Immaculate conception, Original sin. . . . .

[Mickey]

“If the Blessed Virgin was free from original sin, she was also exempt from the necessity of dying; therefore, either her death was an injustice or she died for the salvation of the human race. But the former supposition is blasphemous, implying that God is not just; and the latter, too, is a blasphemy against Christ for it implies that His Redemption is insufficient. Both are therefore erroneous and impossible. Therefore Our Blessed Lady was subject to original sin.”
St Bonaventure

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Its an interesting discussion with the Copts and is also informative with early tradition regarding Mary and her parents. Quotes from the Gospel of James have also appeared in Maximus the Confessors writing which he states was believed by the early church fathers including Athanasius. He brings into focus what is believed to be fiction and fact.

stanncatholicchurch.org/st_ann.htm

 

[neokarny]

Its an interesting discussion with the Copts and is also informative with early tradition regarding Mary and her parents. Quotes from the Gospel of James have also appeared in Maximus the Confessors writing which he states was believed by the early church fathers including Athanasius. He brings into focus what is believed to be fiction and fact.

stanncatholicchurch.org/st_ann.htm

I’m not sure this really explains the Coptic or Syriac (or their historical) views on an Immaculate Annunciation.

 

[neokarny]

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.

The Copt I referenced earlier, on another forum, referred to a Syriac Father saying that the curse was lifted at the Annunciation - definitely contrary to the IC. I’ve contacted them and will post further if I find out more on this tradition.

 

[jimmy]

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.

Jacob of Sarug is one of the early Syriac Orthodox saints who taught that it was at the Annunciation that she was cleansed.

 

[neokarny]

Jacob of Sarug is one of the early Syriac Orthodox saints who taught that it was at the Annunciation that she was cleansed.

This is actually one of the references I saw. Do you know if any of his writings on the subject are in English?

 

[josie_L]

The Copt I referenced earlier, on another forum, referred to a Syriac Father saying that the curse was lifted at the Annunciation - definitely contrary to the IC. I’ve contacted them and will post further if I find out more on this tradition.

Not necessarily contrary, as the curse lifted may very well mean “original sin” but I get what you mean . . . either way I think the answer lies in what the majority of the fathers have to say on the matter, I do not think both the OO (some of whom believe that she was immaculate only at the annunciation) and the RC can be right on this issue. Moreover, the words used to describe Mother Mary seem to suggest she was always pure, always immaculate, no stain, no sin . . . etc.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not sure this really explains the Coptic or Syriac (or their historical) views on an Immaculate Annunciation.

It brings into focus exactly what the years preceding the Annunciation entail for Mary. Belief in the annunciation/Incarnation is completely orthodox. There’s no issue here in that the CC simply believes the IC is most fitting and presents a compelling argument once everyone is in line with orthodox history. Course that’s where the real dilemma occurs.

 

[jimmy]

This is actually one of the references I saw. Do you know if any of his writings on the subject are in English?

SVs Press publishes a few of his poetic homilies On the Mother of God. It’s one of their patristics volumes.

 

[neokarny]

It brings into focus exactly what the years preceding the Annunciation entail for Mary. Belief in the annunciation/Incarnation is completely orthodox. There’s no issue here in that the CC simply believes the IC is most fitting and presents a compelling argument once everyone in in line with orthodox history. Course that’s where the real dilemma occurs.

I think there’s a misunderstanding here.

The point in question is the belief that Mary was cleansed of corruption (original sin or whatever anyone wants to call it) at the Annunciation, and not prior to that. As jimmy referenced, St. Jacob of Sarug is an important Syriac Father to apparently teach that Mary was cleansed of corruption at the Annunciation (i.e. not at her conception).

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think there’s a misunderstanding here.

The point in question is the belief that Mary was cleansed of corruption (original sin or whatever anyone wants to call it) at the Annunciation, and not prior to that. As jimmy referenced, St. Jacob of Sarug is an important Syriac Father to apparently teach that Mary was cleansed of corruption at the Annunciation (i.e. not at her conception).

And? What is the misunderstanding?

 

[neokarny]

And? What is the misunderstanding?

“Belief in the annunciation/Incarnation is completely orthodox. There’s no issue here in that the CC simply believes the IC is most fitting and presents a compelling argument once everyone is in line with orthodox history. Course that’s where the real dilemma occurs.”

I must have misunderstood, but I thought your comment was showing the belief in the Annunciation, which confused me since nobody in question doubts the Annunciation itself.

 

[GaryTaylor]

How does one know Mary was preserved at the Annunciation and not prior? Seems to me the Angel said: Hail, Full of Grace. He didn’t say Hail you will be full of grace when the HS overshadows you. So God knew and the Angel knew already before Mary. God knew of the Incarnation before Adam and Eve.

In other words we all know Mary was preserved, we disagree on when.

