I’m confused. She inherited Original Sin, but was born without the stain of Original Sin - what is the difference between inheriting and the stain?
I see. I am sorry for confusion I caused. True is that as Christ was able to die and effects of Original Sin were present (while on Earth He experience hunger, fatigue, sadness, stress and pain), he himself had no Original Sin that needed to be cleansed. Theotokos was similar in this regard. Neither of them needed baptism to cleanse the Original Sin (which John’s Baptism wouldn’t have done anyway actually if my understanding is correct). Yet Council of Carthage says baptism is necessary to cleanse Original Sin. So there is some stain it produces. Even baptized who cleansed this sin experience pain, they experience sadness and all effects of sin so cleansing the Original Sin does not actually cleanse effects.
No. This is a reference to Christ taking on the fullness of humanity (that is, everything that encompasses being human) so that through His life, death, and resurrection, humanity could be healed. Benedict XVI himself reflected on this very sentiment.
Where in the Byzantine Liturgy is this stated?
Latin Church largely holds Original Sin to be guilt but not personal guilt. I am not entirely sure whether it is or is not dogmatical but that belief is consistent with Eastern tradition and Council of Carthage. In practice it means effects of sin apply even if we make no sins. That guilt is cleansed (as per Council of Carthage) by baptism… or Original Sin is cleansed by baptism but effects remain.
And humanity is healed. Baptism allows to draw fruits from this healing.
My memory might be off, but isn’t she stated to be pure and above Cherubim and Seraphim ? I don’t know exact wording though. If there is phrase “unstained by Sin” that would qualify but then again I am not sure whether that is included.
So you are saying that it is impossible for the Theotokos to be “most holy, most pure” or “more honorable than the cherubim, more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim, who without corruption gave birth to God the Word” while also having inherited the consequences of Adam’s sin (i.e. death)?
We certainly participate in Christ’s healing of humanity through Baptism, but Christ’s actions took place for all humanity. St. Gregory’s point remains that Christ took on the fullness of humanity to effect our healing.
That really doesn’t clarify anything. Perhaps there’s a better word to use than “guilt” to better differentiate from “personal guilt”?
If this refers to Theotokos being immaculate then that makes my point.
Of course, I do not deny that. What He assumed He healed.
Yes, I think that fits. However, guilt indeed has to be included. Baptism is for remission of sins and when babies are baptized they are also baptized for remission of sins. Yet they do not have personal sins.
It refers to her perpetual virginity. The East holds she can be pure and without sin, while not requiring a special conception that makes her unique and different from the rest of humanity.
Shame, then, that the St. John Chrysostom forgot to make this point.
Well while a great Saint, Council of Carthage has been dogmatically accepted by Ecumenical Council. Council of Carthage says that baptism is for remission of sins even when infants are being baptized hence they have a sin (not a personal sin though). Call that guilt or anything else, that is what we mean when we say guilt. Ecumenical Council is infallible and has authority over St. John Chrysostom’s sermon.
Honestly, this sounds like a matter of semantics. I (and I presume other Eastern Christians) would read this canon of Carthage as requiring baptism for infants precisely because we retain the consequences of Adam’s sin (i.e. death) and that baptism is required to graft us into Christ so that death no longer has hold over us.
Yes… it’s honestly a tricky language and can lead to confusion
we can agree on following:What dogma of Immaculate Conception teaches is that Theotokos has not been stained by such consequences of Adam’s sin. That’s precisely the point of the dogma.
Unfortunately I can not in good conscience agree with that, because dogma of Immaculate Conception binds me to profess precisely that she has had an unique conception. Still, I think I understand Eastern Orthodox position better now. It is therefore not a matter of 2+2 being a dogma, it is a matter of whether Blessed Virgin was conceived immaculate or not while there is agreement that we aren’t born that way.
I’m not learned enough to answer that, other that to guess that since she was born before Christ, she would have been subject to the law of Moses (which she fulfilled). Further, living through Her Son’s crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension, would be a direct participation in the events that Baptism grafts us to (or rather that we participate in through the sacrament).
If she is unique (or more properly her conception is unique), how can Christ have inherited the fullness of humanity from her? To the East, this seems to break St. Gregory Nazianzen’s statement of that which is not assumed is not healed.
Interesting. Does that mean people born before Christ who have fulfilled Law of Moses do not need to be baptized? St. Paul got baptized for example, but I am not sure whether Jews who became Christian did get baptized or not.
Because she was fully human. Original Sin is not necessary for human nature… it is actually an impediment. Our Lord called Himself “Son of a Man”. We know He was not a son of any man- only of Theotokos and heavenly Father, neither of whom are man… so what does the phrase mean? It means He was true human, as we ought to be. He was what we should strive to be. He healed human nature yet He declared baptism to be necessary.
But it is part of our nature, is it not? And is it not part of what Christ healed?
Healing could occur from sin, not with sin… nor can sin itself be healed.
Are you saying that Christ did not heal the effects of original sin on us? Are we still in bondage to death?
I am not sure. If baptism is necessary for salvation, that seems logical.
I think the East’s position is that Christ took on all of what it means to be human (including original sin) and healed it through His perfect life, death, and resurrection. We participate in that healing through the sacraments. Again, this is our understanding of what St. Gregory meant in the quote we’ve been talking about.
So Christ assumed from Mary full humanity plus the sanctifying grace, hence not “missing out” on a human nature but actually having more. That explains a lot! Thank you.