Orthodox Perspective: On Ancient Sin and the Immaculate Conception

[ThereseFrancis]

I must admit, I too, had focused on physical death as well.

So I wouldn’t think that it would be correct to say that baptized Christians are free from all of the effects of original sin, or any taint of original sin

Why not? I see how the Orthodox teaches that as well. You yourself already mentioned that at baptism, we are no longer separated from God. And by your understanding, death is no longer a consequence of the original sin.

 

[pacloc]

While death has been transformed, it still exists only because of the original sin. To be truly without stain of the original sin, it would seem that one must be in the glorified state that Christ manifested at Mt. Tabor and after His Resurrection.

I have read from St. Theophan the Recluse that while before Baptism, wickedness dwells in the heart, and God’s graces are outside of it calling the heart to God, but after Baptism, God dwells in the heart, but evil exists right outside of it calling the heart to sin. I’m paraphrasing because I don’t have the book in front of me. This to me does not mean that we are completely free of the original sin, but are in a process that will be rid of it only in God’s Kingdom. Baptism is only the Birth, almost the easy part that you have nothing to do with in a certain way. The battle of Spiritual Life is the only way to be fully given the Communion with God that is spoken of in Heaven.

 

[pacloc]

I found this from St. John of Damascus:

“Therefore the law of my mind, that is, the conscience, sympathizes with the law of God, that is, the precept, and makes that its will. But the law of sin , that is to say, the assault made through the law that is in our members, or through the lust and inclination and movement of the body and of the irrational part of the soul, is in opposition to the law of my mind, that is to conscience, and takes me captive (even though I make the law of God my will and set my love on it, and make not sin my will), by reason of commixture : and through the softness of pleasure and the lust of the body and of the irrational part of the soul, as I said, it leads me astray and induces me to become the servant of sin. But what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (for He assumed flesh but not sin) condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but in the Spirit Romans 8:3-4 . For the Spirit helps our infirmities and affords power to the law of our mind, against the law that is in our members. For the verse, we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself makes intercession with groanings that cannot be uttered , itself teaches us what to pray for. Hence it is impossible to carry out the precepts of the Lord except by patience and prayer.”

I don’t know where the IC falls into play here, but it is definitely what St. Theophan had in mind when he explained what happens at baptism. I’m almost certain that the RCC puts the IC on a higher level than simply like being baptized from conception, but I could be wrong.

 

[pacloc]

I also found this quote from the great Saint:

“For the holy Virgin did not bare mere man but true God: and not mere God but God incarnate, Who did not bring down His body from Heaven, nor simply passed through the Virgin as channel, but received from her flesh of like essence to our own and subsisting in Himself. For if the body had come down from heaven and had not partaken of our nature, what would have been the use of His becoming man? For the purpose of God the Word becoming man was that the very same nature, which had sinned and fallen and become corrupted, should triumph over the deceiving tyrant and so be freed from corruption, just as the divine apostle puts it, For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 1 Corinthians 15:21 If the first is true the second must also be true.”

It makes clear what we were trying to say about why the Holy Virgin Mary had to have the effects of the original sin. Now this concept that the IC does not contradict this is still not clear to me, but at least we can be sure that She was in fact like us in a fallen state of humanity.

 

[Kei]

I believe in original sin and the immaculate conception, and the Catholic Faith.

I don’t have anything against those in the Orthodoxy. I would like to know more about the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

 

[pacloc]

Another interesting quote from St. John Damascene:

"We confess ,then, that He assumed all the natural and innocent passions of man. For He assumed the whole man and all man’s attributes save sin. For that is not natural, nor is it implanted in us by the Creator, but arises voluntarily in our mode of life as the result of a further implantation by the devil, though it cannot prevail over us by force. For the natural and innocent passions are those which are not in our power, but which have entered into the life of man owing to the condemnation by reason of the transgression; such as hunger, thirst, weariness, labor, the tears, the corruption, the shrinking from death, the fear, the agony with the bloody sweat, the succor at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the nature, and other such like passions which belong by nature to every man.

All, then, He assumed that He might sanctify all. He was tried and overcame in order that He might prepare victory for us and give to nature power to overcome its antagonist, in order that nature which was overcome of old might overcome its former conqueror by the very weapons wherewith it had itself been overcome.

The wicked one , then, made his assault from without, not by thoughts prompted inwardly, just as it was with Adam. For it was not by inward thoughts, but by the serpent that Adam was assailed. But the Lord repulsed the assault and dispelled it like vapor, in order that the passions which assailed him and were overcome might be easily subdued by us, and that the new Adam should save the old.

Of a truth our natural passions were in harmony with nature and above nature in Christ. For they were stirred in Him after a natural manner when He permitted the flesh to suffer what was proper to it: but they were above nature because that which was natural did not in the Lord assume command over the will. For no compulsion is contemplated in Him but all is voluntary. For it was with His will that He hungered and thirsted and feared and died."

This seems to contradict the idea that real Sin is passed on in birth, so to speak of a lack of sanctifying grace or absence of God does not seem appropriate to speak of as being inherited. I’m sure the Great Saint would speak more of a condition that the relationship with God must be cultivated and grow into what it should be.

