Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[Tomdstone]

I don’t know, closer, we are getting closer.

I am learning a lot from the contributions here of Father John Morris and dvdjs. Thanks to both.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I don’t know, closer, we are getting closer.

Genesis 3:16-Foward

"To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

(St Mary had no birth pains according to tradition, and She resolved “the rule over you part” at least according to St Maxinus)

"To Adam he said(God), "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.

(Note-because he disobeyed the Lord and transgressed, Mary didn’t do any of that)

“It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.”

(and it did/does)

“By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; from dust you are and to dust you will return.”

(I think that’s a guilty conversation, Enoch and Elijah)

“Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.”

(And Mary is the New Eve)

"And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

(inclination to sin, the closer to the Lord the less is has any influence, course Mary was perfectly Graced and of course the tree of life is none other than Jesus Christ and the tree the Cross, Mary was good here!)

“So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.”

(And it so it was to till the Word of God became fully-human/divine…Marys yes and the Tree of Life…RISEN!!!)

“After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.”

(Tree of Life no problem, And the Heaven is now open by Christ, and Mary -resurrected)

Lovely story, surely we are not saying again Mary “had to die”, most fitting She chose to of course.

Mary chose to do just as Her Son, and of course the supernatural rest is indeed a mystery, I really think its the best,

And the East can believe in the Incarnation/IC and the West the IC.

Jesus comes to judge the “Living and the Dead”

Why do you think that Our Lady chose to die? Where is that in the Holy Scriptures or the Fathers?
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has dangerous Christological implications. When God the Son was united with His human nature, He assumed all that we are including our fallen nature. By its union with the divine nature, the human nature was deified and cleansed and liberated from sin and death. We are saved by union with Christ through union with His Church through the Sacramental Life of the Church, which is His Body. In order for us to be healed of ancestral sin, Christ had to assume human ancestral sin. In order for Him to assume ancestral sin He had to receive it from Our Lady, because He received His human nature from her. If she was not born in ancestral sin, Christ’s human nature could not have received ancestral sin and we are not saved from ancestral sin. St. Gregory the Theologian, “That which is not assumed is not healed.”
We agree that God prepared Mary through His grace to become the Birthgiver of God. However, He prepared her because she used her free will to cooperate with God’s transforming grace. If she had no choice, again we are not saved. Mary represents all humanity saying yes to God. Despite being born in ancestral sin Mary willingly obeyed God and cooperated with His Grace. That is why the Fathers called Mary the Second Eve.
The doctrine of the Immaculate conception takes away from Mary because it takes away her choice, to obey God. If a person is already born deified, they cannot sin. Mary did not sin because she chose herself to live a righteous life and because of her righteousness God chose to give Her the grace to prepare her to become the Theotokos.

Fr. John

 

[LionHeart777]

Father John,

Please show me where the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was unable to sin. Coming home from work today I’m pretty sure I heard Catholic Apologist John Martignoni say the opposite (i.e. she was able to sin), and this has been my understanding having converted from Protestantism 3-4 years ago.

We Catholics do, as did the Fathers, speak of Our Lady as the “New Eve”, and Eve was certainly able to sin, although she was born without the stain of original sin.

Edit:

Father John,

Please consider the following answer from a Q & A from Fr. William A. Rice found at EWTN.com:

“Dear Lori, Mary had a free will and could have sinned, but God foreknew that she would not. Therefore, she was conceived immaculately in the womb of St. Anne. It was fitting that God would allow her to be conceived without original sin, but also necessary. How could He allow her to be in the state of original sin and still carry God within her body. It wouldn’t make sense, and God wouldn’t do anything that would sic] make sense. Just as we sin after baptism, so would we have sinned if we were conceived without sin. That’s why Mary is so exceptional! Hope I haven’t been too brief, Fr. Rice”

Source: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=308694&language=en (emphasis mine)

 

[frjohnmorris]

This all revolves around the doctrine of original sin. Because one version of the Greek text can be translated, “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” Douay-Rheims 1899 American Version. In looking as 100 different English translations the Douay is one on only three that translated the text, “full of grace.” The other 97 translated the text as “Highly favored one.” This is because most English translations do not us the Received Text, which is the text used by the Greek Orthodox Church. The Greek text used by most English translation has “kecharitOmenE” which means “highly favored one” instead of “charitou” the word found in the Received text. The word “charitou” which means “full of grace.” The greeting, “Hail Mary, full of grace,” does not cause problem with the Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin. The Orthodox doctrine ancestral sin, unlike the Latin doctrine of original sin, does not teach that we are deprived of God’s grace as a result of Adam’s sin. Following Genesis 3: 16-19, we believe that the major inheritance of ancestral sin is mortality. For this reason, according to the Orthodox doctrine Mary could be full of grace and still be born in ancestral sin.

