Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[aidanbradypop]

If Mary, Jesus’ mother, was conceived through immaculate conception, why can’t she be God’s only begotten daughter?

 

[GaryTaylor]

John Calvin is a long story.

“One thing that Bellarmine teaches us is that the root of evil is error and the root of error is ignorance. If we want to root out evil, we must teach the truth. It is not enough to believe. With God’s grace, which means reflection and prayer, you must understand what you believe.”

therealpresence.org/archives/Saints/Saints_005.htm

 

[ConstantineTG]

What are some of these older documents? I’m interested to see the evidences for this change in doctrine.

From the Canons of the Council of Trent

If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own…

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

So Adam’s sin is transfused to all by propagation and in each one as his own. So we have the same sin as Adam’s without us having to commit it first (not by imitation).

Lumen Gentium states that:

Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin…

So contrary to what people have been claiming her, we do inherit guilt in original sin.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So I went to Mass on Saturday and then attended the Othosox service on Sunday. They were kissing Icons of the Blessed Mother. I believe some were even praying a silent Rosary with the beads in their hands although Icould be wrong. I find it fascinating how against Marian Dogma you are after what I saw at that Orthodox service.

Orthodox do not have Marian dogmas. The problem here is that you only see either a veneration of Mary or not, which is the contention between RCs and most Protestants (not the original ones like the Lutherans or even the Anglicans, but almost all that came after). The problem is that there are degrees within the action itself. Not just because we kiss the icon of the Theotokos, it doesn’t mean that what we believe and what we do is the same as what RCs believe and do.

 

[Tomyris]

If Mary, Jesus’ mother, was conceived through immaculate conception, why can’t she be God’s only begotten daughter?

I think this is a fair question.

We believe Jesus is God, and God’s Son, God being eternally generated from the Father, in that sense His Son, but also God as much as God the Father is. God the Son is not created, not made, not a lot of things.

Mary on the other hand is fully human, created by God. By adoption she is God’s daughter, as anyone who has faith in Christ can become God’s daughter (or son). Where people’s heads start spinning is that she is also God’s Mother, because she gave birth to Jesus, and so is His Mother, but she did not give birth to God as God, but to God as Jesus, as Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of Mary.

Immaculate conception did not confer divinity or eternal past on Mary. She is still fully human, more so than anyone walking on earth today, but still not God. She will never be a member of the Trinity. There is still a whole lot of room for greatness between people on earth and God, so it is not an insult to say she is not God.

We have been discussing this for 2000 years, so if it is confusing, you are not alone. If you are interested there are any number of good books you can read on the subject, such as “On the Incarnation” by Athanasius, or the first chapters of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke in the New Testament, and there is really no end to the reading you could do on this subject, which makes it fun.

 

[nmgauss]

I think this is a fair question.

We believe Jesus is God, and God’s Son, God being eternally generated from the Father, in that sense His Son, but also God as much as God the Father is. God the Son is not created, not made, not a lot of things.

Mary on the other hand is fully human, created by God. By adoption she is God’s daughter, as anyone who has faith in Christ can become God’s daughter (or son). Where people’s heads start spinning is that she is also God’s Mother, because she gave birth to Jesus, and so is His Mother, but she did not give birth to God as God, but to God as Jesus, as Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of Mary.

Immaculate conception did not confer divinity or eternal past on Mary. She is still fully human, more so than anyone walking on earth today, but still not God. She will never be a member of the Trinity. There is still a whole lot of room for greatness between people on earth and God, so it is not an insult to say she is not God.

We have been discussing this for 2000 years, so if it is confusing, you are not alone. If you are interested there are any number of good books you can read on the subject, such as “On the Incarnation” by Athanasius, or the first chapters of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke in the New Testament, and there is really no end to the reading you could do on this subject, which makes it fun.

So God created His own mother who was really the daughter of two humans, and then gave birth to Him as human?! Sounds similar to that old song “I’m my own grandpa”.

 

[tdgesq]

From the Canons of the Council of Trent

If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own…

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

So Adam’s sin is transfused to all by propagation and in each one as his own. So we have the same sin as Adam’s without us having to commit it first (not by imitation).

I agree. I’m just not sure what the problem is.

Lumen Gentium states that:

Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin…

So contrary to what people have been claiming her, we do inherit guilt in original sin.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the decrees of Vatican II aren’t exactly “older” Church documents. They seem to agree with Trent. How exactly do you believe the teaching of original sin within the RCC has changed?

 

[PRmerger]

You know I’m a convert, so definitely my position changed. If you want you can dig up my posts defending the Papacy not too long ago.

Well, you know what my position is today based on what I am saying today.

Fair enough.

I just didn’t know when to assign the “confusion” you admit. If you were confused in the past, or confused in the present, how would I discern that?

But now I know where you stand.

 

[PRmerger]

It is her salvation according to RC doctrine.

Right.

Salvation from sin. Not eternal salvation. She received that at her Assumption.

 

[PRmerger]

Look, what is Original Sin?

It is the guilt/stain we incurred as a result of Adam’s original sin. Thus we are all “damaged goods”. Born out of sync with how we were intended to be.

Is it not Adam’s sin which cased the fall, and the sin passed on to every man afterwards?

The guilt/stain is passed on. Not sure how a “sin” could be passed on.

Why did Christ come to suffer and die? Is it not to save man from this fallen state?

Yes,

If fallen state = original sin, then one who does not have original sin does not need to be saved. So if the IC preserved Mary from original sin, she does not need to be saved.

It is really that simple.

Except you need to answer the question: who did the “preserving”? Well, it was a Savior, right? Picture a Man throwing Mary a preserver before she gets in the muck.

She is still saved. She just got saved before getting dirty.

 

[PRmerger]

In Orthodoxy the fallen state is the reality we are all born into.

But you are agreed that this reality was not the original intention for humanity, right?

 

[Tomyris]

So God created His own mother who was really the daughter of two humans, and then gave birth to Him as human?! Sounds similar to that old song “I’m my own grandpa”.

Do you read G.K. Chesterton? He was a master writer who pointed out truth via contradiction. Truth is stranger than fiction. I really enjoy his work. If you haven’t read him I would encourage you to do so. He is amazing.

 

[PRmerger]

Not just because we kiss the icon of the Theotokos, it doesn’t mean that what we believe and what we do is the same as what RCs believe and do.

“The law of praying is the law of believing”.

If you want to know what a pilgrim believes, pay attention to how she is praying.

 

[dvdjs]

The Roman Catholic Church has always taught that Original Sin is a guilt that is passed on. It is only recently that this has suddenly changed and can no longer be found in the CCC. But if you go to older documents, you will see that Original Sin is a guilt passed on.

So the RCC has changed doctrines.

If you would like to learn of the depth and nuances of meaning of the CC teaching OS, you should go back to the Latin. There has been a great deal of discussion on culpa vs *reatus * as used in the discussion of original sin, and how some of the nuance might be lost - at least on some - by the use of the English word “guilt”, with its own variations of meaning and connotation. (Search CAF on “reatus” eg forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8097314&postcount=4). To call this a “change in doctrine” misses the mark, by a mile.

 

[dvdjs]

It is her salvation according to RC doctrine.

Look, what is Original Sin? Is it not Adam’s sin which cased the fall, and the sin passed on to every man afterwards? Why did Christ come to suffer and die? Is it not to save man from this fallen state? If fallen state = original sin, then one who does not have original sin does not need to be saved. So if the IC preserved Mary from original sin, she does not need to be saved.

It is really that simple.

Simply incorrect.

1. The CC teaches that the Theotokos was spared from the stain of original sin, and as made perfectly clear in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Original Sin that I have quoted already several times, that hereditary stain is the privation of grace. It is not the “fallen state” in its totality.
2. The doctrine of the IC explicitly invokes the saving action of Christ as fundamental to this exemption. So you are really saying: having been saved, she does not need to be saved.
3. Traditional Orthodox also talk about the purification and the sinlessness of the Theotokos prior to the death and resurrection of Christ. So your objection also pertains to traditional Orthodox teaching.

 

[dvdjs]

How can you not have OS and then not be exempted by its effects? It makes not sense. If OS is the only way the effects of Adam’s sin is passed onto us, then Mary is exempted from it. If we don’t need OS to get the effects of OS, then what is the purpose of OS?

The question is odd. It it like asking, how can you be baptized and still subject to sickness, suffering, and death? The stain of original sin, the deprivation of sanctifying grace is remediated through baptism (or in the IC), but we still are subject to concupiscence, death, and other consequences of the fall.

