www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, & Papal Infallibility

Did she not have one, or was is it that it was left intact during the birth?

(Frankly, for a guy who could walk through walls this wouldn't be too hard to pull off.)

Dear Ignatius and Olga,

The Mother of God is always depicted in Orthodox iconography with three stars on her head and shoulders that represent the teaching that she remained a Virgin "before, during and after" giving birth to Christ.

This is related, as Ignatius alluded to, the Divinity of Christ and his Resurrection.

The liturgical services of the Nativity as well as the Octoechos contain references to the painless birth-giving of Christ by the Mother of God.

Some of the texts relating to this are to be found for Wednesdays and Fridays when the Cross and Passion are honoured. It is stated that while the Virgin suffered no pain in giving birth to Christ, she suffered great inner pangs under the Cross of her Son.

Also, she did not experience the same disordered concupiscence that we do, owing to her sanctified state as the Mother of the Word Incarnate and her constant interior prayer and meditation.

Most Holy Mother of God, save us!

Alex

[This message has been edited by Orthodox Catholic (edited 07-10-2001).]

Alex --

"However, Orthodoxy in her liturgical tradition DOES hold that the Theotokos experienced no pain in giving birth to Christ, which pain she would have indeed experienced had she been under the law of concupiscence."

It's true that the liturgies note that she experienced no pain during the birth of Christ, but that's viewed principally as part of the miracle of the virgin BIRTH (no pain, no seal broken, etc. -- a miracle in many ways, not just a normal birth without pain). In this regard, it seems important to remember that the liturgical tradition also notes that St. Mary was sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit prior to the incarnation in her womb .... one wonders why such sanctification would have been necessary had she been preserved from Original Sin per the IC dogma.

Brendan



[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited 07-10-2001).]

Dear Brendan,

Excellent point, you really are a theological Navigator!

"Preserved from Original Sin?" In Eastern Orthodoxy, it is not that she was preserved from Original Sin, since that is not understood as an ACTUAL sin in the RC sense (black mark on the soul etc.).

She was sanctified to the nth degree because of her role as the Mother of the Word where sanctification is not the "absence of sin" but divinization etc. - you know all this much better than I.

So I don't see a contradiction, only a clarification, in true Orthodox theological perspective, about the significance of her sanctification (like the sanctification of John the Baptist in the womb of his mother)in the Grace which is the Holy Spirit for her role as the Mother of God Incarnate.

Fr. Serge Keleher, a convert himself from Russian Orthodoxy to Eastern CAtholicism, once told me that the Mother of God was conceived in holiness "according to the soul, but not according to the body."

Since our liturgy says that she died, then, in that sense, she inherited what the East understands as Original Sin i.e. death etc.

But her experience of these things was most definitely affected by her sanctification by the Holy Spirit.

Your understanding of why she felt no pain at giving birth to Christ is quite Orthodox .

But then her entire holiness and sanctification was tied in with her role as Mother of God.

To its credit, Holy Orthodoxy praises the Mother of God so frequently in her liturgical tradition only as the instrument which mediated God to us in Christ.

I can't imagine a more holy calling or a holier human being. Can you?

Our liturgical heritage, which we share in common despite the fact that mine commemorates an extra Patriarch , always knows how to use the Rite words in relation to this mystery.

God bless, Servant of Christ, God bless!

Alex

On my reading, the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually denies that guilt is inherited:
"...original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice..." (Catechism no. 405).
My Catholic instructors always taught, for better or worse, that the belief that guilt is inherited is a "Protestant error."

If this is true, the "Immaculate Conception" refers to a sanctifying or divinizing grace the Theotokos was conceived & born with which humans otherwise lack [prior to baptism] since the fall.

IOW, the Catholic stance on Original Sin is that we are born lacking something, namely sanctifying or divinizing grace, which God created humans with and intended us to have.

If I were to create an analogy to describe this, I might say something along these lines:
Imagine a wealthy man who owns a fine pair of dogs that he loves. He lavishes all sorts of gifts and affections on his dogs, so they want for nothing. They have food, health, security, and joyous play and attention, all the things dogs need and enjoy. Yet, for no good reason, the dogs spurn their master and run away to the forest one day. While living in the woods, they have a litter of puppies. Here is the analogy: the "sin" of spurning the master, and the "guilt" for doing so, belong to the parents alone--but the consequences belong to both the parents and the children. Unless the master seeks out the puppies, brings them home, and domesticates them they will grow up as wild, feral dogs with none of the benefits of his household that he meant to be theirs.

I know all analogies are weak, but it's the best I can do. The term "Original Sin" basically has two senses:
(a) the sin committed by our first parents, for which they alone are guilty
(b) the consequences of that sin which all humans suffer until the fulfillment of their redemption & salvation

This doesn't seem too terribly foreign to my reading of Orthodox theology, but I am a mere beginner, and there's probably more to it all.