Orthodox View of the Immaculate Conception

[Novocastrian]

Novo, you know the Scriptures; what do they say?

Genesis 3
17 To Adam he said, “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.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

“To the dust you will return”? If Adam already knew that he and the missus would die one day, why is it necessary for God to state the obvious. And why would even bother to say it in the context of Adam being banished from the Garden and being subjected to a life of labor - unless death was not part of the punishment?

Nothing I said contradicted that. I explicitly left room for the punishment of Adam. I said that punishment of Adam’s guilt does not necessarily entail hereditary guilt.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nothing I said contradicted that. I explicitly left room for the punishment of Adam. I said that punishment of Adam’s guilt does not necessarily entail hereditary guilt.

1 Corinthians 15:22
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

If we are all in Adam, then we are all guilty.

And if we are all in Christ, we are alive again.

And I’m a Catholic using scripture to explain this to a Protestant? There are a lot of fundamentalists who would never have believed it…

(Just having a bit of fun, Novo. No offense intended. )

 

[Novocastrian]

1 Corinthians 15:22
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

If we are all in Adam, then we are all guilty.

And if we are all in Christ, we are alive again.

And I’m a Catholic using scripture to explain this to a Protestant? There are a lot of fundamentalists who would never have believed it…

(Just having a bit of fun, Novo. No offense intended. )

Ha, I know. And I’m sure you know the history of interpretation of this verse, especially regarding Augustine’s reading of the Latin and its relation to the Greek.

 

[Cider]

The immaculate conception doctrine says Mary was preserved of the stain of original sin right?

In my mind Jesus had to fully assume what we are in order to heal us, our fallen nature totally in order to show that we could be healed. This is what I find in meditating on the incarnation and listening to various priests and Orthodox speak on what Christ’s incarnation means.

Of course, i do believe it is not taught that we inherit Adam’s guilt, rather his nature.

Your post reminds me of what Father Stephen Damick says in Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

Quote:

The original sin doctrine is also the origin of the immaculate conception teaching, which says that the Virgin Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin when she was conceived (declared as dogma in 1854, though rejected by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century). Christ would therefore be born without it. Yet for the Orthodox, it is not guilt that Christ is born with, but rather mortality. He, like His mother, suffered the effects of fallen human nature (such as hunger, fatigue, etc.), but did not commit any personal sins. The original sin/immaculate conception combination puts Him outside of human nature, making Him not truly human. It also makes Mary’s personal holiness no great achievement, since she would be rendered incapable of sin from conception. The clearest argument against the immaculate conception, however, is that the Virgin Mary died. If she had been born without original sin, then she would have been incapable of death.

Damick, Fr Andrew Stephen (2011-11-22). Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: Exploring Belief Systems through the Lens of the Ancient Christian Faith (Kindle Locations 886-893). Conciliar Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The original sin doctrine started with the Apostle Paul, and its evident from OT that the prophets and others could be righteous. Which is also evident from Luke 1:6

“Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ha, I know. And I’m sure you know the history of interpretation of this verse, especially regarding Augustine’s reading of the Latin and its relation to the Greek.

Actually, I don’t. And now, I bet I’m going to have a bunch more work to do…

Got a link?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Luke 1:6 King James 2000 Bible
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord BLAMELESS.

Matthew 3:13-17New International Version (NIV)

The Baptism of Jesus
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

1218 Since the beginning of the world, water, so humble and wonderful a creature, has been the source of life and fruitfulness. Sacred Scripture sees it as “overshadowed” by the Spirit of God:12

At the very dawn of creation
your Spirit breathed on the waters,
making them the wellspring of all holiness.13
1219 The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it “a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water”:14

The waters of the great flood
you made a sign of the waters of Baptism,
that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness.15
1220 If water springing up from the earth symbolizes life, the water of the sea is a symbol of death and so can represent the mystery of the cross. By this symbolism Baptism signifies communion with Christ’s death.

1221 But above all, the crossing of the Red Sea, literally the liberation of Israel from the slavery of Egypt, announces the liberation wrought by Baptism:

You freed the children of Abraham from the slavery of Pharaoh,
bringing them dry-shod through the waters of the Red Sea,
to be an image of the people set free in Baptism.16
1222 Finally, Baptism is prefigured in the crossing of the Jordan River by which the People of God received the gift of the land promised to Abraham’s descendants, an image of eternal life. The promise of this blessed inheritance is fulfilled in the New Covenant.

