was sinless and immaculate…and that they hold it as a theologumena, which I have no idea what it means, I guess it’s not a dogma, but almost?
Immaculate is a Latin term, it means “free from macula” or spot free, the spot representing blame, it’s not really relevant to eastern thinking, some people may be misusing it in translation.
Theologumena are pious opinions, which as theories can be debated. People can hold to or discard these as it suits their present opinion or the strength of an argument.
Dogmas damn people…so there is a big difference.
Orthodox believe the Mary of Nazareth was a virgin ‘before, during and after her pregnancy’, which is where a lot of this sentiment arises. Critics long ago accused her of being a typical unwed mother of the day (one who slept around and couldn’t name the father in other words). These arguments were brought forth during the Arian controversy to sway the public over the issue of Jesus Christ’s divinity.
The Orthodox argued that Mary of Nazareth was a model of upright behavior. Hence the flowery language extolling her virtue.
The notion of extolling someone as “better” “stronger” “smarter” “braver” “purer” or “holier” doe not imply that God caused to conceive of any such person as “stronger” or “smarter” etc. The need to think of Saint Mary as conceived differently than others arises from the developing notions in the west about nature of original sin, the accompanying guilt and depravity which results. These ideas can be traced, I think, through Tertullian and Augustine to finally become accepted in the City of Rome later.
So again, the character of Saint Mary needed protection. Not from outsiders but from within the western church where the notions about original sin were evolving. She was in danger looking unworthy to bear God, in westerners eyes, because these people saw themselves and everyone around them equally unworthy to bear God.
In the east this was not a problem, because First Sin does not imply the same culpability in living persons.
The western Christians began to see her as necessarily teflon coated, so that original sin and it’s depravity and guilt that everyone shared did not stick to her. This is an example of predestination in western thinking, another gift of Augustine.
From an Orthodox standpoint, that was not necessary. Orthodox held that she was sinless from birth because she refused to sin.
The western church held that she was free of the culpability of original sin while everyone else was not. Orthodox view that she was free of culpability of the original sin because there is no culpability for that sin (First Sin) visited upon us. She is not an exception in that regard.
What is shared by all as a result of Adam’s Sin is a woundedness, and a mortality…making us vulnerable to sickness and to death.
Does the church discount messages because the era of revelation is closed? Or is there another reason?
The church fathers, especially the desert fathers warned against communication from the beyond, even if purportedly angels or saints.
Sorry.
I’m copying an excerpt below: