Protestant View of Mariology

[joe371]

We all will get a glorified body.

Look, when Christ went to paradise on Good Friday, he had the thief with him before anyone else. Do we say that the thief has a single privilege? No. Because today there are many saints in paradise. Time will come when we all will receive our glorified bodies. There is no single privilege here. You are arguing only against the timing, because she got hers first. But single privilege means no one else will get it. Ever. Like the IC.

Nothing unique happened to the thief. What happened to him will happen to everyone God willing. if I make it to heaven I will have to wait to receive my glorified Body, just as you and everyone else will. Mary is the only Christian exception. That separates her from everyone else, at least until Jesus return and ushers in the new creation, at which point we will all be like Mary. I am surprised that you wont:shrug: admit this fact.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That is why He must die so that his divinity will conquer the death that has become natural for humanity, and through the union of his two natures give life from the divine to the human. This is why we too must past through death first before bring brought to eternal life.

He did all that at creation in love? And why must we pass through death when God created us to exist in the garden. He didn’t create us to exist so we can not exist only to return to become what He created to exist when He already created it to exist.

So according to what we have, He creates man to exist, then he returns to die so we can exist again"

What went wrong,

Wait, wait and Athanasius returns to speak but again…

“Our creation and Gods Incarnation are most intimately connected. As by the Word man was called from non-existence into being. and further received the Grace of a DIVINE LIFE”;

A DIVINE LIFE. After they were “created” in human nature. They were human “before” the Divinity was given?

Wait, he’s not done…

“So by One Fault, which forfeited that LIFE”…now listen…

[note; Adam and Eve did not suffer human death at this point they were created to exist and cannot not exist but by free will ‘and’ they had a DIVINE LIFE so they forfeited the Divine Life. which further on human life becomes limited]

The Saint again…

“So by [One Fault] which “forfeited” that life they “incurred corruption” and “untold sin” and misery filled the world”.

So according to the Saint.

1] They were created to live

2] They “then” had a “DIVINE” life.

3] human death didn’t exist

3] Spiritual death did not exist

4] One Fault sets the sequence in motion [note one FAULT known as THE “original” sin" which in fact separated Adam and Eve from Gods Grace at that moment] So sin is nothing more then failure to cooperate with Divinity thus GODS GRACE being Divinity, sin then is nothing more than separation of Gods Grace by mans free will.

5] One fault forfeited life [The DIVINE LIFE and the PHYSICAL LIFE]

6] Man embraced the physical world of his physical being in neglect of the Grace which was more important to them than the air they were breathing, By doing this the Divine Life was “corrupted”. From here “untold sin” and “misery” filled the world.

So what you are saying is God became “corruption” “untold sin” and “misery” which of course presents a problem. How did He become what He could not be, which is other than Gods perfect essence which He faulted man for becoming to begin with

And why does Athanasius use the word “SIN” which you claim Augustine created and never existed. Did he state they sinned or not? So they sinned? Adam and Eve are sinners according to this state? Is this state a separation from Grace? If not what is it?

You agree God could not sin? If he could sin why would he fault Adam and Eve for sin? More important why would He become what He faulted them for to begin with, namely sin?

Let me know if your good here, and I’ll move along and according to the same book your reading so we don’t result in thinking the Saint stated other than he did state.

And the Saint said “creation and the Incarnation are intimately connected”

OK now this Saint he elaborates but again here, and states…

btw you keep insisting the West invented all this, perhaps its was Saint Athanasius? ]

First he states "Gods Nature could not be sacrificed for our profit. Repentance could not avert the execution of the Law, still less could it remedy a fallen nature [death of the soul, death of the flesh] We have incurred corruption and need to be restored to the Grace of Gods image. None could renew but He who created He alone could re-create all,. suffer for all, represent all to the father. The Word then visited earth which He was always present and saw all the evils. He takes the body of

1] Our Nature

2] that of a “SPOTLESS”

3] Virgin all virgins are virgin WHAT DOES SPOTLESS MEAN]

4] In whose womb He makes His own [that of the Spotless One who was also a Virgin]

CTG what does this spotless thing mean according to Corruption “sin” and “misery”

5] To reveal himself to mankind

6] conquer death

7] restore life

Sounds mighty Catholic to me. I see no issue with the IC according to this Saint

 

[dvdjs]

Oh, he is one of the greatest minds of our time. But even with that, we can’t just take everything he says. Besides, he is just one bishop in the Orthodox Church. He can have his own opinions as long as they are not heretical. But they are still just opinions.

Are you stipulating that his views are not heretical?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Follow what I’m saying CTG? Now this is where you say; “But we are not guilty for Adams sin”

And this is where this link will help clarify the position you present which you have done exactly as expected, resorted back to traditional Catholic/Orthodox teaching.

“He must die so that his divinity will conquer the death that has become natural for humanity”

Death of the flesh, death of the soul sin? That which ROMANIDES claims cannot be inherited?

Romanideans reply to this: “We do not deny that Adam’s descendants suffer for his sin. But we cannot accept that they are guilty of his sin. Rather, they inherit, not the sin itself, but its punishment.

"This is plausible, and yet it does not go to the heart of the matter. For let us recall the distinction made earlier between personal sin and the sinfulness of nature or “the law of sin” (Romans 7.23). This is the distinction between sin as the act of a human person, and sin as the state or condition or law of human nature. Archbishop Theophan of Poltava points out that St. Paul “clearly distinguishes in his teaching on original sin between two points: paraptwma or transgression, and amartia or sin. By the first he understood the personal transgression by our forefathers of the will of God that they should not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, by the second – the law of sinful disorder that entered human nature as the consequence of this transgression. When he is talking about the inheritance of the original sin, he has in mind not paraptwma or transgression, for which only they are responsible, but amartia, that is, the law of sinful disorder which afflicted human nature as a consequence of the fall into sin of our forefathers. And hmarton - ‘sinned’ in Romans 5.12 must therefore be understood not in the active voice, in the sense: ‘committed sin’, but in the middle-passive voice, in the sense: amartwloi in 5.19, that is, ‘became sinners’ or ‘turned out to be sinners’, since human nature fell in Adam.”[6] "

Christ was born from a virgin who had been cleansed beforehand from all sin by the Holy Spirit precisely in order to break the cycle of sin begetting sin. For, as St. Gregory Palamas writes: “If the conception of God had been from seed, He would not have been a new man, nor the Author of new life which will never grow old. If He were from the old stock and had inherited its sin, He would not have been able to bear within Himself the fullness of the incorruptible Godhead or to make His Flesh an inexhaustible Source of sanctification, able to wash away even the defilement of our First Parents by its abundant power, and sufficient to sanctify all who came after them.”[10]

We conclude that children can indeed inherit sin from their parents, not simply in the sense that they inherit the punishment for their parents’ sin, but also in the sense that they inherit sin itself – although this inherited sin is not the personal sin of their parents, but the sinful nature that they inherit from them. This takes place on the level of the family, of the nation, and of mankind as a whole. Thus just as the sin of a father can poison the life of his children, and the sin of a Lenin or a Hitler can poison the lives of generations of Russians or Germans, so the sin of Adam and Eve has poisoned the lives of all their generations after them.

This is possible because, while human persons are multiple and distinct from each other, human nature is one. For, as St. Basil the Great writes, what we inherit from Adam “is not the personal sin of Adam, but the original human being himself”, who “exists in us by necessity”.[11] That is why St. Gregory Palamas calls Adam’s sin “our original disobedience to God”, “our ancestral sin in Paradise”.[12] It follows, as St. Athanasius the Great writes, that “when Adam transgressed, his sin reached unto all men…”[13] And this, as St. Cyril of Alexandria writes, “not because they sinned along with Adam, for they did not then exist, but because they had the same nature as Adam, which fell under the law of sin”. [14] [Vladimir Moss]

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/399/romanides-original-sin/

 

[PRmerger]

We all will be assumed at some point at the end of ages. So it is not a single privilege because we’re getting that as well. The whole point of the tradition of the Dormition in the Orthodox faith is to tell us that look, Christ is God and He could resurrect himself. But here is a humble human being like the rest of us, and God has resurrected her and glorified her. Our hope then is that this is the goal of our lives. Like the Theotokos, we too shall be resurrected by Christ and glorified in heaven.

This is very Catholic!

 

[aidanbradypop]

Does the whole “battle” of Marian Dogma kind of come across are a Rep/Demo fight. If one sides states “A” the other side will simply state “B” to keep from agreeing?

 

[PRmerger]

What I learned from Orthodoxy answers a lot of the questions I have, including “why do bad things happen to good people” and why are people born with abnormalities, even why are people born gay.

