Orthodox View of the Immaculate Conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter JaminB123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you for responding.

Perhaps this may get too theoretical but I feel it needs explored. Would I be right to say you identify original sin not as Adam’s sin imputed to us, but rather the nature we have inherited from him? A Nature which is fallen, leads everyone to death and makes man naturally tend towards evil and sin to some degree? That’s what I understood from your catechism.
This sounds right to me, though dvdjs and I have disagreed. I like to discuss it more to clarify, but that may not be essential for the point you’re driving toward.
If this is the case then Mary could be essentially considered pre fallen, in the state of man before the fall no? For me there are problems with this, but I would want it explained to me what is actually believed by you before I go on to list them.
No!

And this is really important: Adam and Eve did not need a savior in their pre-fall state. Mary needed a savior (and declares that she rejoiced in her savior) to prevent her from ever falling in the first place.

Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression. Most people tend to emphasize God’s “salvation” almost exclusively to the forgiveness of sins actually committed. However, Sacred Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact:

Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. (Jude 24-25)

Six hundred years ago, the great Franciscan theologian Duns Scotus explained that falling into sin could be likened to a man approaching unaware a deep ditch. If he falls into the ditch, he needs someone to lower a rope and save him. But if someone were to warn him of the danger ahead, preventing the man from falling into the ditch at all, he would be saved from falling in the first place. Likewise, Mary was saved from sin by receiving the grace to be preserved from it. But she was still saved.
 
Not really. See above.
The “sin”, the “hereditary stain” is not the fallen nature, but the deprivation of sanctifying grace. The situation is more akin to having been baptized. I think this is also the sense of pre-purification as taught be the Eastern fathers.
I am not aware of this sort of language in any sort of Orthodox understanding of Original sin and this may be the core difference, we don’t go beyond saying that we inherit the fallen nature of our parents. At least I am not aware of that and I can only speak for myself here. If any orthodox brother or sister wants to correct me they by all means can.

But here is how I see the issue from my own perspective. Christ came not only to reunite man spiritually with God but also naturally with God. He came to redeem the fallen creation, turn what once was lost into what is dedicated towards God. To this effect he had to become like us in every way, assuming our very nature, our fallen nature in order to effect this change.

If you believe Mary did not have a “hereditary stain” would you say she still had a fallen nature? But what is the difference between the hereditary stain and the fallen nature since you differentiate between the two? What does each state lead to?
 
I am not aware of this sort of language in any sort of Orthodox understanding of Original sin and this may be the core difference, we don’t go beyond saying that we inherit the fallen nature of our parents. At least I am not aware of that and I can only speak for myself here. If any orthodox brother or sister wants to correct me they by all means can.

But here is how I see the issue from my own perspective. Christ came not only to reunite man spiritually with God but also naturally with God. He came to redeem the fallen creation, turn what once was lost into what is dedicated towards God. To this effect he had to become like us in every way, assuming our very nature, our fallen nature in order to effect this change.

If you believe Mary did not have a “hereditary stain” would you say she still had a fallen nature? But what is the difference between the hereditary stain and the fallen nature since you differentiate between the two? What does each state lead to?
Yes I would say that. I think the passage that I quoted above makes clear the aspects of the fallen nature that all of us inherit versus the spiritual separation that is the sin/stain. This is part of EO teaching, too. In previous threads I have quoted numerous EP sources that include these ideas.
 
No other saint has been viewed in the manner of Our Lady as free from sin.
Her immaculate holiness cannot be ascribed solely to her striving - then she would not need our Savior - but must involve that special connection with and orientation toward God that obtained from the moment of her existence.
I hope I am not misunderstood. I meant that she strove to follow God as we all must, not that her striving is separate from her connection to our savior. So I don’t agree that it is “solely” her striving that made her sinless. If we could all strive and accomplish without God, then why would any of our faith happen? I think that is a heresy. But I think we agree with the Catholic church that it is God working in his saints, including of course St. Mary more closely than anyone (as the mother of God), that gives us all the strength to turn away from sin, as our tradition tells us St. Mary consistently did (without the immaculate conception, for us).
 
