Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[PRmerger]

How can you not have OS and then not be exempted by its effects?

Same way that the baptized, who have been cleansed of OS, are also not exempted by its effects.

 

[PRmerger]

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?

I don’t understand to what you are responding "of course not.’

Of course we are not agreed?

Or

Of course the reality we live in was not the intention for humanity?

 

[PRmerger]

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?

It appears to be the very same thing that Catholics believe, if the Orthodox source that dvdjs cited is correct. According to his post, the Orthodox catechism states this:

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

Very Catholic!

 

[GaryTaylor]

2nd Council of Orange

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

CANON 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him. The one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other, according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10).

 

[ConstantineTG]

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”.

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.

So you can have Original Sin without having the stain of Original Sin?

Me thinks someone is making stuff up here.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t understand to what you are responding "of course not.’

Of course we are not agreed?

Or

Of course the reality we live in was not the intention for humanity?

The second one.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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?

Again the problem here is that you are seeing being cleansed form sin as being saved. It doesn’t matter when she was cleansed from all sin, the problem with OS is that it is the post-fall condition of man. If Mary doesn’t have OS, she doesn’t share any nature with us, thus Christ doesn’t share any nature with us, thus his incarnation has no point at all. Also that Mary was already saved pre-fall.

We believe St. John the Baptist to be sanctified in the womb.

Baptism isn’t only for the remission of sins, it is also joining ourselves to Christ’s death so that like Christ we may be raised up. Every baptism in the Orthodox Church we sing the Baptismal Troparion:

As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. Alleluia!

Again, in Orthodoxy, sin isn’t only committed offences, it is death as well. We are not reversed into a pre-fall state, but rather because we are headed to our graves we are united into Christ by putting on Christ, so that by His grace we will trample down our death by our own death like He did. That is why in the Creed the Baptism immediately precedes the profession on the belief on the resurrection, they are connected.

 

[dvdjs]

So you can have Original Sin without having the stain of Original Sin?

Rather than mixing West and East in thinking about a definition of Original Sin,take a moment and simply think about the various discussion of the consequences of the ancestral sin. The IC has it that the Theotokos was spared that deprivation of sanctifying grace which for us was restored at baptism. That is the hereditary stain. * Strictly speaking*, this is the “sin”, of Original Sin - although, if one less rigorously considers all of the consequences of the fall under the rubric of “Original Sin”, then this “sin” is differentiated by talking of the stain of Original Sin. The other consequences of the fall - sickness, suffering, death, inclination to sin, concupiscence - are not part of this hereditary stain or, strictly, the “sin”. They of course remain after baptism. This is the precisely - precisely - what is in the the Catholic Encyclopedia article that I have set before you you on more than one occasion - and FWIW, one more time:

We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”. This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin.

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.]

Thus,according to the IC, the Theotokos was, fittingly, spared the separation from God, but faced all of the trials of humanity like everyone else. She was redeemed, she was saved, but that in no way diminished the awesome singularity of her sinlessness, any more than baptism would somehow dimisinish the saintliness of any other saint.

This is pretty basic teaching of the CC, which, is not what EO often mistake it to be - mixing Eastern and Western concepts of OS, or narrow (stain) versus broad (all consequences) ideas about OS. And, as I have pointed out, quoting from numerous catechism of the the Orthodox Church, the idea is completely consistent with Orthodox teachings - apart form the fact that some writers, trace her purification to the Annunciation.

 

[dvdjs]

If Mary doesn’t have OS, she doesn’t share any nature with us.

As noted above, with reference to the Catholic encyclopedia, this remark reflects a misunderstanding of Original Sin as taught in the the CC.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Again the problem here is that you are seeing being cleansed form sin as being saved.

It is being saved, dying and rising again with Christ. Baptism is a supernatural transformation of infused Grace.

You are seeing the transmitted iniquity of Adam and Eves transgression in the physical sense of the world, but not in the supernatural transformation of Grace and Gods love. Baptism is literally and symbolically not only cleansing, but also dying and rising again with Christ. Death of the body Death of the Soul. Mary was Baptized at the moment of conception. John the Baptist was Baptized by Christ at the Visitation. What’s the difference in Orthodoxy?