Fr. John

 

[LionHeart777]

Fr. John,

Perhaps the Eastern Catholics or those more knowledgeable than I could answer. But consider the following answer from an Eastern Catholic’s website:

The dispute with the Orthodox over Mary’s immaculate conception is mostly about semantics. Traditionally Eastern and Western Christianity have arrived at very different definitions of ‘original sin,’ which means that we approach Mary’s immaculate state from different perspectives. Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians readily admit that Mary never sinned, as you know from speaking with your friend. According to the Western definition original sin is a sinful nature, and anyone who has it is powerless to stop sinning. Because Mary was sinless, she must not have had original sin.

In contrast, the Eastern Fathers defined original sin first and foremost as the onset of mortality and death. Because (according to the Eastern Fathers) Mary died before her body was assumed into heaven, she must have had original sin… otherwise she would have not aged, and would have been immortal. Thus many Eastern Orthodox theologians have concluded that Mary must have had original sin - but remained sinless by God’s grace.

As you can see, this entire dispute goes back to how one chooses to define ‘original sin.’ Because the Eastern Catholic Churches follow the guidance of the Pope of Rome, we believe that Mary was freed from original sin at the very first moment of her existence.

Source: east2west.org/doctrine.htm

The answer is from Anthony Dr. Dragani, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Mount Aloysius College in Cresson, Pennsylvania. This was the 2nd from a Q & A about the Immaculate Conception.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Why do you think that Our Lady chose to die? Where is that in the Holy Scriptures or the Fathers?

Where is it that she had to die? I can’t think of anyone from antiquity who used a term “had to die” There’s an unwritten rule that itsbanned from the Apostolic Church’s. Nor did God have to do anything.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has dangerous Christological implications.

Has nothing to do with the conversation. I’ll argue then from the point Jesus was Immaculately Conceived at the Incarnation. Polemical point and a bad one.

When God the Son was united with His human nature, He assumed all that we are including our fallen nature. .

And She who was a virgin without spot or stain, was sanctified (your view, at the Incarnation) She had no sin was sanctified from A or O=X sin and remained ever virgin with no-sin. God has no sin, Christ has no sin, and Mary has no sin.

By its union with the divine nature, the human nature was deified and cleansed and liberated from sin and death. .

Good.

We are saved by union with Christ .

We are saved when we stand before the Throne of God if you want to get right down to it. Enoch and Elijah alive wherever they were not saved till the stood before the Throne of God.

through union with His Church through the Sacramental Life of the Church, .

Sanctifying Grace at the Incarnation “perfectly graced” and prior, and then, ever virgin no-sin.

which is His Body…

That wasn’t His body Mary conceived?

In order for us to be healed of ancestral sin, …

She already was, are you going to tell me she had to die now to complete the deal?

Christ had to assume human ancestral sin. In order for Him to assume ancestral sin He had to receive it from…

God had no sin, Mary was preserved to have no sin by God and She is the New Ark.

1. The Word, then, visited that earth in which He was yet always present ; and saw all these evils. He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life.
2. The Word, since death alone could stay the plague, took a mortal body which, united with Him, should avail for all, and by partaking of His immortality stay the corruption of the Race. By being above all, He made His Flesh an offering for our souls; by being one with us all, he clothed us with immortality. Simile to illustrate this. Athanasius

Our Lady, because He received His human nature from her…

Right

If she was not born in ancestral sin, Christ’s human nature could not have received ancestral sin and we are not saved from ancestral sin. .

took a mortal body which, united with Him, should avail for all, and by partaking of His immortality stay the corruption of the Race…He made His Flesh an offering for our souls…by being one with us all, he clothed us with immortality…He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life.

St Athanasius

St. Gregory the Theologian, “That which is not assumed is not healed.” .

Mary- flesh was assumed by sanctifying Grace.in person and in Her free will.

We agree that God prepared Mary through His grace to become the Birthgiver of God. However, He prepared her because she used her free will to cooperate with God’s transforming grace. If she had no choice, again we are not saved. .

No issue here.

Mary represents all humanity saying yes to God.

Can’t see what this has do but in some incorrect understanding of the IC which I’m not even defending. Incarnation is fine for the debate.