Christ’s Baptism

1223 All the Old Covenant prefigurations find their fulfillment in Christ Jesus. He begins his public life after having himself baptized by St. John the Baptist in the Jordan.17 After his resurrection Christ gives this mission to his apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."18

1224 Our Lord voluntarily submitted himself to the baptism of St. John, intended for sinners, in order to "fulfill all righteousness."19 Jesus’ gesture is a manifestation of his self-emptying.20 The Spirit who had hovered over the waters of the first creation descended then on the Christ as a prelude of the new creation, and the Father revealed Jesus as his "beloved Son."21

1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a “Baptism” with which he had to be baptized.22 The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life.23 From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit"24 in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

See where you are baptized, see where Baptism comes from, if not from the cross of Christ, from his death. There is the whole mystery: he died for you. In him you are redeemed, in him you are saved.25

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Farchive%2Fccc_css%2Farchive%2Fcatechism%2Fp2s2c1a1.htm&ei=My-TVMKCMIXVggTeoYHYBA&usg=AFQjCNETJE4xl0wK31X-aNwgHX0OtNgarA

 

[Novocastrian]

Actually, I don’t. And now, I bet I’m going to have a bunch more work to do…

Got a link?

I’ll dig it out; I’ve got a book at home which I’ll consult tonight.

 

[GaryTaylor]

He believed in the theory of just punishment. He was working on the Apostle Pauls doctrine of sin, he was confused over his insistence that all who follow from Adam by ordinary generation are complicit with Adam’s sin and are born in a vitiated state that is sinful in and of itself, before they commit any personal sins. Thus inherited so to speak guilty. This was corrected by many and by Trent.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDoQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2FTHEOLOGY%2FAUGUSTIN.HTM&ei=wmCTVLavGK_gsASC7oCwDA&usg=AFQjCNHfNhfgrcgi_ODGu–YDNka-MPFcQ

Augustine City of God page-380

Chapter 13

As soon as our first parents had transgressed the commandment divive grace forsook them, and they were confronted with their own wickedness, thus they took fig leaves which was possibly the first that came to hand in their troubled state of mind, and they covered their shame, for though their members remained the same they had shame now and they had none before. They experienced a new motion of the flesh, which had become disobedient to them, in strict retribution of their own disobedience to God. For the soul reveling in its own liberty, and scorning to serve God, was self deprived of the command it had formally maintained over the body. And because it willfully had deserted its superior Lord, it no longer held its own inferior servant, neither could its hold the flesh subject as it would always had been able to do had it remained subject to God. Then the flesh began to lust against the spirit in which strife we are born, deriving from the first transgression a seed of death and bearing in our members, and in our vitiated nature, the contest, or the victory over death.

Chapter 14

For God the author of nature, not vice, created man upright, being of his own will corrupted and justly condemned, begot condemned and corrupted children. For we all were in that one man, who fell into sin by the women who was made from him before the sin. For not yet was the particular form created and distributed to us, in which we as individuals were to live, but already the seminal nature was therefrom which we were to be propagated; and this being vitiated by sin, and bound by the chains of death, and justly condemned, man could not be born of man in any other state. And thus from the bad use of free will, there originated the whole train of evil, with its concatenation of miseries, convoys the human race from its deprived origin, as from a corrupt root. on to the destruction of the second death, which has no end, and those only being accepted are freed by the grace of God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ha, I know. And I’m sure you know the history of interpretation of this verse, especially regarding Augustine’s reading of the Latin and its relation to the Greek.

Sounds like you read through all this. Aside from Augustine, whom defers all authority to the Church, whats you thoughts on the IC and the sin theology of the Apostle Paul in relation to what is agree’d upon through council East-West, in relation to the agree’d upon doctrines. The IC is tied to all of them as we see in the thread. Including the particular and final judgement and purgatory-purification, I mean, think about it. I’m more interested in the meat and bones of a cohesive understanding of all this. But, we have to understand all that above and somewhat agree, to even begin to address the real question.