It doesn’t matter when she was cleansed from all sin

Then it follows that it doesn’t matter if anyone is Baptized.

the problem with OS is that it is the post-fall condition of man. If Mary doesn’t have OS, she doesn’t share any nature with us, thus Christ doesn’t share any nature with us, thus his incarnation has no point at all. Also that Mary was already saved pre-fall…

No, the pre-fall separation of Grace occurred in the Garden, “Where are you” as they were naked and ashamed and no longer in Gods Grace, which He knew, what they did not. Post fall adds the physical aspect of Death, banished from access to the Tree of Life etc. . The fall occurred in the Garden, the transmission of Grace was altered in the Garden. The sequence of events post garden added to the sentence of judgment and the judgment already known, “then” become reality in action. It was all a fact before the act. Including the infused and removed Grace.

Thus from your own misunderstanding you arrived at another.

Did it matter if Mary was preserved from Ancestral Sin at conception of the Incarnation?

We believe St. John the Baptist to be sanctified in the womb!.

.

Then how do you justify this as opposed to Mary, specifically, “she doesn’t share any nature with us,” So too then this applies to John the Baptist. Baptism is literally and symbolically not only cleansing, but also dying and rising again with Christ. Orthodox likewise believe that baptism removes what they call the ancestral sin of Adam, and from John the Baptist?

Baptism isn’t only for the remission of sins, it is also joining ourselves to Christ’s death so that like Christ we may be raised up.

Read above…

As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. Alleluia!.

Just as Mary and John the Baptist.

Again, in Orthodoxy, sin isn’t only committed offences, it is death as well. We are not reversed into a pre-fall state,.

Right its not only committed offences,. but you have death of the flesh and death of the Soul combined, Gods Grace removed, is death of the soul, there was no removal of Grace from Mary, “spotless”, and from your favorite Saint.

And right we are not reversed, but this reversed understanding is where you reside in practical application to Gods grace which you want to legalistically apply equally to all and at the same moment, which Biblically is wrong. Which you then conclude somehow, since this simply isn’t true, “they were not human”. No my friend, they indeed are just as you and I, however, “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

And both were freed prior in the plan of the Lords redemption and as part of the ultimate plan which would allow their souls to share in paradise, as all the prophets such as Moses’ and Elijah. Which God already knew and Biblically since the end was written from the beginning. Which you somehow only acknowledge when it fits your side of the debate.

Then you further assign this thinking to Mary alone while avoiding the similiar situation with John the Baptist.

but rather because we are headed to our graves we are united into Christ by putting on Christ, so that by His grace we will trample down our death by our own death like He did. That is why in the Creed the Baptism immediately precedes the profession on the belief on the resurrection, they are connected.

Yes they are connected, but your heading to the grave “after” the infused Grace of Baptism, then to the Cross and death of the flesh and salvation in the sequence of time. Your connecting the two as one without the sequence of time, which ironically you refused to do in relation to Mary earlier

 

[PRmerger]

Again the problem here is that you are seeing being cleansed form sin as being saved.

sigh.

No, I don’t.

As I have maintained, over and over and over again: no one is saved until she is before the Eternal Throne of Heaven.

No one is saved until she dies. (Or, at least, until she has her dormition. )

Mary was saved from falling into the pit of sin. But she didn’t get to be with the Triune God and all the angels (i.e. saved) until her Assumption.

 

[PRmerger]

Again the problem here is that you are seeing being cleansed form sin as being saved. It doesn’t matter when she was cleansed from all sin, the problem with OS is that it is the post-fall condition of man. If Mary doesn’t have OS, she doesn’t share any nature with us, thus Christ doesn’t share any nature with us, thus his incarnation has no point at all. Also that Mary was already saved pre-fall.

As such, since we both, Orthodox and Catholic, agree that Mary was sinless, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR OBJECTIONS to the IC also applies to Orthodox teaching.

To wit: you said that Mary couldn’t be human if she were granted the IC.
*Then Mary wasn’t human after she became sinless (whenever the Orthodox believe this happened). (And neither was John the Baptist, Adam, Eve)
*
You said that the IC couldn’t happen before Christ’s atonement.
Then Mary becoming cleansed from sin, which also happened before Christ’s atonement, couldn’t have happened.

 

[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?

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

So what is the source, according to your Orthodox theology, of this fallen reality?

(I ask what is your Orthodox theology, because dvdjs has already shown that there is indeed an Orthodox catechism that states that the source of this fallen reality is Original Sin, which is the Catholic view. You seem to be saying that your view is different from the Catholic view, which means it differs from the Orthodox view cited by dvdjs.)