Yes I would say that. I think the passage that I quoted above makes clear the aspects of the fallen nature that all of us inherit versus the spiritual separation that is the sin/stain. This is part of EO teaching, too. In previous threads I have quoted numerous EP sources that include these ideas.
Archbishop Sotirios (GOC Canada)
orthodoxcatechism.org/
The disobedience and transgression of Adam and Eve is called Original Sin. …And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the “image.” That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man’s heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man. Of course, this is unexplainable and belongs to the realm of mystery, but we can give one example to make it somewhat better understood. Let us say that you have a wild orange tree, from which you make a graft. You will get domesticated oranges, but the root will still be that of the wild orange tree. To have wild oranges again, you must regraft the tree. This is what Christ came for and achieved for fallen man, as we shall see in the following sections.
Our Creator and Maker, ours is the fault. Adam and Eve, listening to Satan, blasphemed. Out of egotism, they allowed themselves to be misled. They distorted the “image.” They darkened the beauty of the soul. They weakened the nature of mankind. Because of them, we became unrecognizable. “The imagination of our heart is evil.” We constantly think of evil. We feel so guilty. We are so far away from You. We have been grafted to evil. We have lost our self-control and our free will to do good. We thank You for Your love, and for sending Your Only-begotten Son to regraft us to goodness. For giving us the possibility of returning to You. You, Lord “want every man to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Do not deprive us of this. Do not deprive anyone of salvation. We thank You Lord
ALSO
One more: C A T E C H I S M O F THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH by Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D.
Q. What did they suffer through the sin of disobedience?
A.
  1. Their minds became darkened and they lost God.
  2. Their hearts became perverted and they began to love the evil more
    than the good.
  3. They fell into sickness and various other evils.
  4. Their bodies became mortal.
  5. Their souls were condemned to moral death, which is separation
    from God, i.e. eternal misfortune.
Q. Did only our First Parents suffer from their disobedience?
A. Unfortunately the whole human race born since has also suffered. They
inherited the same evils, just as they would have inherited immortality
and happiness, if our First Parents had obeyed; because just as impure
water proceeds from an impure fountain so also sinful men are born of
sinful ancestors.
Q. Did the rest of creation suffer anything from the disobedience of our
First Parents?
A. Assuredly; and because of this, since then, “the whole creation groaneth
and travaileth in pain together until now.”, as the Apostle Paul writes in
the Book of Romans, Chapter 8, Verse 22.
Q. What is that sin of disobedience, with all the evils which it brought,
called?
A. The original sin.
Q. Are we responsible for the original sin?
A. Personally none; because we did not personally commit the sin of our First
Parents; but we are charged with it by inheritance because we were in Adam
and Eve when they sinned, and for this reason the Apostle Paul writes:
“…all have sinned.” …Book of Romans, Chapter 5, Verse 12.
Q. Has anyone been exempted from the original sin?
A. Only Jesus Christ, because He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, which,
being God, is without sin, and of the Virgin Mary after her cleansing of
original sin by the Holy Spirit when the Angel announced to her the
conception and birth of Christ.
Both refer specifically to the spiritual or moral death - the state of sin - singled out in the CEnc as the hereditary stain. Note that the second holds that the Theotokos was purified of this stain at the Annunciation, although this limitation is not consistent with the way we hymn her at her entrance, nativity, or conception. Other eminent EO theologians (See Kappes article ref’d above) go back further and speak of her as being pre-purified.
 
I hope I am not misunderstood. I meant that she strove to follow God as we all must, not that her striving is separate from her connection to our savior. So I don’t agree that it is “solely” her striving that made her sinless. If we could all strive and accomplish without God, then why would any of our faith happen? I think that is a heresy. But I think we agree with the Catholic church that it is God working in his saints, including of course St. Mary more closely than anyone (as the mother of God), that gives us all the strength to turn away from sin, as our tradition tells us St. Mary consistently did (without the immaculate conception, for us).
Thanks for this, I agree.
 
