Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[ConstantineTG]

I cannot seem to get anything definitive, when I ask my Orthodox friends. If you believe she was free of sin her whole life then this would have been accomplished via the power of God, as opposed to her own power, or will to be more precise - correct?

Definitely. Only God is good, as Jesus said in Scripture. Everyone, even atheists and pagans, do good only though God dwelling within them.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, sanctification is not salvation. While they are related, they are not the same thing.

Right.

No one is saved until she dies and is before the Throne of Heaven.

So Mary’s sanctification either occurred at her conception, or at the Anunciation.

Either way, it is before the atoning death of Christ.

So you have no means to object to the IC with the excuse, “But Jesus hadn’t died yet!”

 

[joe371]

Definitely. Only God is good, as Jesus said in Scripture. Everyone, even atheists and pagans, do good only though God dwelling within them.

OK. If you believe Mary was free of sin her whole life then this would have been accomplished via the power of God, as opposed to her own power, or will to be more precise - correct?

 

[joe371]

Right.

No one is saved until she dies and is before the Throne of Heaven.

So Mary’s sanctification either occurred at her conception, or at the Anunciation.

Either way, it is before the atoning death of Christ.

So you have no means to object to the IC with the excuse, “But Jesus hadn’t died yet!”

:yup::yup::yup:

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s the important question on this thread that is making everyone go

One cannot get around the fact that, Orthodox or Catholic, Mary was made pure and immaculate prior to Christ’s atoning death on the cross.

If CTG objects to Mary’s sinlessness at her conception because Christ had not yet been crucified, then he must logically object to his own church’s profession that Mary was sinless (at the Anunciation?), because Christ had not yet been crucified.

There is no way to get around that.

No way to get around what? In Orthodox theology, Mary’s sinlessness has nothing to do with her break from human nature. The number 1 objection to the IC is that per RC theology, Original Sin is the result of the fall. If Mary is exempted from OS, thus she becomes a pre-fall human being. The greater majority of Orthodox who believe the Theotokos to have never committed any personal faults in her life do so without believing that she possessed a nature other than the same nature each and every one of us. Her nature is fallen, same as ours, but by God’s grace she was able to live life without sinning.

 

[PRmerger]

The IC has nothing to do with it. IC happened 14 years before divinity was in her womb.

It was to make a fitting vessel for the Word Made Flesh.

It could have been done at any moment in her life prior to the Incarnation.

God chose to do it at the very first moment of her life.

To add, if it was all about the divinity of Christ, then you wouldn’t object to the opinion of some Orthodox that Mary was sanctified at the Annunciation, correct?

I have no objection to that. It’s not an untenable position.

It’s just not what has been divinely revealed.

Another edit: I thought you said the IC was about the merits of Christ’s work on the cross, not his incarnation and 9 month stay in the womb?

Please cite the post in which I said this.

 

[ConstantineTG]

OK. If you believe Mary was free of sin her whole life then this would have been accomplished via the power of God, as opposed to her own power, or will to be more precise - correct?

Let me put it this way, Mary won’t go to heaven if she was Immaculately Conceived and Christ did not became man, was crucified, and rose again. She’d go to Abraham’s Bosom where she would await for Christ to complete His work.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It was to make a fitting vessel for the Word Made Flesh.

It could have been done at any moment in her life prior to the Incarnation.

God chose to do it at the very first moment of her life.

I have no objection to that. It’s not an untenable position.

It’s just not what has been divinely revealed.

Please cite the post in which I said this.

There is no objection that a pure vessel is fitting for Christ. But again, the main objection to the IC is that it makes Mary a break in humanity. That actually makes her less fitting because she is not human like us whom Christ came to save.

 

[PRmerger]

No way to get around what? In Orthodox theology, Mary’s sinlessness has nothing to do with her break from human nature. The number 1 objection to the IC is that per RC theology, Original Sin is the result of the fall. If Mary is exempted from OS, thus she becomes a pre-fall human being. The greater majority of Orthodox who believe the Theotokos to have never committed any personal faults in her life do so without believing that she possessed a nature other than the same nature each and every one of us. Her nature is fallen, same as ours, but by God’s grace she was able to live life without sinning.

Non-sequitur.

The point is that the IC occurred before the atoning death of Christ. You objected to that earlier.

Now you are claiming that her immaculate nature occurred before the atoning death of Christ (at whatever nebulous time your Church proclaims).

It’s still before the atoning death of Christ.

So your objection here is refuted.

But Mary was exempted from OS before Christ became incarnate. And don’t talk to me about time travel, that is not a proven reality and a concept that the Church Fathers never ever had.

You believe she was exempted before Christ’s atoning death on the cross. So still before the salvation of humanity.

