Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[dvdjs]

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. (2515, 1264)

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

A hard battle…

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil.”298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action,299 and morals. (2015, 2852, 1888)

408 The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, “the sin of the world.”300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men’s sins.301 (1865)

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

The problem is that the Orthodox understanding of Mary’s purity and blameslessness has nothing to do with her being exempted from the effects of the Fall. RC teaching does. So for you to say that “we both believe that Mary was without sin from the moment of conception, therefore we believe in the same thing,” is utterly and completely false. Because we believe that the Theotokos to be pure and blameless without having to believe she is exempted from anything that every other human being has. That is a major difference between RCs and Orthodox.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Right.

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

If she did not have Original Sin, then it is eternal salvation. If Adam did not commit the Original Sin, did Christ have to die for us?

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

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

Yes,

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.

So then this trivializes God’s saving act on the cross. If God can throw a preserver, why go through all the trouble? Just make a billion preservers or so. If God immaculately conceived an entire generation, none of us would have any problems today. So He not only saves them, He saves us the trouble as well.

 

[dvdjs]

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.

No. She was preserved from the stain of OS. That is what is taught in Ineffabilis Deus. And that hereditary stain is the is precisely what is cleansed in Baptism.

I am not sure that many RCs think that the Theotokos did not die. But it is rather irrelevant. Sure there are apocryphal stories in the East about the events of her death, but almost none of these events are included in the Eastern liturgical tradition - which emphasizes translation to heaven, and the powerlessness of death: we talk of a “deathless dormition”.

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?

Actually one of the sources that I gave quoted the Fathers extensively, in specifically attacking the “revolution in theology” of the modernists. However, I am less concerned over which of these perspectives is better. I simply think that it is important to recognize that both exist within contemporary Orthodoxy, and that neither has been definitively judged to be heterodox. And since the position of those that I have quoted so closely parallels that of the CC, neither can the teachings of the CC on this matter be considered heterodox, or a church dividing issue.

 

[dvdjs]

The problem is that the Orthodox understanding of Mary’s purity and blameslessness has nothing to do with her being exempted from the effects of the Fall. RC teaching does. So for you to say that “we both believe that Mary was without sin from the moment of conception, therefore we believe in the same thing,” is utterly and completely false. Because we believe that the Theotokos to be pure and blameless without having to believe she is exempted from anything that every other human being has. That is a major difference between RCs and Orthodox.

This is now backwards. IIRC the point used to be that no one has original sin and thus all are, effectively, exempted.

More importantly, to persist in talking broadly about “her being exempted from the fall” entirely misses the careful use of the phrase “stain of orginal sin” in ID. So the IC brings a purification and grace. This same theme is present in the works of many EO critics of the IC, who defer this purification until later in the life of the Theotokos, albeit before the death and resurrection of Christ.

 

[aidanbradypop]

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.

I never stated Orthodoxy has Marian Dogma. If you walked into a Catholic Church and saw Catholics kissing a statue of the Blessed Mother, would you accuse them of Marian worship as you have stated in the past? We, as Catholics, venerate the Blessed Mother and yet we are accused of worship.

What does it mean then? It is ok for Orthodoxy to venerate her but when Catholics do we worship?

Is not this an instance of the “pot calling the kettle black”

 

[human_genome]

Original sin DID leave us with the tendancy to sin.

As for did Mary ever sin… The Church’s answer is “no”.