Despite being born in ancestral sin Mary willingly obeyed God and cooperated with His Grace. That is why the Fathers called Mary the Second Eve…

Doesn’t matter if she born in sin, then preserved at the IC, Incarnation, Annunciation or sometime in between, She never sinned, She was preserved by Sanctifying Grace.

The doctrine of the Immaculate conception

It doesn’t matter, I’ll use the other Incarnation. All the IC is, is “most fitting”.

takes away from Mary because it takes away her choice, to obey God.

This is just a bad argument. I can’t imagine how you come to this conclusion. That was the same fresh and nature Second Person Trinity assumed. He had free will and was tempted also. And so did She be it whichever moment we agree She was sanctified.

If a person is already born deified, they cannot sin

I knew that was going somewhere. Mary wasn’t immoral till the assumption. But She had no sin, no where that I see, how about you?

Mary did not sin because she chose herself to live a righteous life and because of her righteousness God chose to give Her the grace to prepare her to become the Theotokos.

OK but I don’t how you end up here after that rough ride. So why did She have to die?

 

[GaryTaylor]

This all revolves around the doctrine of original sin. Because one version of the Greek text can be translated, “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” Douay-Rheims 1899 American Version. In looking as 100 different English translations the Douay is one on only three that translated the text, “full of grace.” The other 97 translated the text as “Highly favored one.” This is because most English translations do not us the Received Text, which is the text used by the Greek Orthodox Church. The Greek text used by most English translation has “kecharitOmenE” which means “highly favored one” instead of “charitou” the word found in the Received text. The word “charitou” which means “full of grace.” The greeting, “Hail Mary, full of grace,” does not cause problem with the Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin. The Orthodox doctrine ancestral sin, unlike the Latin doctrine of original sin, does not teach that we are deprived of God’s grace as a result of Adam’s sin. Following Genesis 3: 16-19, we believe that the major inheritance of ancestral sin is mortality. For this reason, according to the Orthodox doctrine Mary could be full of grace and still be born in ancestral sin.

Fr. John

Perfectly Graced is the correct version in Greek. And its in this thread where I added the Greek.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Not exactly, the Latin Catechism says:

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

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards 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

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.

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 towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

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 action299 and morals.

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

409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"302 makes man’s life a battle:
The whole of man's history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God's grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.303

 

[frjohnmorris]

Where is it that she had to die? I can’t think of anyone from antiquity who used a term “had to die” There’s an unwritten rule that itsbanned from the Apostolic Church’s. Nor did God have to do anything.

Has nothing to do with the conversation. I’ll argue then from the point Jesus was Immaculately Conceived at the Incarnation. Polemical point and a bad one.

And She who was a virgin without spot or stain, was sanctified (your view, at the Incarnation) She had no sin was sanctified from A or O=X sin and remained ever virgin with no-sin. God has no sin, Christ has no sin, and Mary has no sin.

Good.

We are saved when we stand before the Throne of God if you want to get right down to it. Enoch and Elijah alive wherever they were not saved till the stood before the Throne of God.

Sanctifying Grace at the Incarnation “perfectly graced” and prior, and then, ever virgin no-sin.

That wasn’t His body Mary conceived?

She already was, are you going to tell me she had to die now to complete the deal?

God had no sin, Mary was preserved to have no sin by God and She is the New Ark.

1. The Word, then, visited that earth in which He was yet always present ; and saw all these evils. He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life.
2. The Word, since death alone could stay the plague, took a mortal body which, united with Him, should avail for all, and by partaking of His immortality stay the corruption of the Race. By being above all, He made His Flesh an offering for our souls; by being one with us all, he clothed us with immortality. Simile to illustrate this. Athanasius

Right

took a mortal body which, united with Him, should avail for all, and by partaking of His immortality stay the corruption of the Race…He made His Flesh an offering for our souls…by being one with us all, he clothed us with immortality…He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life.

St Athanasius

Mary- flesh was assumed by sanctifying Grace.in person and in Her free will.

No issue here.

Can’t see what this has do but in some incorrect understanding of the IC which I’m not even defending. Incarnation is fine for the debate.

Doesn’t matter if she born in sin, then preserved at the IC, Incarnation, Annunciation or sometime in between, She never sinned, She was preserved by Sanctifying Grace.

It doesn’t matter, I’ll use the other Incarnation. All the IC is, is “most fitting”.