To answer your question, Christ’s death was his offering of himself to us all so that we may share in what He has, His divinity. By becoming incarnate and human He has shared in our very nature. But He must share in all things, including our nature’s greatest weakness, death. Being God He cannot die, yet being human He can. That is why He must die so that his divinity will conquer the death that has become natural for humanity, and through the union of his two natures give life from the divine to the human. This is why we too must past through death first before bring brought to eternal life.

I appreciate your answering the question, finally.

So how do you reconcile the above answer with your question here:

Doesn’t make sense. So God has to let us suffer in sin and let His own Son become mortal and suffer even if He can prevent all that just so to do something completely unnecessary?

It appears that you need to simply apply your own answer above to your own question here.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are you stipulating that his views are not heretical?

I have no right to stipulate who is a heretic or not. Only a synod can do that.

I’m saying that even the most well respected, knowledgeable theologians can have their own opinions. Not everything that comes out of their mouth is doctrine. We don’t believe in infallibility.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I appreciate your answering the question, finally.

So how do you reconcile the above answer with your question here:

It appears that you need to simply apply your own answer above to your own question here.

Of course. God came to suffer because He had to suffer, there was no other way around it. He couldn’t save us without having to suffer himself. The reason for that is because the problem is in our nature, and to alter our nature is to destroy us. God could have changed our nature and made us angels if He wanted to, but that wouldn’t be saving us, that would have been the end of us. If our nature changed, then it is not us anymore. So God had to do something that doesn’t change our nature, so He added His own divinity to our human nature, so that we are made something more without changing what is already there.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Does the whole “battle” of Marian Dogma kind of come across are a Rep/Demo fight. If one sides states “A” the other side will simply state “B” to keep from agreeing?

Or that we really have opposing views. What do you want, a compromise of doctrine? You can compromise in Congress, but not it truth.

 

[KathleenGee]

Voila! Constantine…there you show in post 1091 the essence of the universal Catholic Church…it shows the communion that is inherently there in the Orthodox dimension of faith!

So you see we are on same page after all.

I just read a reflection by St. Francis of Assisi in his letter to the faithful written after a 2nd bout with a terrible fever…‘Christ inherited humanity’s nature from Mary’s flesh’…

But in spite of Mary’s weak flesh, she did not pass any inclination of sin to Him.

Again back to Duns Scotus, a Franciscan who lived at same time of St. Thomas Aquinas, Mary was not excluded from redemption of Our Lord. Mary obtained the greatest redemption through the mystery of her preservation from all sin.*

How the Orthodox LOVE mystery!!! Through Duns Scotus, we do too, hold on to the mystery of Mary’s redemption and immaculate conception, we believing this in an act of faith.

We have to refer back to the Angel: “With God, anything is possible.”

Mary’s greatest redemption and attributes to Christ “a more exalted role as Redeemer, because redeeming grace, which preserves from original sin, is greater than that which purifies from sin already incurred.” This is teaching from Duns Scotus is one we need to spend more time to reflect.

Christ 'shielded Mary from original sin through anticipating and foreseeing the merits of his passion and death…Preredemption indicates a much greater grace and more perfect salvation.**

The other part of Duns Scotus argument was that we tend to look at her linear time. Remember, movements of God happen in His time…where there are no boundaries or time zones…but the Eternal Will.

If her sanctity had been based on the order of time, then there would be a moment she would be subjected to the Prince of Darkness…and Mary was raised to be Satan’s destroyer.

Instead we look at the order of Nature. Mary was conceived and sanctified at the same time…God’s Will.

In summary, Duns Scotus proclaims: ‘At one and the same time Mary, as a human descendant of Adam and Eve, contracted the debt of original sin and became by privileged infusion of grace a daughter of God, which preserved her from the consequences of the common lot of fallen nature by a special anticipation of the anticipated merits of the Savior.’

The Angel Gabriel declared her full of grace. All of creation was waiting for the coming of the Savior and Redeemer of the world, and it was Christ Himself Who chose and anticipated His own coming, and most reasonably then, anticipated her coming as His dearly beloved Mother.*

 

[pablope]

Or that we really have opposing views. What do you want, a compromise of doctrine? You can compromise in Congress, but not it truth.

Truth according to whom? The orthodox truth or the catholic truth?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Truth according to whom? The orthodox truth or the catholic truth?

There is only one truth. We don’t agree on what it is. Truth is not relative. Only one of us can be right.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Voila! Constantine…there you show in post 1091 the essence of the universal Catholic Church…it shows the communion that is inherently there in the Orthodox dimension of faith!

So you see we are on same page after all.

