Just need to get something off my chest about Mary

[ConstantineTG]

I have heard that Mary is the great example from Catholic theologians as well, so you may be happy to know that is not exclusively Orthodox thought.

I’m curious, since Orthodox baptize infants, does that baptism remit anything resembling original sin? i.e. like the Ancestral Sin. What is the purpose of baptizing infants?

Well, the fact that Mary in Catholic thought is immaculately conceived and the rest of us aren’t, there is nothing for me to be happy about.

In Orthodoxy, baptism is about uniting us to the death of Christ (that is why baptism by immersion is the norm) so that with Him we may rise again. Because we die with Christ, we shed the old self and put on the new, that is why the Baptismal Troparion (hymn) is the one from the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, “For as many of you have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”

 

[MarcoPolo]

Well, the fact that Mary in Catholic thought is immaculately conceived and the rest of us aren’t, there is nothing for me to be happy about.

I’m not sure if your psychological response of unhappiness is consistent with official Orthodox teaching, but by that logic you would have to be unhappy that Jesus, who was entirely human in solidarity with mankind (cf. Heb 2), was without sin. If being without sin is something to be jealous of or something that alienates one from humanity that should make us unhappy, then you cannot acknowledge Jesus’ full humanity, and full solidarity with humanity, as well as his sinlessness. You would have to be unhappy that he is not like “the rest of us” due to sinlessness. I would suggest you would also have to be unhappy that Adam and Eve were permitted to partake in freedom from original sin as well.

In Orthodoxy, baptism is about uniting us to the death of Christ (that is why baptism by immersion is the norm) so that with Him we may rise again. Because we die with Christ, we shed the old self and put on the new, that is why the Baptismal Troparion (hymn) is the one from the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, “For as many of you have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”

Okay, so then prior to baptism, a human being is born separate from union with Christ’s Passion? That is the effect of the Fall in Orthodoxy? That is the blemish with which post-Fall man is born?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not sure if your psychological response of unhappiness is consistent with official Orthodox teaching, but by that logic you would have to be unhappy that Jesus, who was entirely human in solidarity with mankind (cf. Heb 2), was without sin.

But in Orthodox “thought”, Jesus is also wholly God, and He became man partaking of our nature so that we as man may partake of His nature, which is divine.

There is no happiness in Orthodoxy, only joy

If being without sin is something to be jealous of or something that alienates one from humanity that should make us unhappy, then you cannot acknowledge Jesus’ full humanity, and full solidarity with humanity, as well as his sinlessness. You would have to be unhappy that he is not like “the rest of us” due to sinlessness. I would suggest you would also have to be unhappy that Adam and Eve were permitted to partake in freedom from original sin as well.

It is not about jealousy. But if Mary is able to do what she had done only because she was immaculately conceived, then there is no hope for you and me.

Okay, so then prior to baptism, a human being is born separate from union with Christ’s Passion? That is the effect of the Fall in Orthodoxy? That is the blemish with which post-Fall man is born?

The best analogy is the prodigal son. The prodigal son is Adam. He lived in the house of the father (paradise). He left the father (original sin) and lived in a pig pen (the fallen world). Suppose the son had children with the harlots, we are are those children. We never committed original sin because we never left the father. But we are born in the pig pen because that is where the son is after his sin.

Christ’s sacrifice is to come willingly to the pig pen and live among us, and by doing so and being like us in every way but sin, take us out and bring us home to the Father.

 

[MarcoPolo]

But in Orthodox “thought”, Jesus is also wholly God, and He became man partaking of our nature so that we as man may partake of His nature, which is divine.

There is no happiness in Orthodoxy, only joy

It is not about jealousy. But if Mary is able to do what she had done only because she was immaculately conceived, then there is no hope for you and me.

None of this makes any sense to me. I also don’t think you remained consistent with your principle that freedom from original sin makes one alienated from humanity and something to be “not happy about” if Mary should have that quality. You merely dismissed Jesus’ humanity on account of him having a divine characteristic (and Adam and Eve for another reason I presume), which you would think logically would make Jesus even more alien and upsetting to you, but you do not explain yourself. I would humbly contend that your rationale is simply reflexive against Catholic teaching and not based on any theological grounds.

The best analogy is the prodigal son. The prodigal son is Adam. He lived in the house of the father (paradise). He left the father (original sin) and lived in a pig pen (the fallen world). Suppose the son had children with the harlots, we are are those children. We never committed original sin because we never left the father. But we are born in the pig pen because that is where the son is after his sin.

Christ’s sacrifice is to come willingly to the pig pen and live among us, and by doing so and being like us in every way but sin, take us out and bring us home to the Father.

In what way do you suggest that differs from the Catholic teaching?

 

[ConstantineTG]

None of this makes any sense to me. I also don’t think you remained consistent with your principle that freedom from original sin makes one alienated from humanity and something to be “not happy about” if Mary should have that quality. You merely dismissed Jesus’ humanity on account of him having a divine characteristic (and Adam and Eve for another reason I presume), which you would think logically would make Jesus even more alien and upsetting to you, but you do not explain yourself. I would humbly contend that your rationale is simply reflexive against Catholic teaching and not based on any theological grounds.