1. Why would God preserve Mary from sin?
2. How did God do it?

 

[twf]

In Post #3 of this thread, I quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church demonstrating that it is NOT Catholic teaching that we each literally or personally inherit Adam’s sin. Original sin refers to the consequences of Adam’s sin. The stain of original sin is primarily the absence of sanctifying grace. Essentially, Catholics believe that Our Lady received the full graces of baptism at the first moment of her conception. If, as the Orthodox on this board often maintain, there was no reason for the immaculate conception and each of us is born “immaculate”, what is the purpose of baptism? If Our Lady and each of us is conceived with the same graces, as Orthodox have stated on this board, is not baptism just an empty gesture? The Catholic understanding is that, due to Adam’s fall, each of us is conceived out of communion with the Divine Trinity…that is what the “stain” of original sin primarily refers to. In Christ, and through the sacrament of baptism, we “put on Christ” and thus remove the “stain” by being filled with the indwelling of God’s divine life. Our Lady simply received these graces of baptism when she was conceived.

I would appreciate an Orthodox response to my post.
As an aside, the Latins on this thread attempting to impose a Latin understanding of the “guilt of original sin” on the Orthodox are doing so against the teachings of our Church. Eastern Catholics express this mystery using the same language that the Orthodox do. If Rome does not impose the terminology of “guilt” and “original sin” upon Eastern Catholics, it is an unnecessary obstacle to unity to attempt to impose it upon the Orthodox. I am seeking to highlight our similarities on this particular bone of contention. Original sin is described, in the Catechism and other official sources, as the absence of sanctifying grace, which Our Lady was never separated from, and the Catechism is very clear that we do not inherit a “personal guilt” in any sense from Adam.

 

[Seraphim73]

I would appreciate an Orthodox response to my post.
As an aside, the Latins on this thread attempting to impose a Latin understanding of the “guilt of original sin” on the Orthodox are doing so against the teachings of our Church. Eastern Catholics express this mystery using the same language that the Orthodox do. If Rome does not impose the terminology of “guilt” and “original sin” upon Eastern Catholics, it is an unnecessary obstacle to unity to attempt to impose it upon the Orthodox. I am seeking to highlight our similarities on this particular bone of contention. Original sin is described, in the Catechism and other official sources, as the absence of sanctifying grace, which Our Lady was never separated from, and the Catechism is very clear that we do not inherit a “personal guilt” in any sense from Adam.

I’m pressed for time but for now I will say it would be nice if the Catechism matched up with Trent. It would be a lot less confusing.

 

[GaryTaylor]

CCC, Trent and Orange are like hand and glove. Whats not like hand and glove is the soul then body aspect of Marys unscriptural non historic death. Did you say you concede this point or would like to research further? I can only imagine. At this point considering it was 400 years to resolve the IC after being cleared by the Pope i 1400, as I was saying, I don’t see this being resolved any time soon. The implications seem of consequence in regard to the blessed, righteous and blameless of the OT and through to Revelation. Might lead back to a homooúsios issue. Also in this regard, I don’t think we have identical understandings of this in regard to tradition. . I also think you give St Augustine to much credit. He was a light but not the Light, that was Jesus and through His apostles who through Paul gave us the doctrine of original sin of which He redeemed us. But He never said anything about Marys death. Very quiet on the point after the redemption. Jesus could have taken Her up in a Chariot of Fire and bigger than Elijahs. Yet even that doesn’t seem right for His masterpiece with Mary. Perhaps thats why nothing was said.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2FCOUNCILS%2FTRENT5.HTM&ei=TgCVVLOuNcHaggS0voTICA&usg=AFQjCNGJH2zVeaVSUTLIm4iO8ErmwoRdXw

 

[GaryTaylor]

This part here,

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Forthodoxinfo.com%2Fdeath%2Fstmark_purg.aspx&ei=uQuVVL2VIIHXggSE_YLQCQ&usg=AFQjCNFNgP1LQ1pL6H2m3h18tCLXD6a66g&bvm=bv.82001339,d.eXY

the whole Council of Greek Bishops unanimously agreed, that though the souls of the saints, as souls, are already in the enjoyment of bliss, still when, at the general resurrection they will join their bodies, then their bliss will be greater; that then they will he enlightened like the sun. [7] This was their last answer to the Latin doctrine on the state of souls after death.

