Immaculate conception, Original sin. . . . .

[GaryTaylor]

Why can’t we?

Consider it infallible? I’m sure many believe it is. It weakens the infallible argument against Rome though.

I mean how infallible does “most fitting” sound?

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

You ever read the Absolute Primacy of Jesus Christ? There’s a bit to it which you’ll see on top.

absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/duns-scotus/

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Can original sin be transmitted without the seed of a man? After all, a woman cannot reproduce without the seed.

Christ’s seed is from the Holy Spirit, while He did take on our flesh I am not certain to understand if he did take on our spiritual corruption, while our flesh is corrupted as well the origin of the corruption is spiritual. After all He, being fully Divine, does have the ability to discern good and evil perfectly, as we do not.

 

[Mickey]

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.

I know that she is all holy…immaculate…full of grace. I know that she is the greatest ascetic of the Church, who by Her free will chose not to sin. The Most Holy Theotokos is our great example.

However, I do not see the doctrine of the IC in Sacred Scripture…or Sacred Tradition. And I am pleased that I am not mandated to accept that doctrine under pain of excommunication. That is all I am saying.

I will bow out of this thread now.

 

[josie_L]

Can original sin be transmitted without the seed of a man? After all, a woman cannot reproduce without the seed.

Christ’s seed is from the Holy Spirit, while He did take on our flesh I am not certain to understand if he did take on our spiritual corruption, while our flesh is corrupted as well the origin of the corruption is spiritual. After all He, being fully Divine, does have the ability to discern good and evil perfectly, as we do not.

Interesting, since it is referred to Adam’s fault, maybe it is through man’s seed, and some fathers do mention “the seed of sin” in reference to original sin. This is what I was sort of driving at in another thread, as there is quite a bit of evidence that implies his being left unmarked by original sin because of how he was conceived.

DIDYMUS THE BLIND (c. 313 - 398 AD)

If Christ had received His body from a marital union and not in another way it would be supposed that he too is liable to an accounting for that SIN, WHICH, INDEED, ALL WHO ARE DESCENDED FROM ADAM CONTRACT IN SUCCESSION. [See Jurgens comment on this passage, vol 2, pg 64] (Against the Manicheans 8)

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 250 AD)

If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the REMISSION OF THEIR SINS is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an INFANT not be held back, who, having but recently been BORN, has done no sin [committed no personal sin], EXCEPT THAT, BORN OF THE FLESH ACCORDING TO ADAM, HE HAS CONTRACTED THE CONTAGION OF THAT OLD DEATH FROM HIS FIRST BEING BORN. For this very reason does he approach more easily to receive the REMISSION OF SINS: because the SINS FORGIVEN HIM are NOT his OWN but THOSE OF ANOTHER . (Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)

And read the quotes from Mickey’s post concerning what St. Ambrose (father of the Church) had to say about Jesus’s conception.

 

[josie_L]

I know that she is all holy…immaculate…full of grace. I know that she is the greatest ascetic of the Church, who by Her free will chose not to sin. The Most Holy Theotokos is our great example.

However, I do not see the doctrine of the IC in Sacred Scripture…or Sacred Tradition. And I am pleased that I am not mandated to accept that doctrine under pain of excommunication. That is all I am saying.

I will bow out of this thread now.

God bless Mickey!

 

[neokarny]

You ever read the Absolute Primacy of Jesus Christ? There’s a bit to it which you’ll see on top.

absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/duns-scotus/

I haven’t read it, and I don’t know much about Duns Scotus beyond him being important in the RCC. I don’t have the time to read through it ATM, but I assume he argues for the immacuate conception in this work?

Personally, even if I agreed with an argument in favor of it, I wouldn’t necessarily want others to give up their belief in the Immaculate Annunciation, etc. These issues IMO amount to either pious belief, or varying legitimate traditions that affirm the primary purpose of Mary bearing Christ without corruption, regardless of whether she was always without it or not.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

I know that she is all holy…immaculate…full of grace. I know that she is the greatest ascetic of the Church, who by Her free will chose not to sin. The Most Holy Theotokos is our great example.