I am not aware of this sort of language in any sort of Orthodox understanding of Original sin and this may be the core difference, we don’t go beyond saying that we inherit the fallen nature of our parents. At least I am not aware of that and I can only speak for myself here. If any orthodox brother or sister wants to correct me they by all means can.

But here is how I see the issue from my own perspective. Christ came not only to reunite man spiritually with God but also naturally with God. He came to redeem the fallen creation, turn what once was lost into what is dedicated towards God. To this effect he had to become like us in every way, assuming our very nature, our fallen nature in order to effect this change.

If you believe Mary did not have a “hereditary stain” would you say she still had a fallen nature? But what is the difference between the hereditary stain and the fallen nature since you differentiate between the two? What does each state lead to?
In effect what we are talking about is Baptism and its purpose. Whats important here is understanding the purpose of your own Church and what the Sacrament does. Whats your understanding of Baptism through the Councils?
 
Archbishop Sotirios (GOC Canada)
orthodoxcatechism.org/

ALSO

Both refer specifically to the spiritual or moral death - the state of sin - singled out in the CEnc as the hereditary stain. Note that the second holds that the Theotokos was purified of this stain at the Annunciation, although this limitation is not consistent with the way we hymn her at her entrance, nativity, or conception. Other eminent EO theologians (See Kappes article ref’d above) go back further and speak of her as being pre-purified.
My apology I crossed posts. Pretty much exorcism :eek:
 
I feel that Knappes in the one interview I’ve read doesn’t actually address Bulgakov’s objections to the Latin teaching on original sin, which at that time did in fact teach the transmission of guilt. (Perhaps he does this in his book?) Even if you consult dogmatists from several decades ago (Fr. Hardon, for example), they teach that the privation of sanctifying grace is a moral fault which has its voluntary nature in Adam, thus making all of Adam’s progeny guilty of his transgression. I am frankly not sold on this idea that the Latin teaching on original sin entails no transmission of guilt, because while the passage from Catechism is nice, it cannot abrogate centuries of teaching on the subject of the guilt of original sin.
 
Well Augustine is one story in itself which it probably should be understood Aquinas was fond of him and no doubt defended him but he differed on this point. Privation of sanctifying grace is a moral fault, which is understood through missing the mark in the garden. This has nothing to do with God as it is not originated or empowered by God. Its the result of free-will. By not hitting the mark, we pick up Adam and Eves nature after they missed the mark.
 
I am not aware of this sort of language
Right, this is the point now, we are using different language here again and its somewhat similar with the Eucharist as the Latin Church is talking grace and the Greek Church expression differs in regard to putting on the Holy Spirit. Needless to say I think we are seeing the language difference again.
 
I feel that Knappes in the one interview I’ve read doesn’t actually address Bulgakov’s objections to the Latin teaching on original sin, which at that time did in fact teach the transmission of guilt. (Perhaps he does this in his book?) Even if you consult dogmatists from several decades ago (Fr. Hardon, for example), they teach that the privation of sanctifying grace is a moral fault which has its voluntary nature in Adam, thus making all of Adam’s progeny guilty of his transgression. I am frankly not sold on this idea that the Latin teaching on original sin entails no transmission of guilt, because while the passage from Catechism is nice, it cannot abrogate centuries of teaching on the subject of the guilt of original sin.
Per St. Thomas Aquinas, sin is contracted guilt or (actual sin) imitated. What is contracted is not a personal sin.

Justinian Law terms:
  • Reatus culpa is guilt associated with the sentence (culpability)
  • Reatus poena is the penalty of the sentence.
This original sin guilt* is poena* not culpa. You can see that used here in St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, Q81, A1.Article 1. Whether the first sin of our first parent is contracted by his descendants, by way of origin?