And the body and souls which are alive in Jesus and blameless in Adam will be resurrected at the final judgement. As far as private revelation on purgatory, what is there to say?

 

[GaryTaylor]

So the basic Christianity becomes of question. The understanding can be briefly summed up below by Tim Staples. While various areas are pointed out by Tim, the point indeed can be part of anyones misunderstanding and regardless where they are. In effect you may be proclaiming the Cross and blood of Christ, and speaking about another understanding which clearly differs from the basic understanding of Christ by Council. In essence thats another faith.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.catholic.com%2Fmisc%2F2014%2Fbehold-your-mother-sample.pdf&ei=2G2VVJ-HC8eigwTE9INo&usg=AFQjCNHp1AkYkRZIb4gPEE2SfgUip6kS5Q

“Mother of the Lord” …“Blameless”. The question then becomes in general when we say “sinless” are we in agreement of Mr Staples dialogue which in effect is the Catholic Churches understanding of agreed upon doctrines of basic Christianity.

 

[GaryTaylor]

For example, would this be considered an “orthodox” view within the Church being this is a factual reality in a Bishops documented account. And he said no tradition.

Epiphanius of Salamis (Greek: Ἐπιφάνιος; between 310–320 – 403) was bishop of Salamis, Cyprus at the end of the 4th century. He is considered a saint and a Church Father by both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches. He gained a reputation as a strong defender of orthodoxy. Wiki-Pedia

Epiphanius of Salamis, a Jew by birth, born in Phoenicia, converted to Christianity in adulthood and lived as a monk for over 20 years in Palestine with 335-340 for 362 years, writes in “Panarion” in “Contra antidicomarianst” about the death of the Virgin Mary following: “If any think < I > am mistaken, moreover, let them search through the scriptures any neither find Mary’s death, nor whether or not she died, nor whether or not she was buried — even though John surely traveled throughout Asia. And yet, nowhere does he say that he took the holy Virgin with him. Scripture simply kept silence because of the overwhelming wonder, not to throw men’s minds into consternation. For I dare not say — though I have my suspicions, I keep silent. Perhaps, just as her death is not to be found, so I may have found some traces of the holy and blessed Virgin.[3]” “The holy virgin may have dead and been buried — her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death — as the scripture says, “And a sword shall pierce through her soul” — her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end. But we must not honor the saints to excess; we must honor their Master. It is time for the error of those who have gone astray to cease.[4]” Christians in the late 4th century had different opinions regarding Mary’s death; some believed that she was martyred. For this reason, Ambrose, for example, wrote: “Neither the letter of Scripture nor Tradition does not teach us that Mary had left this life as a consequence of suffering from bodily ulcers.”[5]-Wiki-Pedia

 

[wynd]

CCC, Trent and Orange are like hand and glove. Whats not like hand and glove is the soul then body aspect of Marys unscriptural non historic death. Did you say you concede this point or would like to research further? I can only imagine. At this point considering it was 400 years to resolve the IC after being cleared by the Pope i 1400, as I was saying, I don’t see this being resolved any time soon. The implications seem of consequence in regard to the blessed, righteous and blameless of the OT and through to Revelation. Might lead back to a homooúsios issue. Also in this regard, I don’t think we have identical understandings of this in regard to tradition. . I also think you give St Augustine to much credit. He was a light but not the Light, that was Jesus and through His apostles who through Paul gave us the doctrine of original sin of which He redeemed us. But He never said anything about Marys death. Very quiet on the point after the redemption. Jesus could have taken Her up in a Chariot of Fire and bigger than Elijahs. Yet even that doesn’t seem right for His masterpiece with Mary. Perhaps thats why nothing was said.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2FCOUNCILS%2FTRENT5.HTM&ei=TgCVVLOuNcHaggS0voTICA&usg=AFQjCNGJH2zVeaVSUTLIm4iO8ErmwoRdXw

This again?

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm53.htm

 

[twf]

I’m pressed for time but for now I will say it would be nice if the Catechism matched up with Trent. It would be a lot less confusing.