No it does not. In Orthodoxy the fallen state is the reality we are all born into. We do not need to inherit anything, there is no stain on our souls. Our nature was changed by Adam’s sin and we are born into this nature, into this reality.

This is a bit jumbled. To talk about born into a human nature is to talk of inheritance. Moreover the fallen state includes our separation of God, our missing the mark. To hold otherwise is to contradict all of the Orthodox writers that I quoted, and to rely only on modern writers, many of whom are regarded as fringe within Orthodoxy,

No, the Orthodox do not believe that Mary was cleansed of something the Orthodox do not believe is there in the first place. Mary’s holiness from her conception does not mean that she was cleansed of something. No one is born guilty of anything, Mary or anyone else need not be cleansed at their conception.
Sorry this position is again contradicted by the numerous Orthodox writers that I have quoted. Something to think about.

Here is another

Archbishop Sotirios (GOC Canada)
orthodoxcatechism.org/

The disobedience and transgression of Adam and Eve is called Original Sin. …And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the “image.” That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man’s heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man. Of course, this is unexplainable and belongs to the realm of mystery, but we can give one example to make it somewhat better understood. Let us say that you have a wild orange tree, from which you make a graft. You will get domesticated oranges, but the root will still be that of the wild orange tree. To have wild oranges again, you must regraft the tree. This is what Christ came for and achieved for fallen man, as we shall see in the following sections.

Our Creator and Maker, ours is the fault. Adam and Eve, listening to Satan, blasphemed. Out of egotism, they allowed themselves to be misled. They distorted the “image.” They darkened the beauty of the soul. They weakened the nature of mankind. Because of them, we became unrecognizable. “The imagination of our heart is evil.” We constantly think of evil. We feel so guilty. We are so far away from You. We have been grafted to evil. We have lost our self-control and our free will to do good. We thank You for Your love, and for sending Your Only-begotten Son to regraft us to goodness. For giving us the possibility of returning to You. You, Lord “want every man to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Do not deprive us of this. Do not deprive anyone of salvation. We thank You Lord.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree. I’m just not sure what the problem is.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the decrees of Vatican II aren’t exactly “older” Church documents. They seem to agree with Trent. How exactly do you believe the teaching of original sin within the RCC has changed?

The current CCC denies that any guilt is passed on.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The question is odd. It it like asking, how can you be baptized and still subject to sickness, suffering, and death? The stain of original sin, the deprivation of sanctifying grace is remediated through baptism (or in the IC), but we still are subject to concupiscence, death, and other consequences of the fall.

But the point of baptism is that you were born with OS, so even if you were baptized it removes OS but you already are living with the effects of it. With Mary, she never had OS. So she couldn’t have any effects of OS, which is why many RCs today like to gloss over the fact that Tradition strictly holds that Mary did die.

This is a bit jumbled. To talk about born into a human nature is to talk of inheritance. Moreover the fallen state includes our separation of God, our missing the mark. To hold otherwise is to contradict all of the Orthodox writers that I quoted, and to rely only on modern writers, many of whom are regarded as fringe within Orthodoxy,

Sorry this position is again contradicted by the numerous Orthodox writers that I have quoted. Something to think about.

Here is another

Let’s see, you try to find some Orthodox writing that seem to agree with your position and then dismiss all the other sources as fringe? You dismiss my sources as modern, yet all you can offer are other modern sources as well. Can you show me Patristic writings, or writings of Orthodox saints and theologians from the First Millennium or the early Second Millennium that supports your position?

 

[ConstantineTG]

But you are agreed that this reality was not the original intention for humanity, right?

Of course not. Otherwise why did God set his plan in motion the minute Adam and Eve sinned?

 

[dvdjs]

The current CCC denies that any guilt is passed on.

III. Original Sin

Freedom put to the test

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.”276 The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. (1730, 311, 301)

Man’s first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness. (1707, 2541, 1850, 215)

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God,” but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God.”279 (2084, 2113)

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image—that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay.”284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground,”285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286 (1607, 2514, 602, 1008)

401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin. There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history: (1865, 2259, 1739)

What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn toward what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end; and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many [that is, all men] were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned…”289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”290 (430, 605)

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul.”291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292 (2606, 1250)

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.”293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” — a state and not an act. (360, 50)