This is just a bad argument. I can’t imagine how you come to this conclusion. That was the same fresh and nature Second Person Trinity assumed. He had free will and was tempted also. And so did She be it whichever moment we agree She was sanctified.

I knew that was going somewhere. Mary wasn’t immoral till the assumption. But She had no sin, no where that I see, how about you?

OK but I don’t how you end up here after that rough ride. So why did She have to die?

You quote St. Athanasius as stating that God the Son took a mortal body.

According to Orthodox doctrine mortality is the chief characteristic of ancestral sin. We do not believe that those born in ancestral sin are deprived of God’s grace. God the Son took a mortal human nature because the human nature came from Mary who was also born in ancestral sin. However, she chose to use her free will to cooperate with God’s grace, and was therefore sinless. Because her divine Son had conquered ancestral sin, she shared in His victory over death. Therefore after her death, she rose and ascended body and soul into Heaven.
We know that she died because the liturgical texts refer numerous times to her death and burial. Death is the chief effect of ancestral sin. We do not believe that ancestral sin is the complete loss of God’s grace. That Mary died shows that she was born in ancestral sin. That she was sinless shows that she used her free will to cooperate with God’s grace. Mary is the new Eve whose obedience to God makes possible our salvation because she became the Theotokos. The Troparion for the feast of the Annunciation begins with the words, “Today is the beginning of our salvation…”
We are not saved just by the Cross, but by the Incarnation through which God the Son united to Himself all that we are. The tradition is that Our Lord’s cross was on top of the grave of Adam. The icon of the Resurrection shows Our Lord lifting Adam and Eve up from the grave.
Once again, it is the assumption of fallen human nature by God the Son through the Incarnation that saves us. St. Athananisus wrote, “God became man so that man could become God.” If God the Son had not assumed fallen human nature, we would not be saved. The fallen human nature came from Our Lady, who was born in ancestral sin. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception means that God the Son could not have assumed fallen human nature to heal it of the consquences of the fall. For that reason it is unsound.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

According to Orthodox doctrine mortality is the chief characteristic of ancestral sin.

God created man in His image…then he sinned. Man in free will created his own evil.

(We do not believe that those born in ancestral sin are deprived of God’s grace.)

No-one should. Its all a blessing when you think about it and live it.

(God the Son took a mortal human nature because the human nature came from Mary who was also born in ancestral sin.)

I agree for the debate. IC=Incarnation no matter for the moment.

(However, she chose to use her free will to cooperate with God’s grace, and was therefore sinless.)

Music!

(Because her divine Son had conquered ancestral sin, she shared in His victory over death.)

Music

(Therefore after her death, she rose and ascended body and soul into Heaven.)

Very Catholic

(We know that she died because the liturgical texts refer numerous times to her death and burial.)

No there is no documented proof and no word of Marys death till 300-AD. We believe in the tradition which in this regard there is no documented of till centuries later. Nothing was ever found…Nothing!

(Death is the chief effect of ancestral sin.)

Body and Soul.

(We do not believe that ancestral sin is the complete loss of God’s grace.)

Music

(That Mary died shows that she was born in ancestral sin.)

Huh?? So if babies before the age of reason die baptized they died to show they were born in A+O=X sin?

(That she was sinless shows that she used her free will to cooperate with God’s grace.)

God only blesses His own gifts.

(Mary is the new Eve whose obedience to God makes possible our salvation )

Huh?? The knot Eve tied in disobedience, Mary untied in obedience.

(because she became the Theotokos.)

Then She became the Mother of the Word of God=Theotokos.

(The Troparion for the feast of the Annunciation begins with the words, “Today is the beginning of our salvation…”
We are not saved just by the Cross, but by the Incarnation through which God the Son united to Himself all that we are.)

God had “no” sin. East or West another A+O=X

(The tradition is that Our Lord’s cross was on top of the grave of Adam. The icon of the Resurrection shows Our Lord lifting Adam and Eve up from the grave. )

And? Back to “had to die”?

(Once again, it is the assumption of fallen human nature by God the Son through the Incarnation that saves us.)

You still on God=Sin, which has noting to do with A+O=X.

(St. Athananisus wrote, “God became man so that man could become God.” )

And man can’t be like God with sin. which has nothing to do with A+O=X. The Saint was well aware.

And the Saint said He takes on the flesh of a “spotless virgin” Are you saying spotless was to define how clean of virgin She was, Doesn’t make sense. She was spotless of sin, She was a virgin as there were also many. They were all virgin’s they all were not spotless of sin.