The canons of Trent were written at a different time in a very scholastic theological framework. Is it possible that those outside of that tradition do not fully understand the underlining mysteries being conveyed? An issue of translation essentially. The modern Catechism is written for modern audiences and draws much more heavily upon Eastern language in many places.

Often the Orthodox will claim Catholics have departed from the ancient understanding of theosis…to this I respond that not only is it clearly present in our liturgy, but it is clearly articulated in the Catechism. Our Lady’s immaculate conception was a foretaste of our own theosis - our participation in the divine life of the Trinity. Mary simply shared in the Divine Life of the Trinity from the first moment of Her conception. The rest of us have to wait until baptism.

I. WHY DID THE WORD BECOME FLESH?

456 With the Nicene Creed, we answer by confessing: “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.”

457 The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins”:70

Sick, our nature demanded to be healed; fallen, to be raised up; dead, to rise again. We had lost the possession of the good; it was necessary for it to be given back to us. Closed in the darkness, it was necessary to bring us the light; captives, we awaited a Savior; prisoners, help; slaves, a liberator. Are these things minor or insignificant? Did they not move God to descend to human nature and visit it, since humanity was in so miserable and unhappy a state?71
458 The Word became flesh so that thus we might know God’s love: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him."72 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."73

459 The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.” "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me."74 On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: "Listen to him!"75 Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law: "Love one another as I have loved you."76 This love implies an effective offering of oneself, after his example.77

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

 

[twf]

The canons of Trent were written at a different time in a very scholastic theological framework. Is it possible that those outside of that tradition do not fully understand the underlining mysteries being conveyed? An issue of translation essentially. The modern Catechism is written for modern audiences and draws much more heavily upon Eastern language in many places.

Often the Orthodox will claim Catholics have departed from the ancient understanding of theosis…to this I respond that not only is it clearly present in our liturgy, but it is clearly articulated in the Catechism. Our Lady’s immaculate conception was a foretaste of our own theosis - our participation in the divine life of the Trinity. Mary simply shared in the Divine Life of the Trinity from the first moment of Her conception. The rest of us have to wait until baptism.

Ultimately, is it so difficult for the Orthodox to accept that Our Lady’s deification, Her theosis, began at the moment of her conception? The rest of us partake of the divine nature at our baptisms. Our Lady, who was to be God’s own Mother, was to be all-holy all of Her existence. There are other exceptions. St John the Baptist was “filled with the Holy Spirit” even in the womb. The Orthodox celebrate both the conceptions of Mary and John. Do you not only commemorate saints? Unless you believe we are all conceived as saints (in full communion with the Trinity), which would render baptism pointless, there must be something special about Our Lady and St John… Yet on this thread we are told there was nothing different…no special graces…no special favors.

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

Ultimately, is it so difficult for the Orthodox to accept that Our Lady’s deification, Her theosis, began at the moment of her conception? The rest of us partake of the divine nature at our baptisms. Our Lady, who was to be God’s own Mother, was to be all-holy all of Her existence. There are other exceptions. St John the Baptist was “filled with the Holy Spirit” even in the womb. The Orthodox celebrate both the conceptions of Mary and John. Do you not only commemorate saints? Unless you believe we are all conceived as saints (in full communion with the Trinity), which would render baptism pointless, there must be something special about Our Lady and St John… Yet on this thread we are told there was nothing different…no special graces…no special favors.

Orthodox believe that every human being conceived is 100% innocent of all sin. Humans are not born guilty of their parent’s or their ancestor’s sins.

Adam & Eve’s personal sin resulted in the rest of humanity to be conceived into a world in which sorrow, sickness, suffering & physical death are the results of Ancestral Sin. Scripture is clear that Mary, the Theotokos, personal experienced these results of Ancestral Sin.

Why is it that Catholics need Mary to have been conceived with special graces in order for her to have never sinned?

No one, not Adam, not Mary, not Jesus, not you, not me, not any child conceived today, was conceived guilty of another’s sin.

Mary was not conceived any differently than the rest of us, but she was, like Jesus Who alone was conceived differently - no human father, completely sinless her entire life Because she, given the same choices we all are, never ever sinned.