**Objection 1. It would seem that the first sin of our first parent is not contracted by others, by way of origin. For it is written (Ezekiel 18:20): “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.” But he would bear the iniquity if he contracted it from him. Therefore no one contracts any sin from one of his parents by way of origin.
**
Reply to Objection 1.
The son is said not to bear the iniquity of his father, because he is not punished for his father’s sin, unless he share in his guilt. It is thus in the case before us: because guilt is transmitted by the way of origin from father to son, even as actual sin is transmitted through being imitated.
 
Here’s Duns Scotus argument.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CE4QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fyimcatholic%2F2013%2F12%2Ffor-blessed-john-dun-scotuss-thoughts-on-the-immaculate-conception.html&ei=i32iVI6hDIypgwT5h4DQCw&usg=AFQjCNGPzct68zQu_iQ4snE9XBBHah5Zbw
I answer that, it must be said that although the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her animation, because the flesh, as it is not the subject of sin, so neither is it of sanctifying grace, she was nevertheless sanctified in her very animation, that is to say, in the same moment in which it was necessary, from the common law of the sons of Adam, that guilt be in her, such that there never was, nor did she contract, original sin. The very excellence of her Son, for the purpose of not derogating from which some hold the opposite opinion, is what shows this. For [Oxon. ib. n.4] it was fitting for the most perfect Mediator, such as Christ the Lord was, to have had the most perfect act of mediating with respect to some person of whom he was Mediator: but he is not conceived to have existed as the most perfect Mediator of God and of his Mother unless he had preserved her from falling into original guilt; therefore she was preserved from being infected with original guilt. The minor is shown: [Oxon. ib.] first by comparison to God to whom he reconciles: second by comparison to the evil from which he liberates: third by comparison to the person for whom he reconciles. And the first in this way, by supposing that it was not impossible for original guilt to be prevented from being present, since it is not guilt, except contracted from another; and if that was possible, for no one did it become the Mediator to have done it than for his Mother. Therefore the argument is as follows: [Oxon. n.5] a mediator is not conceived to mediate most perfectly, or to placate someone for an offense that had to be contracted, unless he prevents the offense from being present and prevents anyone from being offended by it; for if he placates someone already offended, and sways him to remit guilt, he does not exercise the most perfect act of mediating or placating, as he would have done by preventing the offense; therefore Christ does not most perfectly reconcile or placate the Trinity for the guilt to be contracted by the sons of Adam, if he does not prevent the Trinity from being offended, on account of the inherent guilt, in some one among them. Since therefore Christ was the most perfect Mediator, it is necessary that he have altogether prevented someone from contracting original guilt: but it was not fitting that this be any other besides his most blessed Mother. — The argument under the second head: [Oxon. ib. n.6] because Christ seems to be more immediately our Repairer from original sin than from actual sin; for the necessity of the Incarnation is commonly assigned from original sin: but he was to that extent the most perfect Mediator with respect to his Mother that he preserved her from every actual sin; therefore also from original sin; especially since this original sin is a greater punishment than the lack of the Divine vision; for sin is the greatest of punishments for an intellectual nature; therefore Christ, as the most perfect Mediator, merited to take away this most heavy penalty from his Most Blessed Mother, otherwise he would not have reconciled most perfectly nor would he have been the most perfect Mediator. — The argument finally from the third. [Oxon. ib. n.7] A person who has been reconciled is not supremely obliged to his mediator unless he has from him the whole of the good which he can receive: but preservation from contracting guilt can be had through a mediator; therefore no person was supremely beholden to Christ as Mediator if he did not preserve anyone from original sin. (The minor was touched on also in article 1, and will be declared more clearly in the following articles.)
 