I thought we agreed on this thread on Jesus Christ=No Sin.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Not exactly, the Latin Catechism says:

I find little in the above with which I disagree. I would add, however, that despite ancestral sin, we are not deprived of grace. That should be obvious because there were holy men and women before Christ. However no one could enter Heaven until Christ destroyed the power of Hades by descending into Hades between His death and Resurrection and liberating those imprisoned there and opening the gates of Heaven.
I do have problem with the expression “original holiness and justice.” The traditional Eastern teaching is that Adam and Eve were not fully deified, but were like children who had not yet grown to holiness. Therefore, the fall is not as great in Eastern Orthodox theology as it is in Western theology.
The point is that we inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve which is mortality and corruption. Because we are mortal we are corrupt and all sin.
I do have a problem with the concept of the death of the soul. Even a completely evil person has a soul. We are all created in the Image of God. That image can be stained by our sins, but it is never completely destroyed. That sounds too much like the Protestant doctrine of total depravity.
Our Lady is a special case because of her own free will she cooperated with God’s grace, which prepared her to become the Birth Giver of God. However, she still inherited mortality, which is ancestral sin, but through cooperating with God’s grace she overcame the corruption in which she was born and was made holy by God in preparation for becoming the Theotokos. Therefore the Eastern Orthodox Church calls her “our all holy, immaculate most blessed and glorious Lady the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary.” We also call her “More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim…” By teaching that Our Lady was already deified before she was born, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception actually takes away some of Mary’s glory. Because it means that she was not an active participant in our salvation by using her free will to cooperate with God’s grace and consenting with her free will to bear Christ. If she could not sin, she had no choice and could not have refused to give birth to Christ. That means that she did not really play the major role that she played in our salvation by becoming the Second Eve whose obedience to God helped liberate us from the consequences of the sin of the Second Eve. The Eastern Orthodox doctrine actually honors Mary more than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Fr. John

 

[dvdjs]

IBy teaching that Our Lady was already deified before she was born, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception actually takes away some of Mary’s glory. Because it means that she was not an active participant in our salvation by using her free will to cooperate with God’s grace and consenting with her free will to bear Christ. If she could not sin, she had no choice and could not have refused to give birth to Christ. That means that she did not really play the major role that she played in our salvation by becoming the Second Eve whose obedience to God helped liberate us from the consequences of the sin of the Second Eve.

1. The IC teaches that she was deified? Where does that idea come from? Do you not think that theosis is a never ending process?
2. Do you really believe that deification entails a loss of free will? Do you believe that Christ had a free will, in particular a will belonging to his human nature? Does baptism cause a loss of free will?
3. The doctrine IC does not assert that she “had no choice”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

However no one could enter Heaven until Christ destroyed the power of Hades by descending into Hades between His death and Resurrection and liberating those imprisoned there and opening the gates of Heaven.

Where was Elijah, Moses and Enoch? He didn’t descent for them, Must have picked them up on the way up?

The traditional Eastern teaching is that Adam and Eve were not fully deified, but were like children who had not yet grown to holiness.

No one teaches they were fully deified

Therefore, the fall is not as great in Eastern Orthodox theology as it is in Western theology.

Only one I heard allude to this is Bishop Ware. He didn’t elaborate, you can, but I don’t see how. I do believe he is talking in the context of most fitting of 4 variables.

The point is that we inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve which is mortality and corruption. Because we are mortal we are corrupt and all sin.

Mortality was defeated at the Cross by Jesus Christ, there is no break in Gods Grace/Divinization, you make your own free-will choice.

I do have a problem with the concept of the death of the soul. Even a completely evil person has a soul. We are all created in the Image of God. That image can be stained by our sins, but it is never completely destroyed. That sounds too much like the Protestant doctrine of total depravity.

Your thinking of death in the carnal sense. There is no death. You cannot not exist, you can only exist apart from God in your own free will. Have you heard about any demons repenting? I haven’t, but hey, Gods will is His will. Luther isn’t relevant.

By teaching that Our Lady was already deified before she was born, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception actually takes away some of Mary’s glory. Because it means that she was not an active participant in our salvation by using her free will to cooperate with God’s grace

No actually its most fitting in understanding Gods perfection, love and grace.

If she could not sin, she had no choice

Can’t imagine how you arrive here. Think baptized, She never sinned and was baptized by the Incarnation and still never sinned. There you can see free-will.

and could not have refused to give birth to Christ.

