Orthodox Perspective: On Ancient Sin and the Immaculate Conception

[ziapueblo]

I know that the Catholic Church believes the same. I’m Catholic! I was just answering the question about why Orthodox would baptize babies if they don’t believe in original sin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I dont believe you understand Orthodox belief/tradition as well as you may think. This faith does not hold Mary did not die. Dormition is but a euphemism.

 

[ThereseFrancis]

I agree. That is why I say, “they may.” A possibility, but something we are unsure of. The Church has already spoken about Limbo as false as well. Anyway, even the concept of Limbo adds to to the fact that these unbaptized babies are not guilty of any sin (for surely, if they are guilty, it should be purgatory). However, because they did not receive baptism, they remain in a fallen state and possibly not yet in heaven. But trusting in the mercy of God, we hope they are.

Another argument is that the effects of the fall, resulted in a fallen state and not a fallen nature(which is an invention of the Protestants). Hence, when we say that they are “born again” during the baptism, it is not because the infants are “dead”. Rather, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3–4).

I do agree that baptism gives us a new life/new birth, so that we are baptized in both water AND spirit. However, it is not the same as regeneration as Luther often suggests.

 

[ThereseFrancis]

I know. I have also clarified that there is really no basic doctrinal difference on the understanding of orignal sin from the Catholic Church and of ancient Sin from the Orthodox faith. So my question is how does this now implicate the understanding of Immaculate Conception?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Very interesting! This is the first time that I have heard of this. However, if this were to be believed, how then could Jesus Christ be God? After all, you can still be fully human without being in the fallen state (as was Adam before the Fall).

Why interesting, it is obvious. Wasnt Mary also fully human?

Both Jesus and Mary aged and died (why would Jesus not have…do you think he was an immortal?).

 

[Kei]

They are not guilty of any actual sin. They have only the darkness of original sin, death on their souls.

We are dead without baptism. I mean, of course we are alive, but not in true life.

Are you denying the regenerative effects of baptism? What is the washing of regeneration of Timothy?

 

[TigerLily-1]

What the Orthodox believe about infant Baptism:

http://antiochian.org/content/infant-baptism-what-church-believes

 

[ThereseFrancis]

Interesting because it’s the first time that I have heard of this notion that even Jesus himself has inherited the fallen state from Adam. I have never heard of it before. Surely, it is not in the Catholic Church but it’s the first time I have heard of this from the Orthodox faith. It is interesting only on that regard.

Yes, it is obvious they both died. But their death does not imply being in the fallen state under the understanding of the Catholic Church. It is a long explanation but here is a brief summary as to why: Mary's Death Doesn't Mean She Sinned | Catholic Answers | Catholic Answers
Here’s a quote though: “If the Blessed Mother did die, does that prove that she had sinned, or at least been stained by original sin? No, it does not. The Church recognizes that Mary needed a Savior like everyone else, as she proclaims in her “Magnificat””

 

[ThereseFrancis]

I am not denying its regenerative effects. Surely it does but not in the same way as Protestants view it.

I think our problem here is semantics. We have not qualified what being “dead” really means. I think we are just misunderstanding the words of each other. So let’s qualify by not using the word “dead.” I re-read your previous posts and I think we agree that unbaptized babies are in a fallen state. It is what the whole human race has inherited from the fall of Adam. Through the virtue of baptism, by the mercy of God, we can be what Adam was before the Fall, and what Christ is, by sharing in his death and resurrection. I think that’s what we both mean, and we are saying the same thing, but we debating because of mere semantics.

 

[Kei]

What I mean by dead is about the same thing as when one is in the state of mortal sin–except without having ever been in the state of Grace.

 

[pacloc]

I think you misunderstood what I said. He did not “inherit” or was not in the fallen state, but He voluntarily assumed the passibility and mortality that were the consequences of Adam’s sin. This is why I said like our fallen state but without sin.

 

[ThereseFrancis]

Ooooohhh! Now this I understand. This is perfectly in line with the Catholic understanding as well. Going back to your original post though:

For her to be Immaculate as the RCC teaches, they do not believe that she was born with the consequences of the fall, but was more like Adam and Eve before the fall. This makes no sense, since even Christ was not born with this nature.

According to what you are saying now, even Christ was not in the fallen state but voluntarily assumed mortality. According to the Catholic Church, this is also to be believed as stated in CCC 603. In the same way, according to Catholic understanding, Mary was not born in a fallen state (as Christ is) but shared in his Son’s death and resurrection. As St. John Paul II said: “Involved in Christ’s redemptive work and associated in his saving sacrifice, Mary was able to share in his suffering and death for the sake of humanity’s Redemption.”

So going back to my question, how could Mary be full of grace, all-holy Theotokos, in enmity with the serpent, if she was in a fallen state.

 

[MatthaiosX]

Okay I see what you are saying, we may view original sin in the same way and you’re right when you say semantics may be the cause of our issue here. If we are talking about the same thing then so be it, I’m not opposed to agreement lol!

All I am saying is that the Theotokos did not commit any personal sin, and that this was partially by her own choice and partially because of the grace which was bestowed upon her at the Annunciation. It is our teaching that at the Annunciation the Theotokos was sanctified in order to make her womb prepared to bear God and also so that the human nature assumed by Christ would be “prelapsarian” (characteristic of the time before the fall of Mankind). Saint John of Damascus even writes about the Theotokos being freed from corruption at the Annunciation. However, God chose this for her because of her pure life. It was a synergy between God and man here, which is how we are supposed to act with God as well. We call her Immaculate too, but there are different implications here.