Canon 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was “changed for the worse” through the offense of Adam’s sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20); and, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?” (Rom. 6:126); and, “For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved” (2 Pet. 2:19).
Canon 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).
Canon 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3).
Canon 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).
Canon 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him. The one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other, according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10)
Canons Council of Orange 529-AD
 
Adam and Eve did not have the beatific vision, however, they could still increase is grace since they were in communion thus in a perpetual state of grace. God intended humanity to experience this from the very start, and also a ever increasing intimate relationship with God thus communion, increasing virtue and thus heaven. Had Adam and Eve not sinned, they would not have died, because [human] death came into the world through sin. And because they were already in a state of grace-communion, which is ordered to the beatific vision, had they remained in communion they would have merited the beatific vision, without first passing through death, and thus without ever being separated from their bodies. So I think we can see death of the body and also death of the soul or damnation. CCC 398 states that Adam was “constituted in a state of holiness” and “was destined to be fully ‘divinized’, by God in glory.”

So most definitely the language is an obstacle, still the story is the same spoken in different language’s. Point being that the question of understanding pre-post human nature can be understood. But we are each required to understand it through our own language.
 
I feel that Knappes in the one interview I’ve read doesn’t actually address Bulgakov’s objections to the Latin teaching on original sin, which at that time did in fact teach the transmission of guilt. (Perhaps he does this in his book?) Even if you consult dogmatists from several decades ago (Fr. Hardon, for example), they teach that the privation of sanctifying grace is a moral fault which has its voluntary nature in Adam, thus making all of Adam’s progeny guilty of his transgression. I am frankly not sold on this idea that the Latin teaching on original sin entails no transmission of guilt, because while the passage from Catechism is nice, it cannot abrogate centuries of teaching on the subject of the guilt of original sin.
What do you mean by “guilt”? What do you think that has been meant by “guilt” over centuries of teaching? Is the sens of it different than the Orthodox catechism material that I quoted?
 
Its been mentioned a few times through the thread and by Catholics also that certain words perhaps do not help understanding. Various words also such as; inherit, consequence, iniquity, guilt, and so forth. I didn’t say anything because frankly I don’t disagree with that, still, a collective cohesive understanding as far as possible should be reached. I’m open to all suggestive wording and understanding of the fall pre-post. 😉
 
On Monday night at mass, I found myself wondering… What does the average Orthodox Christian think of the Immaculate Conception doctrine? Is it considered a false teaching… or rather something that is possible true but not rising to the level of dogma? Do you see Catholics in outright error here? I know the Orthodox have a profound respect for the Theotokos, so what of this doctrine?
I have asked, and the answer: they do not believe in original sin; therefore they believe that Mary and every other Christian prior to Baptism, was immaculately conceived. However, they do believe that Mary never sinned in her life.
 
I don’t know, admittedly some people have different understandings. Still the same points come around as mentioned with language and original sin.
The Purpose of Holy Baptism
To remove the consequences of the ‘original sin’. To wash away all other sins committed before the time of Baptism if the person is beyond the age of infancy. To unite the person to “The Body of Christ” (that is, the Church), and to open the door of salvation and eternal life to him or her.
The Exorcism
The first act of the Baptismal service begins in the narthex (entrance) of the church. This is to show that the one being received is not yet a member of the Church. The purpose of Baptism is to bring him into the Church. To enter into the temple of God is to be with Christ, to become a member of His body. The Priest then calls upon the sponsor to renounce the devil and all his works on behalf of the child: “Do you renounce Satan, and all his angels, and all his works, and all his services. and all his pride?”
The exorcisms announce the forthcoming Baptism as an act of victory. The renouncing of Satan is done facing west because the west is where the sun disappears, and was regarded by the ancient Greeks as the place of the gates of Hades. Then the priest faces east whence the light of the sun rises and asks the godparent to accept for the child Him who is the Light of the World:
“Do you unite yourself to Christ!” The renunciation of Satan and the union with Christ express our faith that the newly-baptised child has been transferred from one master to another, from Satan to Christ, from death to life.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2F3saints.com%2Fbaptism.html&ei=2h6kVOigD4aggwSZjoII&usg=AFQjCNHPOzC9tC1JFn244ieJqubuTOe5_Q
 
I think Joe, Gary, hit it on the nail…most simple and brilliant…there are those who think we did not sin and Mary even more so…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top