 

[PRmerger]

You believe she was exempted before Christ’s atoning death on the cross. So still before the salvation of humanity.

In point of fact, CTG, you actually believe that which you’ve been objecting to all these weeks.

Kind of whacky…:whacky:

Eastern Christians believe that Mary was full of grace from the moment of her conception, so essentially its the same belief as Immaculate Conception.

 

[PRmerger]

Let me put it this way, Mary won’t go to heaven if she was Immaculately Conceived and Christ did not became man, was crucified, and rose again. She’d go to Abraham’s Bosom where she would await for Christ to complete His work.

Very Catholic, this!

 

[joe371]

Let me put it this way, Mary won’t go to heaven if she was Immaculately Conceived and Christ did not became man, was crucified, and rose again. She’d go to Abraham’s Bosom where she would await for Christ to complete His work.

I must be tired because I didn’t understand a word of what you said. I am asking a very simple straightforward question and I only need a simple straightforward answer my friend: If you believe Mary was free of sin her whole life then this would have been accomplished via the power of God, as opposed to her own power, or will to be more precise - correct?

 

[joe371]

There is no objection that a pure vessel is fitting for Christ. But again, the main objection to the IC is that it makes Mary a break in humanity. That actually makes her less fitting because she is not human like us whom Christ came to save.

On a separate topic: I was reading an article earlier that stated the following: Both East and West accept that physical death results from original sin. Both views still need the sanctifying grace of God to overcome original sin, its taint on the soul and its effect of death (because we recognize that there is no spiritual death if we’re sanctified by God). However, the terms “taint” or “stain” as to sin, are not foreign terms to Orthodoxy. St Maximos the Confessor (580-662) wrote about “the mark of original sin on all”. St Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022) wrote, “We are all born sinners from our forefather Adam who sinned… subject to the curse and death from him who was subject to the curse and death”. St Cyprian of Carthage (d.258) wrote about the “contagion of original sin passed to us from Adam”. So it’s certainly an inheritance, but is it also an effect, a taint, or both? Maybe St Gregory of Nyssa (335-395) answers this when he wrote about the Mother of God, as “Mary without stain” (of sin).
These are all Orthodox men. By the way I appreciated that quote by Cyprian about the primacy of Peter. The footnote was quite telling as well.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In point of fact, CTG, you actually believe that which you’ve been objecting to all these weeks.

Kind of whacky…:whacky:

Thank you for quoting what I said back when I was a misinformed Eastern Catholic.

I’m happy to say that I have grown past such heterodox doctrine

 

[PRmerger]

There is no objection that a pure vessel is fitting for Christ. But again, the main objection to the IC is that it makes Mary a break in humanity. That actually makes her less fitting because she is not human like us whom Christ came to save.

Adam and Eve were also created without sin.

You would argue that Adam was not human. And that Eve was not human.

Sinful nature does not equal human personhood.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you for quoting what I said back when I was a misinformed Eastern Catholic.

I’m happy to say that I have grown past such heterodox doctrine

Well, we need to wonder if you’re going to change your position again?

 

[joe371]

Thank you for quoting what I said back when I was a misinformed Eastern Catholic.

I’m happy to say that I have grown past such heterodox doctrine

No sarcastic undertones there… LOL…Just joking around…You won’t catch me calling your churh teachings, heterodox.

 

[joe371]

Well, we need to wonder if you’re going to change your position again?

I was reading this article and this really made sense:

Orthodox reject the possibility that original sin could be a stain or tainting…yet both of us proclaim in the Creed, “one Baptism for the remission of sin”. Since we baptize babies, and babies cannot have sinned (actual sin), in essence we are having the taint/mark of original sin remised (washed away), as well as restoring God’s grace to our soul.

Since infant babies could not have done actual sin, they have only original sin remised by virtue of grace as well as undergoing the symbolic death (to sin) and rebirth (born again) which represents Christ’s death and resurrection. Baptism remitting sin is already proclaimed by St Peter in Acts 2:38.

 

[PRmerger]

I was reading this article and this really made sense:

Orthodox reject the possibility that original sin could be a stain or tainting…yet both of us proclaim in the Creed, “one Baptism for the remission of sin”. Since we baptize babies, and babies cannot have sinned (actual sin), in essence we are having the taint/mark of original sin remised (washed away), as well as restoring God’s grace to our soul.

Interesting.

So what say you, CTG?

“One baptism for the remission of sin”–and you baptize babies. What sin is baptism remitting for those little ones?

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you for quoting what I said back when I was a misinformed Eastern Catholic.

It appears just recently that you were still misinformed?

When did this transformation of being “well informed” occur?