Way out there. Listen no disrespect but hundreds of years of scholars throught this through and through. You ever think perhaps your wrong?

That means that she did not really play the major role that she played in our salvation by becoming the Second Eve whose obedience to God helped liberate us from the consequences of the sin of the Second Eve. The Eastern Orthodox doctrine actually honors Mary more than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Only if you believe Jesus Christ was born in sin. How is it you believe demons don’t have to die, but Mary had to die?

 

[frjohnmorris]

1. The IC teaches that she was deified? Where does that idea come from? Do you not think that theosis is a never ending process?
2. Do you really believe that deification entails a loss of free will? Do you believe that Christ had a free will, in particular a will belonging to his human nature? Does baptism cause a loss of free will?
3. The doctrine IC does not assert that she “had no choice”.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not a part of the teaching of the ancient undivided Church. It was only proclaimed Catholic doctrine in 1854. If it had been a legitimate doctrine, it would have been proclaimed by one of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.
Yes theosis is a never ending process. In the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Liturgy is offered for “Especially our all-holy, immaculate most blessed and glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.”
No, I do not believe that theosis means a loss of free will.
Christ also died on the Cross because He took on our sins and became mortal for our sakes. Thus Christ voluntarily took upon Himself ancestral sin to deliver us from ancestral sin.
Mary was holy and sinless, because she used her free will to cooperate with the grace of God. However, she was also mortal, which is the chief inheritance of ancestral sin. The Byzantine icon and liturgical texts for the feast of the Falling Asleep of Mary specifically state that she died and was buried before she was assumed body and soul into Heaven. Once again the Eastern Orthodox Church defines ancestral sin as the inheritance of mortality.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

Immaculate Conception was a feast in Russia and Greece long before it was a dogma. The history is on this thread in regards. Not sure what your saying.

 

[dvdjs]

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not a part of the teaching of the ancient undivided Church. It was only proclaimed Catholic doctrine in 1854. If it had been a legitimate doctrine, it would have been proclaimed by one of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Neither was the teaching of Palamas against the Barlaam. Illegitimate?

Yes theosis is a never ending process. In the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Liturgy is offered for “Especially our all-holy, immaculate most blessed and glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.” No, I do not believe that theosis means a loss of free will.

Christ also died on the Cross because He took on our sins and became mortal for our sakes. Thus Christ voluntarily took upon Himself ancestral sin to deliver us from ancestral sin.

Excellent. The deification of Mary, or even the divinity of Christ, does not mean a loss of free will. I take this as a retraction of the the suggestions to the contrary in your earlier post, #618.

Mary was holy and sinless, because she used her free will to cooperate with the grace of God.

Mary was holy and sinless, and she used her free will to cooperate with the grace of God. That is the teaching of the CC and the the IC in no way changes that.

Once again the Eastern Orthodox Church defines ancestral sin as the inheritance of mortality.

Once again some EOs, from whom I have quoted have a broader definition, that more aligned with the teaching of the CC. In any case the IC does not claim thaqt Mary was spared from “ancestral sin as narrowly defined by some Orthodox”. It speaks of the stain of original sin as understood in the CC, posted in post #425.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If it had been a legitimate doctrine, it would have been proclaimed by one of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Well put it this way, The Dormition doesn’t fit your own requirement.

 

[prodromos]

Immaculate Conception was a feast in Russia and Greece long before it was a dogma. The history is on this thread in regards. Not sure what your saying.

The conception of Panagia, yes, so too the conception of St John the Forerunner. I don’t recall the title of either feast including the term “immaculate”. No doubt you are aware that the feast of the Assupmtion of Mary in Rome was originally known as the “Dormition of Mary”

 

[dvdjs]

The conception of Panagia, yes, so too the conception of St John the Forerunner. I don’t recall the title of either feast including the term "immaculate

But we call the Theotokos immaculate - unlike John the Baptist. When did she become immaculate?

No doubt you are aware that the feast of the Assupmtion of Mary in Rome was originally known as the “Dormition of Mary”

Do you mean to suggest that there was a time at which only her falling asleep was commemorated and not her assumption?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Father John,

Please show me where the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was unable to sin. Coming home from work today I’m pretty sure I heard Catholic Apologist John Martignoni say the opposite

He would be, then, in disagreement with a very large numbers of Roman Catholic theologians who taught that the Virgin was impeccable. See this thread on the subject over at byzcath, started by Apotheoun (who also occasionally posts here under the same handle).