However, I do not see the doctrine of the IC in Sacred Scripture…or Sacred Tradition. And I am pleased that I am not mandated to accept that doctrine under pain of excommunication. That is all I am saying.

I will bow out of this thread now.

Mickey’s CF quotes are accurate. Even if the op says she won’t bother to consider them hinting that she thinks their inaccurate.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Interesting, since it is referred to Adam’s fault, maybe it is through man’s seed, and some fathers do mention “the seed of sin” in reference to original sin. This is what I was sort of driving at in another thread, as there is quite a bit of evidence that implies his being left unmarked by original sin because of how he was conceived.

And read the quotes from Mickey’s post concerning what St. Ambrose (father of the Church) had to say about Jesus’s conception.

Thanks josie,

This one in particular jumps at me:

“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”).

This I find hard to understand as well, being that in Genesis our Creator says:

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” [emphasis mine].

We were already commanded to multiply before the fall. I find myself in between procreation before the fall and after the fall. Was procreation damaged after the fall? Even if we were created male and female and we were commanded to do it before hand. Was the means the same, while the nature of the means different?

 

[josie_L]

Mickey’s CF quotes are accurate. Even if the op says she won’t bother to consider them hinting that she thinks their inaccurate.

I didn’t say they were inaccurate, actually I assumed they were until someone pointed out that some of his quotes (from his first post) were inaccurate. Moreover, I just pointed one poster to look at his other quotes.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I haven’t read it, and I don’t know much about Duns Scotus beyond him being important in the RCC. I don’t have the time to read through it ATM, but I assume he argues for the immacuate conception in this work?.

His work isn’t in English on the Incarnation. Right though the link is a decent presentation of his reasoning though. His available writings are listed though in the link. He’s remembered for the IC as a first thought in Catholicism, his work on the existence of God is significant as is all his work in philosophy.

Personally, even if I agreed with an argument in favor of it, I wouldn’t necessarily want others to give up their belief in the Immaculate Annunciation, etc. These issues IMO amount to either pious belief, or varying legitimate traditions that affirm the primary purpose of Mary bearing Christ without corruption, regardless of whether she was always without it or not.

I wouldn’t either, I think its imperative these same areas understand what they believe though, as is true for Catholics. When you pray daily, weekly in Church about things you cannot wrap your mind around it becomes imperative to understand what the words are which one is repeating. Is it pious belief? There is only one Theotokos and we all need to speak clearly about that truth since in the order of Grace she resides above the cherubim and seraphim which have no sin. There is no other in which we can compare in this regard of human nature or in the order of Grace. When one starts repeating Mary who is above the cherubim and seraphim, in my mind its time I understand the strange words being uttered out of my mouth, is it a pious belief? In the final analysis you either believe what you utter or you don’t. This is what separated Mary apart, her faith and intercession for all mankind.

Here’s an example by an Orthodox Father.

“Calling to remembrance our most holy, most pure [or immaculate], most blessed and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary…”

“It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most blameless and the Mother of our God. More honourable than the cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim, who without corruption barest God the Word, the very Theotokos, thee do we magnify.”

Dogmatic Theotokion, Tone I —
Let us hymn the Virgin Mary, * the glory of the whole world, * who sprang forth from men and gave birth unto the Master, * the portal of heaven, and the subject of the hymnody of the incorporeal hosts; * for she hath been shown to be heaven and the temple of the Godhead. * Having destroyed the middle-wall of enmity, * she hath brought forth peace and opened wide the kingdom. * Therefore, having her as the confirmation of our faith, * we have as champion the Lord born of her. * Wherefore be of good courage! * Yea, be ye of good cheer, O people of God, * for He vanquisheth the foe, in that He is almighty!

Resurrectional Aposticha Theotokion, Tone IV —
Mercifully regard the supplications of thy servants, * O all-immaculate one, * quelling the uprisings of the cruel demons against us, * delivering us from every sorrow; * for thee alone have we as a steadfast and sure confirmation, * and we have acquired thine intercession; * let not us that call upon thee be put to shame, O Mistress. * Haste thou to answer the entreaty * of those who cry out to thee with faith: * Rejoice, thou help, joy and protection of all, * and salvation of our souls!

Resurrectional Aposticha Theotokion, Tone VIII —
O unwedded Virgin * who ineffably conceived God in the flesh, * Mother of God Most High: * accept the entreaties of thy servants, * O most immaculate one, * granting unto all cleansing of transgressions; * and, accepting now our supplications, * pray thou that we all be saved.

Quotations from the services could be given ad infinitum, but these will do.

Remember that you will stand before our Saviour one day, as well as the Queen who stands at His right hand. Do not let the accusation be read against you that you called the Mother of God a sinner.

With the hope that you will realise that I am trying to help you, I remain,

Yours in Christ,

Fr David Straut"

 

[JMJ_coder]

I still think it is futile to argue about the Immaculate Conception while we still have no consensus on the meaning of the nature of man and especially of Original Sin. We seem to be speaking past each other and I think it is a direct result of this. Here is a link to the section of the Catechism outlining Original Sin (vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM - starting at paragraph 396). If the Orthodox posters would be so kind as to link to their teaching on Original/Ancestral Sin that would be helpful for us to start to have a better understanding of what exactly each other is trying to say.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I still think it is futile to argue about the Immaculate Conception while we still have no consensus on the meaning of the nature of man and especially of Original Sin. We seem to be speaking past each other and I think it is a direct result of this. Here is a link to the section of the Catechism outlining Original Sin (vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM - starting at paragraph 396). If the Orthodox posters would be so kind as to link to their teaching on Original/Ancestral Sin that would be helpful for us to start to have a better understanding of what exactly each other is trying to say.

This is what I have been saying.

JMJ I hear you. Check out post #7 on this thread below which is active now.

"Re: Does anyone know of a good point by point comparison of the concept of “original sin?”

 

[josie_L]

I still think it is futile to argue about the Immaculate Conception while we still have no consensus on the meaning of the nature of man and especially of Original Sin. We seem to be speaking past each other and I think it is a direct result of this. Here is a link to the section of the Catechism outlining Original Sin (vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM - starting at paragraph 396). If the Orthodox posters would be so kind as to link to their teaching on Original/Ancestral Sin that would be helpful for us to start to have a better understanding of what exactly each other is trying to say.

Yes, the main problem is what aspects/effects of our human nature did he assume (and that in turn leads to original sin), obviously, he wasn’t conceived or born in the normal manner any of us were.

 

[jimmy]

My point was that there is nothing about man that Christ couldn’t assume. Man lost original justice and holiness, and the sanctifying Grace that goes with that state? Ok, that is fine, the Spirit is manifest to us by the Son, so that isn’t an issue. By assuming the nature of man as His own, he made it manifest to human nature. P. Pius IX declared that at the moment of conception Mary was granted a singular grace that protected her from OS. Considering the hypostatic union occurs from conception, and there is no point in time at which the humanity of Jesus existed apart from the hypostasis of the Son, there is no point at which he lacked any Grace in his humanity. He assumed humanity as Abel and every other man prior did. It was exactly the same, yet by assuming (at the moment of the incarnation, or the annunciation as was discussed on the other thread) it he made it pure.

One of the main problems I see with the IC is that you eliminate the effects of Christ actually becoming Incarnate, and salvation is reduced to the passion and death of Christ. Christs nature is pure prior to the incarnation, so the incarnation doesn’t actually affect. Humanity. In eastern Christianity the assumption of our nature is cathartic. The Orthodox explain it through the communion of natures in one person. The divine energy penetrated the human nature and makes it divine. Divine qualities are bestowed through the communion of natures. Same happens with us through Grace. Divine properties are bestowed on us through participation in Grace.