 

[ThereseFrancis]

How would you understand baptism then? Are you saying that baptism does not grant us the sanctifying grace which restores us to the original holiness to which God intended? Because that is how I understand baptism in both Orthodox and Catholic traditions. @dvdjs already pointed out that baptism removes in us the effect of the fault of Adam, thus restoring to original holiness. The privation of sanctifying grace in us, however, is only one of the effects of the fall. Thus, death and suffering, concupiscence, etc. are not “removed” so to speak in baptism. In fact, I found this from the Orthodox tradition, St. Gregory of Sinai:

“Although baptism removes the ancestral sin and every other voluntary sin, it does not, however, remove the ignorance of the intellect, and lust, and the implanted inclination of the heart toward sin, and the other effects which that ancestral sin brought about in human nature; for these things remain as a consequence even after baptism in order to test our free will and for us to struggle and conquer, and for the baptized to receive their crowns.”

St. Diadochos of Photiki, a saint we both venerate in our traditions explains further:

“Although baptism removes from us the stain resulting from sin, it does not thereby heal the duality of our will immediately, neither does it prevent the demons from attacking us or speaking deceitful words to us. In this way we are led to take up the weapons of righteousness, and to preserve through the power of God what we could not keep safe through the efforts of our soul alone.”

Got it here: ROMANIDES AND HOLY BAPTISM

This goes exactly as to how Catholics understand baptism and original sin. Thanks to @dvdjs for pointing this out as well.

I’m almost certain that the RCC puts the IC on a higher level than simply like being baptized from conception, but I could be wrong.

This is how I understand it now! The Immaculate Conception is in effect like the baptism we receive. We are restored to our original holiness. The only difference between us and the Virgin Mary, is that we experience being without the sanctifying grace until our baptism, while she does not as she receives this grace from the moment of her conception. Now, the Immaculate Conception, like our own baptism, doesn’t mean that Mary cannot sin or is without passion. Mary can sin. Mary could’ve said ‘no’ to Gabriel. But we all know that she remained pure and sinless. The Immaculate Conception is only “higher” as you said, because the sanctifying grace is given to her at conception - a privilege which we only receive during our baptism.

 

[Kmon23]

doesn’t mean that Mary cannot sin or is without passion.

I haven’t followed the entire conversation but I assume what you are referring to are sinful passions/inclination towards sin. In Catholic language, this is referred to as concupiscence, which in the Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception, Mary did not have.

From my studies and understanding, I don’t necessarily consider the Immaculate Conception heretical and would more so consider it part of theologumenon. In Orthodoxy and history, there have been theologians who had different opinions on the Theotokos’ sanctification, whether it was at the annunciation, before, or at her conception.

So one thing we can agree on I believe is that yes, her sanctification in a sense could be almost analogous to baptism. I think the real issue of the immaculate conception is that the Orthodox still believe she was still vulnerable to all the effects of sin like any other human being which includes concupiscence, while in the Catholic understanding of Mary, her immaculate conception excludes concupiscence.

So even if we were to agree on the Theotoko’s state of being sanctified (analogous to baptism) as we are (assuming you are a baptized christian), Orthodox would say we still have a gnomic will as does the Theotokos having the ancestral curse. The Immaculate Conception negates the ancestral curse to exclude concupiscence.

P.S. Gnomic will is not necessarily the same as concupiscence (there are nuanced differences), but I’m not knowledgeable enough to explain the differences since I’m not well-versed in St. Maximus the Confessor’s theology (which is used in the 6th ecumenical council). For my post I use it largely interchangeably FYI.

 

[pacloc]

Baptism as I have said is a transformation from the curse of spiritual and physical death into the promises of Heaven brought by Jesus Christ who has conquered death and destroyed sin. So to speak of the forgiveness of original sin, it is simply having the future of Heaven instead of spiritual and physical death as a future without Christ’s Restoration of man. To speak of original sin meaning that you lack sanctifying grace could be misunderstood to mean that each person is not made in God’s Providence with the ultimate goal of being a Son of God. This would contradict scripture and the Traditions of the Church. Gregory the Theologian says that the only reason God punishes is for our benefit. So I don’t think that it is wise to think much more about the original sin that is inherited and healed in baptism as being taken from the curses to the promises. But this is God’s plan for each person, but must be entered into willingly by either the person if they are of age, or of the sponsors of infants. And truly all of the Sacraments are needed to successfully reach our end pleasing to the Lord.

I think we are saying something very similar, but I prefer to think of God’s Love in creating each human being and am fearful of imputing on Him anything that He has not done. Like St. John of Damascus says in the quote about sin, “For that is not natural, nor is it implanted in us by the Creator, but arises voluntarily in our mode of life as the result of a further implantation by the devil, though it cannot prevail over us by force.”

 

[pacloc]

And to make another point about where I don’t think it is the RC view that the only difference about the Holy Virgin in her IC and others that are baptized after they are born, is how do you think it is such a great miracle to be baptized 9 to 10 months earlier than a 0 to 1 month old baby? Are you implying that the preborn baby is developing sinful thoughts or something?

 

[dochawk]

While the Eastern Church received other elements from Augustine, his view/formulation of original sin, with individual guilt, was never accepted in the East.

In the West, however, just about all of Augustine became generally accepted–although not dogma.

So the West eventually proclaimed the dogma of the IC to clarify a non-dogmatic issue. The East raised an eyebrow . . .

It’s not that the east rejects the IC, but scratches its head at making it dogma. From the Eastern perspective, dogmatizing that Mary was born without the guilt of sin is like making “2+2=4” into a dogma. Well, sure, that’s obviously correct, but as such it hardly needs to be called dogma.

The East also has an issue, without regard to the subject matter itself, of one of the approximately three dozen Apostolic churches (or even two dozen of them, if you count all the EC) moving on its own to proclaim dogma.

hawk