I just read a reflection by St. Francis of Assisi in his letter to the faithful written after a 2nd bout with a terrible fever…‘Christ inherited humanity’s nature from Mary’s flesh’…

But in spite of Mary’s weak flesh, she did not pass any inclination of sin to Him.

Again back to Duns Scotus, a Franciscan who lived at same time of St. Thomas Aquinas, Mary was not excluded from redemption of Our Lord. Mary obtained the greatest redemption through the mystery of her preservation from all sin.**

How the Orthodox LOVE mystery!!! Through Duns Scotus, we do too, hold on to the mystery of Mary’s redemption and immaculate conception, we believing this in an act of faith.

We have to refer back to the Angel: “With God, anything is possible.”

Mary’s greatest redemption and attributes to Christ “a more exalted role as Redeemer, because redeeming grace, which preserves from original sin, is greater than that which purifies from sin already incurred.” This is teaching from Duns Scotus is one we need to spend more time to reflect.

Christ 'shielded Mary from original sin through anticipating and foreseeing the merits of his passion and death…Preredemption indicates a much greater grace and more perfect salvation.**

The other part of Duns Scotus argument was that we tend to look at her linear time. Remember, movements of God happen in His time…where there are no boundaries or time zones…but the Eternal Will.

If her sanctity had been based on the order of time, then there would be a moment she would be subjected to the Prince of Darkness…and Mary was raised to be Satan’s destroyer.

Instead we look at the order of Nature. Mary was conceived and sanctified at the same time…God’s Will.

In summary, Duns Scotus proclaims: ‘At one and the same time Mary, as a human descendant of Adam and Eve, contracted the debt of original sin and became by privileged infusion of grace a daughter of God, which preserved her from the consequences of the common lot of fallen nature by a special anticipation of the anticipated merits of the Savior.’

The Angel Gabriel declared her full of grace. All of creation was waiting for the coming of the Savior and Redeemer of the world, and it was Christ Himself Who chose and anticipated His own coming, and most reasonably then, anticipated her coming as His dearly beloved Mother.

No, human flesh after the fall has naturally the inclination to sin. Why do you think the devil even attempted to tempt Jesus? The devil is not stupid, he knows what human nature is all about. What he doesn’t know was what the hypostatic union of human and divine can or cannot do. St. Athanasius laid it out clearly:

For His being in everything does not mean that He shares the nature of everything, only that He gives all things their being and sustains them in it. Just as the sun is not defiled by the contact of its rays with earthly objects, but rather enlightens and purifies them, so He Who made the sun is not defiled by being made known in a body, but rather the body is cleansed and quickened by His indwelling,

 

[GaryTaylor]

Why do you think the devil even attempted to tempt Jesus? The devil is not stupid, he knows what human nature is all about…

Matthew 4:6

He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.

Psalms 91:11-12

For He commands his angels with regard to you, With their hands they shall support you, lest you strike your foot against a stone.

Excellent reason why no-one should be outside the Church with new doctrine.

 

[PRmerger]

No, human flesh after the fall has naturally the inclination to sin.

No. This is not our natural inclination. It is, rather, unnatural to sin. That God intended us to be as Adam and Eve and Mary is the natural way. Sin is unnatural.

In fact, every time we sin we are, essentially, losing our mind.

 

[PRmerger]

Preredemption is a break in the logical understanding of how redemption actually works, which is why the IC is objectionable. Again, if God can pre-redeem man, why not just do that for all?

Because Christ’s death was his offering of himself to us all so that we may share in what He has, His divinity. By becoming incarnate and human He has shared in our very nature. But He must share in all things, including our nature’s greatest weakness, death. Being God He cannot die, yet being human He can. That is why He must die so that his divinity will conquer the death that has become natural for humanity, and through the union of his two natures give life from the divine to the human. This is why we too must past through death first before bring brought to eternal life.–originally posted by none other than CTG, who seems to answer his own question, oddly.

 

[bzkoss236]

Am I the only one who finds it interesting how this topic went from Protestant views of Mariology into a Catholic vs. Orthodox discussion on Marian doctrine?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Am I the only one who finds it interesting how this topic went from Protestant views of Mariology into a Catholic vs. Orthodox discussion on Marian doctrine?

It is still about Mariology. Maybe the name should be changed to Non Catholic view of Mariology

 

[PRmerger]

Am I the only one who finds it interesting how this topic went from Protestant views of Mariology into a Catholic vs. Orthodox discussion on Marian doctrine?

I never wonder about the direction that threads take. That’s just normal evolution of dialogue.