Things seem to fit in certain ways, so it must be true.

I’m not trying to bamboozle anyone with my argument, I am simply trying to use logic, scripture, and tradition to argue that Mary was indeed conceived without original sin, which is a real sin.

 

[josie_L]

These can’t be located to be confirmed anywhere. All link to anti Catholic protestant sights.

These could…

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4236,in NPNF1,V:135

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” "Ephraem,Nisibene Hymns,27:8(A.D. 370),in THEO,132

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose,Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166

“As he formed her without my stain of her own,so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople,Homily 1(ante A.D. 446),in ULL,97

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446),in THEO,339

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140(A.D. 449),in ULL,97

I didn’t even bother to check if the quotes Mickey posted were kosher. But thanks for the above quotes. There are a lot more than these though:

1st Century

East: Patriarch St. Mark I the Apostle of Alexandria (Bryant 69) before 60 [Liturgy of St. Mark the Evangelist], “Most holy, immaculate, and blessed Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary.” Latin: “Sanctissima, immaculata, et benedicta, Deipara et semper virgine Maria.”

East: Bishop St. James the Just Apostle of Jerusalem (Bryant 68-69) before 60 [Liturgy of St. James], “Most holy, most glorious, immaculate, Mother of God and ever Virgin,” and Mary is “in every respect out of the range of sinful men.”

East: St. Andrew the First-Called Apostle in 62 [Acts of Andrew]: “And therefore, because the first man was created of immaculate earth, it was necessary that of an immaculate Virgin should be born a perfect man, that the Son of God should restore that eternal life which men had lost.” Latin: “Et propterea, quod ex immaculatâ terrâ ereatus fuerat primus homo, necesse erat ut ex immaculatâ Virgine nasceretur perfectus homo, quo Filius Dei, qui antè condiderat hominem, vitam æternam quam perdiderant hominess, repararet.”

thebananarepublican.blogspot.ca/2008/07/immaculate-conception-of-ever-virgin.html

 

[GaryTaylor]

I didn’t even bother to check if the quotes Mickey posted were kosher. But thanks for the above quotes. There are a lot more than these though:

Thanks

Right, there’s no reference for Augustine and Clement. Happens all the time though along with translation issues.

 

[JMJ_coder]

All of Tradition indicates that Jesus inherited fallen human nature. They continually insist that what wasn’t assumed, wasn’t healed. Did you see the quotes I posted from the fathers that indicated that Jesus had the same fallen nature as us? Human nature fell, and by assuming it, Jesus healed it.

Jesus did assume our nature, but the stain of Original Sin is neither a necessary nor essential component of our nature. With or without, it is the same human nature. Now, one of the primary effects of Original Sin is that we now find ourselves separated from a life with God. And one of the primary effects of Baptism is to restore this relationship so that we can again have our life with God. My question to you is this - if Jesus was born with Original Sin then he was separated from a life with God; but, since Jesus is God how could God be separated from himself?

 

[jimmy]

Jesus did assume our nature, but the stain of Original Sin is neither a necessary nor essential component of our nature. With or without, it is the same human nature. Now, one of the primary effects of Original Sin is that we now find ourselves separated from a life with God. And one of the primary effects of Baptism is to restore this relationship so that we can again have our life with God. My question to you is this - if Jesus was born with Original Sin then he was separated from a life with God; but, since Jesus is God how could God be separated from himself?

Jesus assumed exactly what was handed on from Adam. The Incarnation, itself is redemptive. In assuming what is ours and uniting it to himself he healed it. I know you want to limit salvation to the cross, but the fathers didn’t do that. They had a strong emphasis on the incarnation, and that is what lead to the christology we have. It wasn’t until much later in the west that it was limited to the cross.

 

[Mickey]

Gary,

None of your quotes indicate the Most Holy Theotokos was spared from ancestral sin at conception.

“Of all those born of women, there is not a single one who is perfectly holy, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, Who in a special new way of immaculate birth-giving, did not experience earthly taint”
(St. Ambrose, Commentary on Luke, ch. 2).

“God alone is without sin. All born in the usual manner of woman and man, that is, of fleshly union, become guilty of sin. Consequently, He Who does not have sin was not conceived in this manner”
(St. Ambrose, Ap. Aug. “Concerning Marriage and Conception”).

“One Man alone, the Intermediary between God and man, is free from the bonds of sinful birth, because He was born of a Virgin, and because in being born He did not experience the touch of sin” (St. Ambrose, Against Julian, Book 2).

 

[Mickey]

“I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the Church, unapproved by the reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we really more learned and more pious than our fathers? You will say, ‘One must glorify the Mother of God as much as possible.’ This is true; but the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment. This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications, possessing as She does true crowns of glory and signs of dignity. Glorify the purity of her flesh and the sanctity of Her life. Marvel at the abundance of the gifts of this Virgin; venerate Her Divine Son; exalt Her Who conceived without knowing concupiscence and gave birth without knowing pain. But what does one yet need to add to these dignities? People say that one must revere the conception which preceded the glorious birth-giving; for if the conception had not preceded, the birth-giving also would not have been glorious. But what would one say if anyone for the same reason should demand the same kind of veneration of the father and mother of Holy Mary? One might equally demand the same for Her grandparents and great-grandparents, to infinity. Moreover, how can there not be sin in the place where there was concupiscence? All the more, let one not say that the Holy Virgin was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of man. I say decisively that the Holy Spirit descended upon Her, but not that He came with Her.”
Bernard of Clairvaux

 

[JMJ_coder]

Jesus assumed exactly what was handed on from Adam. The Incarnation, itself is redemptive. In assuming what is ours and uniting it to himself he healed it. I know you want to limit salvation to the cross, but the fathers didn’t do that. They had a strong emphasis on the incarnation, and that is what lead to the christology we have. It wasn’t until much later in the west that it was limited to the cross.