In what way do you suggest that differs from the Catholic teaching?

I think we need to step back and try to understand the entire soteriology of the Orthodox Church. It may sound inconsistent because we are discussing in chunks and pieces and I think our minds are not one the same chunk so we are not understanding one another.

Humanity as a whole has fallen into sin. In Orthodoxy, sin and death are always synonymous. Sin isn’t just an act or something you inherited, it is the inherent corruptibility of human beings. In this case, Mary is not sinless. Because she, like us, has inherent corruptibility from Adam’s “original sin” (I’m using the term not in an Augustinian sense, but “original” meaning “the very first”). Now, to think in an Augustinian sense, if all we inherit from Adam is Original Sin and if baptism washes away Original Sin, then we should also have lost the inherent corruptibility of our nature, but that is not the case. So that is why Orthodoxy rejects Augustinian Original Sin because there is no “stain of sin” within us when we are born, and the inherent corruptibility remains with us even after baptism. The only way to get rid of the inherent corruptibility was divinization. This is the teaching of St. Athanasius the Great and further expounded upon by St. Maximos the Confessor. St. Athanasius taught that if the dilemma with mankind was simply “sin” that needs forgiveness, then Christ didn’t need to become man. But the problem was corruption, that our very being is being corrupted to nothingness. And nothing short of uniting the corruptible human with the incorruptible divine will save us. Thus Christ accomplished this by uniting his very divine self with our human nature. So in this sense as well, the Immaculate Conception does not make sense. Why would Christ take on a humanity that has been preserved from the Fall if the whole point of him becoming human was to redeem this very humanity? And this humanity is corrupted by death, which is darkness. That is why Christ is the light, because light defeats darkness. A dark room ceases to be dark when you enter with a candle and light brightens the room. There is no instance when there is a burning flame and it is still dark. That is why it does not make sense that Christ needed to take flesh from someone immaculately conceived, He cannot be defeated by sin. He himself sanctifies the flesh by His very being, by the contact of the flesh to Him who is the source of all goodness and holiness. So Christ’s humanity is pure and holy and perfect and immaculate and free from all sin because He is God, not because He inherited a pure and prefect and immaculate flesh from another human being. His very act of incarnation which brought together his divinity with our humanity is what sanctified the flesh, the same way his very presence on earth sanctified all of creation. When Christ touches corruption, the corruption is defeated, it is not He who gets corrupted. When he touches the sick, they are healed. When he touches the dead they are raised. That is why when Christ, Life Himself, died on the cross, death itself was defeated because He sanctifies everything by His very being.

On my second point, joy and happiness are different. Happiness is temporary. And many things can make one happy. A new job, a new house, a new car. But joy is different, and its expression doesn’t always have the external signs that you would associate with happiness. You can have tears and experience joy. Joy is a deeper and more pure experience. In the same sense you differentiate between knowledge and wisdom, with happiness being like knowledge, and joy being like wisdom.

 

[acadiANNA]

Kevin 12—I’m not sure I understand your position. I believe all things are possible with God. You have prompted me to research and be accurate in posting.

 

[Kevin12]

Kevin 12—I’m not sure I understand your position. I believe all things are possible with God. You have prompted me to research and be accurate in posting.

You said, “Mary was kept from all sin from birth by the grace of God. This was God’s divine plan. It is clear to me that she was never tempted to sin.” I think this is incorrect because it implies irresistible grace, a Calvinist position. Everyone, even Mary, could resist grace and chose to disobey God. Indeed, if it were not the case that it was her choice, of her own free will, to bear Christ, we could not say she “was obedient to God and conquered evil” any more than we could say our computers are obedient to our wills when we turn them on.

I think she also must have been tempted - even Christ was tempted. I had an English professor in college, a very Catholic Croatian man, who made a point that has always stuck with me - that virtue is innocence that has been put to the test and triumphed. From my perspective, Mary is an example of this.

 

[CB_Catholic]

You said, “Mary was kept from all sin from birth by the grace of God. This was God’s divine plan. It is clear to me that she was never tempted to sin.” I think this is incorrect because it implies irresistible grace, a Calvinist position. Everyone, even Mary, could resist grace and chose to disobey God. Indeed, if it were not the case that it was her choice, of her own free will, to bear Christ, we could not say she “was obedient to God and conquered evil” any more than we could say our computers are obedient to our wills when we turn them on.

I think she also must have been tempted - even Christ was tempted. I had an English professor in college, a very Catholic Croatian man, who made a point that has always stuck with me - that virtue is innocence that has been put to the test and triumphed. From my perspective, Mary is an example of this.

The creature is not greater than the Creator. If Jesus was subject to temptation (as the Gospels record while he was in the desert for 40 days) Mary had to be subject to it also. Temptation is not sin. the Church no where teaches that Mary was without temptation. It teaches that she was without sin.

 

[acadiANNA]

Seems I have to rethink what I believed all this time. Thank you for the feedback.

 

[Kevin12]

Seems I have to rethink what I believed all this time. Thank you for the feedback.

I just want to point out that I am not trying to diminish Mary, but to exalt her, because she faced the temptation of sin and chose grace, unlike most of us in many cases, myself included.