Of course God would want a stainless ark for the New Covenant (Jesus, of course, being the New Covenant!), and that is why Mary was born by way of a sinless immaculate conception. After the birth of Jesus, the Church teaches that Mary REMAINED sinless. A priest once explained that Mary remained sinless so Satan could never say to Jesus, “I had your mother!” Even if it was for a short period of time…

That is the most farfetched reasoning re Mary’s salvation that I have heard so far! That we have our own opinions I have no problems with; when we attempt to make our “opinionated reasoning” into doctrine equal with biblical scripture, I have major objections.
Catholics talk about “original sin” so frequent that you would think they know what it is! Yet, time and again it is being revealed to me that they repeatedly wholeheartedly misunderstand the concept. So for the record, for all my Catholic friends out there, let me bring light to this this is the biblical explanation of the term “original sin”:
The word “original” correctly refers to beginning, to the book of Genesis, more specifically to Chapter 2. This is where sin was introduced into our world, to a set of people that were in a state of “neutral morality”, i.e., they did not know what “right or wrong” was until that time. Eve was deceived by “the serpent” to eat of the forbidden fruit, offered it to Adam, (who actually knew better, but still partook of this rebellion against God, thus Adam committed high-treason) who ate of the same tree of “knowledge of good and evil”.
As a result, they became spiritually dead and they lost their intimate fellowship they had had with God. However, not only did they cause their own spiritual death, they also caused all creation to “die”. All mankind from then on lived in a physical state, but were dead spiritually - like walking dead.
This was brought about by the first Adam, the second Adam, Jesus Christ reversed that state for anyone that accepted His sacrifice on the cross for their “sinful nature” (as Paul refers to so often!). So it is the inherent ability we have, our potential for sin, the “stain” of sin and shame" that will always follow mankind in this realm, the ones that are not saved by grace. Mary no doubt had accepted this grace(!!), so her destiny was secured - through her own son’s death on the cross! No need for ANYONE to fret for Mary after that, in this life Mary was taken care of by the Apostle John, until she passed to glory.

Why is it that some Catholics have this tendency to make everything so complicated?
Grace from God the Father is all that anyone needs to become a member of the Kingdom of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! No more work is necessary - for anyone!

 

[human_genome]

So you believe that Mary was tainted by sin all of her life?

And when she carried the Divine Word Made Flesh, he dwelt for 9 months in a vessel like this?

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...3vUJRjbejEKh1dUju6cevgi7qeAdMek1CZeF2UpQayfSL

Yes, actually! The fact was that Mary, even though part of the human (fallen) race had not sinned. Jesus, who pre-existed his human state brought about through Mary, was born fully man, but also fully God (God the Word). He was, contrary to the first Adam before “the fall”, aware of “right and wrong”. When he died on the cross, He was sinless, and thus became the perfect substitute for our sins.

 

[aidanbradypop]

That is the most farfetched reasoning re Mary’s salvation that I have heard so far! That we have our own opinions I have no problems with; when we attempt to make our “opinionated reasoning” into doctrine equal with biblical scripture, I have major objections.
Catholics talk about “original sin” so frequent that you would think they know what it is! Yet, time and again it is being revealed to me that they repeatedly wholeheartedly misunderstand the concept. So for the record, for all my Catholic friends out there, let me bring light to this this is the biblical explanation of the term “original sin”:
The word “original” correctly refers to beginning, to the book of Genesis, more specifically to Chapter 2. This is where sin was introduced into our world, to a set of people that were in a state of “neutral morality”, i.e., they did not know what “right or wrong” was until that time. Eve was deceived by “the serpent” to eat of the forbidden fruit, offered it to Adam, (who actually knew better, but still partook of this rebellion against God, thus Adam committed high-treason) who ate of the same tree of “knowledge of good and evil”.
As a result, they became spiritually dead and they lost their intimate fellowship they had had with God. However, not only did they cause their own spiritual death, they also caused all creation to “die”. All mankind from then on lived in a physical state, but were dead spiritually - like walking dead.
This was brought about by the first Adam, the second Adam, Jesus Christ reversed that state for anyone that accepted His sacrifice on the cross for their “sinful nature” (as Paul refers to so often!). So it is the inherent ability we have, our potential for sin, the “stain” of sin and shame" that will always follow mankind in this realm, the ones that are not saved by grace. Mary no doubt had accepted this grace(!!), so her destiny was secured - through her own son’s death on the cross! No need for ANYONE to fret for Mary after that, in this life Mary was taken care of by the Apostle John, until she passed to glory.