If he just simply chose her to be immaculate from birth and not because of it partially being her own choice, then that begs the question: why couldn’t he have just bestowed this grace on everyone in the world, thereby eliminating the need to become incarnate?

 

[pacloc]

I think I made it pretty clear. You need to explain why you think a creature can choose to do Godly things like be immortal by nature and take on mortality. This is the late invention of the RCC that I was getting at by your claiming her sinlessness like that of Eve. Christ did not even take on the state of Adam as I have said. Adam was passionless if even for just a short time.

 

[Kei]

We do not believe Mary was given a choice in such a manner prior to her birth. We don’t exist prior to conception. Since her conception, we believe she has been blessed immensely, and indeed, blessed to be without the penalty of original sin from the moment of her conception,that being the “spiritual death”.

She then did not sin by the grace of God, was blessed in being the creature to carry the Son of God.

 

[MatthaiosX]

I am just wondering, are you replying to my post here? I never said she chose anything before birth. What I am saying is that she chose to lead a sinless life here on earth.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Interesting because it’s the first time that I have heard of this notion that even Jesus himself has inherited the fallen state from Adam. I have never heard of it before. Surely, it is not in the Catholic Church but it’s the first time I have heard of this from the Orthodox faith. It is interesting only on that regard.

I don’t think you fully understand what is meant by “Christ became like us in our fallen state but without sin.”

All it means, in the Catholic tradition, is that Jesus shares some of the effects of the fall by living amongst us. That does not mean he was stained in any way by OS.
Afterall, he is banned from the Garden like anybody else. Therefore his full humanity has no access to the Tree of Life. Therefore he must age and die, as must we. Immortality was extrinsic to A&E.

 

[pacloc]

Yes, but claiming she chose mortality later is a strange concept. Now she did embrace death as being a good thing because of what her Son had accomplished by making death really the beginning of True Life. But she died because she still had the consequences of the original sin. RCs claim she was free of all original sin and its consequences. Does this mean that she was free of the innocent passions like fear and hunger in the RC theology? I doubt it. But the fathers teach that these passions are only present because of the original sin and will be gone in Heaven.

 

[ThereseFrancis]

If he just simply chose her to be immaculate from birth and not because of it partially being her own choice, then that begs the question: why couldn’t he have just bestowed this grace on everyone in the world, thereby eliminating the need to become incarnate?

I agree with everything you said! Even the Immaculate Conception is in anticipation for the ‘yes’ of Mary in the Annunciation as God was already preparing her.
To answer your question though, according to Catholic teaching, this is a special privilege given to Mary given that she may be all-holy and full of grace, and be ‘worthy’ (I do not like this word but I cannot think of anything else) to be the Mother of God.

According to the Catholic tradition, Mary was not “saved” at the Immaculate Conception nor was she deprived of her free will. She could have chosen to sin. She could have even said ‘no’ to Gabriel! After all, even before the Fall, Adam was given freedom.

The common ground I see here is that Mary did not commit any sin. According to Orthodox, this is because of a special grace bestowed upon her that she is able by her own freedom to choose not to sin. I think, this is compatible with Catholic teaching only in a sense that this special grace is in the form of her Immaculate Conception. This understanding and reconciliation between the two traditions, of course, is not official, but only my own musing. Obviously, I’m only fallible but I enjoy these speculations. lol.

I find this conversation very interesting. I don’t know but I find it nourishing .

 

[ThereseFrancis]

You need to explain why you think a creature can choose to do Godly things like be immortal by nature and take on mortality

Maybe I was not clear on what I said. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Maybe I should just quote the entirety of what St. John Paul II said:

"It is true that in Revelation death is presented as a punishment for sin. However, the fact that the Church proclaims Mary free from original sin by a unique divine privilege does not lead to the conclusion that she also received physical immortality. The Mother is not superior to the Son who underwent death, giving it a new meaning and changing it into a means of salvation. Involved in Christ’s redemptive work and associated in his saving sacrifice, Mary was able to share in his suffering and death for the sake of humanity’s Redemption. What Severus of Antioch says about Christ also applies to her: “Without a preliminary death, how could the Resurrection have taken place?”

So it was not as if Mary was immortal and chose mortality for the sake of her son. I hope this clarifies things.

Christ did not even take on the state of Adam as I have said. Adam was passionless if even for just a short time

I agree. It was necessary to redeem us. To quote from the Catechism:
"But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all”, so that we might be “reconciled to God by the death of his Son”.

Let me clarify: Christ is not Adam nor is Mary is Eve as was before the fall. Rather, Christ is the New Adam, and Mary is the New Eve. It is important to say “new” before it is not a just restoration of the state of humanity as if nothing happened but it is greater than that. It involves a redemption from our sins thus a necessity of the incarnation of Christ.

I have a question though. And this is something personal to my heart. Do you think it is possible to be faithful to the Orthodox Faith while also believing in the Immaculate Conception?

All it means, in the Catholic tradition, is that Jesus shares some of the effects of the fall by living amongst us. That does not mean he was stained in any way by OS.

Afterall, he is banned from the Garden like anybody else. Therefore his full humanity has no access to the Tree of Life. Therefore he must age and die, as must we. Immortality was extrinsic to A&E.

No one - not even one poster - here is claiming anything about the immortality of Jesus or Mary. It’s clear that they both died.