I don’t think its a question of separating the Incarnation from the Crucifixion or the Resurrection. All three are are separate, unique events, and yet all three are intimately connected and ordered toward each other. That is what the Church teaches.

But, this is a separate issue. We’re discussing primarily the nature of man and what exactly is Original Sin. Secondarily of whether or not and/or to what extent Jesus had Original Sin. I don’t even think the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary should be in picture until these first two issues are resolved as the former are foundational for the latter.

Did Jesus assume what is ours? Yes he did. As the Maronite Liturgy professes - ‘You have assumed what is ours and have given us what is yours for the life and salvation of our souls.’ We agree on this point. But, I think we disagree on whether or not the stain of Original Sin is an essential mark of our human nature without which the resultant wouldn’t be human nature.

I think our first task here is to come to a consensus of what we agree on and where we disagree. Do you agree? (lame pun intended )

 

[jimmy]

I don’t think its a question of separating the Incarnation from the Crucifixion or the Resurrection. All three are are separate, unique events, and yet all three are intimately connected and ordered toward each other. That is what the Church teaches.

But, this is a separate issue. We’re discussing primarily the nature of man and what exactly is Original Sin. Secondarily of whether or not and/or to what extent Jesus had Original Sin. I don’t even think the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary should be in picture until these first two issues are resolved as the former are foundational for the latter.

Did Jesus assume what is ours? Yes he did. As the Maronite Liturgy professes - ‘You have assumed what is ours and have given us what is yours for the life and salvation of our souls.’ We agree on this point. But, I think we disagree on whether or not the stain of Original Sin is an essential mark of our human nature without which the resultant wouldn’t be human nature.

I think our first task here is to come to a consensus of what we agree on and where we disagree. Do you agree? (lame pun intended )

I agree.

 

[neokarny]

Don’t some Oriental Orthodox of the Coptic or Syriac tradition believe that Mary’s cleansing/sinlessness was at the Annunciation? As I’ve seen a Copt once phrase it online - the “Immaculate Annunciation.” Since some OO (and probably some EO) believe her immaculateness was post-conception, I can’t say I could agree to dogmatize any given view, especially considering a united EO-OO communion. I realize some OO do in fact teach she was immaculate at conception, but the fact is that some don’t and appear to have a tradition of such.

It’s easy to forget that the OO are important in these RC-EO discussions, but they tend to introduce diverse beliefs into the equation that must be considered since the EO and OO will enter communion probably long before the RC. It’s similar to RC and EO debating about the “essence-energies” distinction, while ignoring the diverse-yet-legitimate perspectives of the OO on the subject altogether.

 

[josie_L]

Gary,

None of your quotes indicate the Most Holy Theotokos was spared from ancestral sin at conception.

“Of all those born of women, there is not a single one who is perfectly holy, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, Who in a special new way of immaculate birth-giving, did not experience earthly taint”
(St. Ambrose, Commentary on Luke, ch. 2).

“God alone is without sin. All born in the usual manner of woman and man, that is, of fleshly union, become guilty of sin. Consequently, He Who does not have sin was not conceived in this manner”
(St. Ambrose, Ap. Aug. “Concerning Marriage and Conception”).

“One Man alone, the Intermediary between God and man, is free from the bonds of sinful birth, because He was born of a Virgin, and because in being born He did not experience the touch of sin” (St. Ambrose, Against Julian, Book 2).

Mickey, what taint or sin is Saint Ambrose referring to, and how do you define “born” in this quote?

 

[Mickey]

Don’t some Oriental Orthodox of the Coptic or Syriac tradition believe that Mary’s cleansing/sinlessness was at the Annunciation?

Yes. And some Eastern Orthodox.

 

[josie_L]

Don’t some Oriental Orthodox of the Coptic or Syriac tradition believe that Mary’s cleansing/sinlessness was at the Annunciation? As I’ve seen a Copt once phrase it online - the “Immaculate Annunciation.” Since some OO (and probably some EO) believe her immaculateness was post-conception, I can’t say I could agree to dogmatize any given view, especially considering a united EO-OO communion. I realize some OO do in fact teach she was immaculate at conception, but the fact is that some don’t and appear to have a tradition of such.

It’s easy to forget that the OO are important in these RC-EO discussions, but they tend to introduce diverse beliefs into the equation that must be considered since the EO and OO will enter communion probably long before the RC. It’s similar to RC and EO debating about the “essence-energies” distinction, while ignoring the diverse-yet-legitimate perspectives of the OO on the subject altogether.

Actually, Neokarny I do not know so much about the OO, but Jimmy did bring up that some Syriac traditions believe that Mary was considered immaculate or “full of Grace” during the Annunciation. I believe that the “full of Grace” comment could have a double-fold meaning, i.e., that she was without sin and that within her womb she contained the source of Grace.