Why is it that some Catholics have this tendency to make everything so complicated?
Grace from God the Father is all that anyone needs to become a member of the Kingdom of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! No more work is necessary - for anyone!

I will respond to this when I am awake and in a more loving mood.

 

[human_genome]

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

Because her “immaculate conception” is a conception of the Catholic church; it has no reality in Holy Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

If she did not have Original Sin, then it is eternal salvation. If Adam did not commit the Original Sin, did Christ have to die for us?

No one is “saved” until she is before the eternal throne of Heaven.

Mary did not get “saved” until her Assumption.

She was saved from sin at her IC.

 

[PRmerger]

Because her “immaculate conception” is a conception of the Catholic church; it has no reality in Holy Scripture.

You do know, human genome, that Scripture is also a conception of the Catholic Church, right?

You would not know what Scripture is save for the discernment of the Church.

That is, the ONLY way you know that the Gospel of Mark is the Word of God is because the Church told you this.

As such, you are giving tacit submission to this Church each and every time you quote from the Gospel of Mark.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, actually! The fact was that Mary, even though part of the human (fallen) race had not sinned. Jesus, who pre-existed his human state brought about through Mary, was born fully man, but also fully God (God the Word). He was, contrary to the first Adam before “the fall”, aware of “right and wrong”. When he died on the cross, He was sinless, and thus became the perfect substitute for our sins.

This is a non-sequitur and does not address at all the fittingness of Divinity being carried for 9 months in a filthy vessel.

However, everything you say above is quite consonant with Catholicism. Just needs to be tweaked here and there.

 

[PRmerger]

So then this trivializes God’s saving act on the cross. If God can throw a preserver, why go through all the trouble? Just make a billion preservers or so. If God immaculately conceived an entire generation, none of us would have any problems today. So He not only saves them, He saves us the trouble as well.

Except that this same objection then applies to Mary at the Anunciation, which is where you now proclaim she was made sinless, yes?

Incidentally, did you ever answer the question as to why Orthodox baptize babies for the remission of sins? What sins do Orthodox babies get cleansed of?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Because her “immaculate conception” is a conception of the Catholic church; it has no reality in Holy Scripture.

Well you did so wonderful with the garden, perhaps you’ll take us through the Incarnation and Luke, and yes us Catholics we’re patiently awaiting your presence to enlighten us on Gods Kingdom

 

[aidanbradypop]

Because her “immaculate conception” is a conception of the Catholic church; it has no reality in Holy Scripture.

And so it the Holy Bible, the Holy Trinity, going to Church on Sunday…etc…etc…etc.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St. John the Baptist was also sanctified in the womb, he is also believed to not have committed any sin in his life.

So then this trivializes God’s saving act on the cross. say if God can throw a preserver as you said?

 

[tdgesq]

The current CCC denies that any guilt is passed on.

From the CCC

404 . . .

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)

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295.

Guess what footnotes 294 & 295 refer to?

Reference Note : 294 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512.

Reference Note : 295 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513.

Original sin is the deprivation of sanctifying grace - the absence of original justice. And it is transmitted by propagation (descent) to all mankind. You won’t find any difference in that regard between Trent and the CCC. The only exceptions are Adam and Eve pre-fall, Jesus and Mary.

I guess the only question is: what is original sin in Orthodox theology?

 

[PRmerger]

No it is not. The IC is a break from human nature, because all humanity has OS according to RCC doctrine, and Mary does not. It is a break.

If the IC is a break from humanity, then the Orthodox, too, believe that Mary was not human, after the point at which she was made sinless.

Do you see how every objection you make to the IC is made about your beliefs as well?

The IC is simply an earlier application of what you believe.

Incidentally, if the IC is a break in humanity then you must also declare that Adam and Eve, who were also created without OS, are also non-human.

Do you see how your argument keeps failing, CTG?