 

[PRmerger]

Baptism isn’t only for the remission of sins, it is also joining ourselves to Christ’s death so that like Christ we may be raised up.

So it is your position that when the Orthodox baptize babies it does not remit any sins (since they have none). Rather, it joins them to Christ’s death so that they may be raised up?

If so, could you please proffer a citation from your church’s catechism that supports your assertion that no sins are cleansed in infant baptism.

Sins are only removed from those who are baptized above the age of reason, in your theology?

 

[ConstantineTG]

sigh.

No, I don’t.

As I have maintained, over and over and over again: no one is saved until she is before the Eternal Throne of Heaven.

No one is saved until she dies. (Or, at least, until she has her dormition. )

Mary was saved from falling into the pit of sin. But she didn’t get to be with the Triune God and all the angels (i.e. saved) until her Assumption.

But Original Sin is the whole reason why we are fallen in the first place, why we need salvation in the first place. If one person never had original sin at any point in their existence, why do they need salvation at all?

 

[ConstantineTG]

So it is your position that when the Orthodox baptize babies it does not remit any sins (since they have none). Rather, it joins them to Christ’s death so that they may be raised up?

If so, could you please proffer a citation from your church’s catechism that supports your assertion that no sins are cleansed in infant baptism.

Sins are only removed from those who are baptized above the age of reason, in your theology?

I never said that baptism does not remit any sins. I love how you always twist my words to make me seem like a heretic and confuse me and other readers here.

Depends what you mean by “cleansed”. As Fr. Alexander Schmemann writes:

Baptism is forgiveness of sins, not their removal. It introduces the sword of Christ into our life and makes it the real conflict, the inescapable pain and suffering of growth. It is indeed after baptism and because of it, that the reality of sin can be recognized in all its sadness, and true repentance becomes possible. Therefore, the whole of the Church is at the same time the gift of forgiveness, the joy of the “world to come,” and also and inescapably a constant repentance. The feast is impossible without the fast, and the fast is precisely repentance and return, the saving experience of sadness and exile.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So what is the source, according to your Orthodox theology, of this fallen reality?

(I ask what is your Orthodox theology, because dvdjs has already shown that there is indeed an Orthodox catechism that states that the source of this fallen reality is Original Sin, which is the Catholic view. You seem to be saying that your view is different from the Catholic view, which means it differs from the Orthodox view cited by dvdjs.)

Catechisms are not infallible documents. They are not in Orthodoxy, they are not in the Catholic Church. Also, out of convenience, the term “Original Sin” has been adopted by some Orthodox, but they do not mean the same thing as what it means in Roman Catholicism. We even have adopted the Seven Sacraments, when in Orthodoxy we recognize more than seven. For example, Monastic Tonsuring and the Funeral Rite are Sacraments in Orthodoxy.

Our fallen reality is a result of man’s first rebellion against God and thus we have lost our communion with Him. As I already related earlier, like the Prodigal Son, we are his children born in the pig pen where he ended up after his sin. We do not inherit the pig pen, we are born into this reality that our ancestors are living in the pig pen. The pig pen is not part of our being, but we live in it.

 

[tdgesq]

But Original Sin is the whole reason why we are fallen in the first place, why we need salvation in the first place. If one person never had original sin at any point in their existence, why do they need salvation at all?

Because the singular grace given to Mary at conception (infusion of sanctifying grace) is granted in view of Christ’s saving act, not in spite of it. That is stated explicitly in the formula of Ineffabilis Deus.

 

[dvdjs]

But Original Sin is the whole reason why we are fallen in the first place, why we need salvation in the first place. If one person never had original sin at any point in their existence, why do they need salvation at all?

More carefully, Ancestral Sin is the whole reason why we are fallen in the first place.

But we have always needed “salvation”. Our spiritual vitality was, and is, linked to our communion with God. Ancestral sin broke that link for Adam, and for his descendents - that is Original Sin. Baptism restores the link and enables us as fully as we can and choose to cooperate with grace to work toward salvation.

 

[dvdjs]

Catechisms are not infallible documents.

The question is: are you claiming that the ones that I’ve linked to are in error or heterodox, or just not to the liking of some with other theories of the fall? Which ones fall into which category and how, and upon what authority, do you decide?