 

[tdgesq]

“If the Blessed Virgin was free from original sin, she was also exempt from the necessity of dying; therefore, either her death was an injustice or she died for the salvation of the human race. But the former supposition is blasphemous, implying that God is not just; and the latter, too, is a blasphemy against Christ for it implies that His Redemption is insufficient. Both are therefore erroneous and impossible. Therefore Our Blessed Lady was subject to original sin.”
St Bonaventure

This is an accurate quote from St. Bonaventure. St. Thomas taught much along the same lines. Exemption from dying really doesn’t make much sense to me though. Jesus died and he was clearly free from original sin. And I really don’t perceive that God is unjust because he by singular favor preserved Mary from original sin at her conception, yet still allowed her to die. I don’t find it anymore unjust than the tradition that she was cleansed of original sin at the Annunciation, yet still died.

 

[neokarny]

How does one know Mary was preserved at the Annunciation and not prior? Seems to me the Angel said: Hail, Full of Grace. He didn’t say Hail you will be full of grace when the HS overshadows you. So God knew and the Angel knew already before Mary. God knew of the Incarnation before Adam and Eve.

In other words we all know Mary was preserved, we disagree on when.

I’m just pointing out that, as you said, there is disagreement (even if a minority position) on when. I was using it to argue against EO accepting the dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception among ourselves or in the context of the RC-EO dialogues.

One problem is the RC dogma of the Immaculate Conception undisputably affirms the RC position of it occurring at Mary’s Conception, which would be irreconcilable (since it’s considered an infallible, universal dogma) with other traditions that place her cleansing at the Annunciation or elsewhere. If one is placed on the level of infallible, universal and undisputable truth then it can’t even be open to the unity-in-diversity alongside other beliefs, as can be seen among OO and should be seen more often among the EO (many of us unfortunately try to make the EO into a uniform monolithic faith, which is historically foreign to us).

 

[jimmy]

How does one know Mary was preserved at the Annunciation and not prior? Seems to me the Angel said: Hail, Full of Grace. He didn’t say Hail you will be full of grace when the HS overshadows you. So God knew and the Angel knew already before Mary. God knew of the Incarnation before Adam and Eve.

In other words we all know Mary was preserved, we disagree on when.

In the Syriac tradition there is an understanding that the words of the angel mark the incarnation, not a prophecy of it.

‘Through her ear the Word entered and dwelt secretly in her womb [Ephrem, quoted in On the Mother of God, Jacob of Serug, p4].’

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m just pointing out that, as you said, there is disagreement (even if a minority position) on when. I was using it to argue against EO accepting the dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception among ourselves or in the context of the RC-EO dialogues.

One problem is the RC dogma of the Immaculate Conception undisputably affirms the RC position of it occurring at Mary’s Conception, which would be irreconcilable (since it’s considered an infallible, universal dogma) with other traditions that place her cleansing at the Annunciation or elsewhere. If one is placed on the level of infallible, universal and undisputable truth then it can’t even be open to the unity-in-diversity alongside other beliefs, as can be seen among OO and should be seen more often among the EO (many of us unfortunately try to make the EO into a uniform monolithic faith, which is historically foreign to us).

The Church through centuries of debate determined the IC is most fitting in that Mary was preserved by a singular grace at the moment of conception. Are you saying orthodox affirm its undisputed Mary was preserved at the Annunciation, but its not infallible? You realize the IC was part of the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Church’s respectively 17th and 15th centuries. What new revelation did they receive?

Why would God wait to preserve Mary? We can’t say He could have preserved Her and chose not to.

 

[neokarny]

The Church through centuries of debate determined the IC is most fitting in that Mary was preserved by a singular grace at the moment of conception. Are you saying orthodox affirm its undisputed Mary was preserved at the Annunciation, but its not infallible? You realize the IC was part of the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Church’s respectively 17th and 15th centuries. What new revelation did they receive?

But the Russian and Greek Churches aren’t the only Orthodox Churches, and the Graeco-Russian Tradition is not the only Orthodox Tradition. I’m saying that much of the Graeco-Russian Tradition may believe Mary was cleansed at ther conception, but other (or at least parts of other) Orthodox Traditions may not agree and that’s OK. We don’t need to dogmatize one way or another. For example, I can believe she was cleansed at her Conception, and a Syriac or a Copt can believe she wasn’t cleansed until the Annunciation and I’m just fine with that, especially since it has basis in some of their venerable Fathers.

 

[jimmy]

The Church through centuries of debate determined the IC is most fitting in that Mary was preserved by a singular grace at the moment of conception. Are you saying orthodox affirm its undisputed Mary was preserved at the Annunciation, but its not infallible? You realize the IC was part of the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Church’s respectively 17th and 15th centuries. What new revelation did they receive?

Why would God wait to preserve Mary? We can’t say He could have preserved Her and chose not to.

Why can’t we?

 

[GaryTaylor]

In the Syriac tradition there is an understanding that the words of the angel mark the incarnation, not a prophecy of it.

‘Through her ear the Word entered and dwelt secretly in her womb [Ephrem, quoted in On the Mother of God, Jacob of Serug, p4].’

Understood, really its a historic belief in orthodoxy. Rome simply spent a great deal of time debating this. The Dogma effectively ended the argument within the Church after the IC gained favor and the argument couldn’t be reasonably dismissed.