www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Dormition/Assumption

Dear David,

I'm only arguing against the use in English of the word "sinless" in reference to the Theotokos. I would never debate her All-Holiness ("otherness"/"set asidedness"/"set apartedness") or any of the other myriad of traditionally used titles.

Liturgical texts certainly matter!

As I said in my previous posts, the liturgical texts are poetic verses and as such are not meant to be "lawyered" in this way (as one may with scripture and canon), but certainly can lead one in any number of directions.

So old Epiphanios the heresy hunter was just plain wrong and didn't recognize some of the heresies of his day? The liturgical texts added (later?) in fact corrected his errors? That's OK if you think so. It just proves my point that the fathers are not always right.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Mary IS sinless. The mistake some people make is that they assume when we say that, that we mean she is somehow "equal" to Christ, that we are putting her in His place. We are not.

Mary is sinless by the grace of God. Christ is sinless because He IS God. A very big difference.

Andrew,

if one follows your argument, "Were Mary "anamartitos," she would not have died," are you inferring that Christ did not die, because to him is ascribed "anamartitos"?

Chirst himself was sinless and "truly" died not that he needed to but freely laid down his life for our salvation. Mary was sinless and she probably died too, but not as a necessity of her being in sin.
It is the constant teaching of the Church (even as I have been reading by the early Reformers that is Luther and Calivin,that she was without stain of sin.

Any one who claims she is with sin has put themselves outside of the orthodox catholic and apostolic faith.

Stephanos I

Dear Theist Gal,

As I've said before that's fine if one wants to believe in her "sinlessness," but there is no scriptural, canonical, or liturgical support for it. For this reason, the faithful (in the Orthodox Church, at least) are also free to believe that she was subject to sin.

Many well-respected Eastern teachers specifically have taught against ascribing that word (anamartitos) to anyone but Christ. Sometimes, people think that Eastern texts using the English word "immaculate" are based upon the Greek word "anamartitos." But these translators are basing it on other Greek words that do not cary the same weight as "anamartitos." There are no liturgical, scriptural, or canonical texts that use "anamartitos" in reference to anyone but Christ.

(Certainly, at the other extreme, one would be wrong to use the word "sinner" in reference to the Theotokos since that would imply one who habitually sins, just as a "plumber" is one who fixes sinks regularly, as opposed to, for example, Andrew Rubis who has fixed them just once or twice.)

Again, patristic commentary shows the full variety of beliefs: from those who viewed her as "sinless" to those who said that she had sinned in venial ways [John Chrysostom]. None were condemned for their views either then or now (in the Orthodox Church, at least).

Language and words do have specific meanings. Any attempt to have a comprehensive understanding of theology, ecclesiology, soteriology, or mariology behooves us to be consistent in their usage.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Bisantino,

Your question is my favorite!!!!!

The Blessed Virgin Mary (and every one of us) missed the mark (sinned) by dieing because God has set the mark that we should all live! We inherited mortality from Adam because he (we) was cut off from the Tree of Life because of his disobedience in eating from the Tree of the Knowledge. This is the Eastern concept of original sin (don't take it from me, read it in scripture!).

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ hit the mark when he died because God had set as the mark that he should die. He is the only person sent into the world with the mission that he should die! (The Father did not take the cup away. Or, see the Nativity icon in which the Christ child is wrapped, not in swaddling clothes, but in a death wrapping!).

Radical, huh?

So there's the beautiful, painful answer that should make us thank him each day for his great condescension.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Andrew,

thanks for the clarification, I had thought (incorrectly) that a docetist position might be underlying your post.

(Fr Deacon) John

Very true - if you're not a member of the Catholic Church, you're free to believe whatever you want. Whether it's true or not.

Dear Brother Andrew,

a few replies...

reply: The maxim "the law of prayer is the law of faith," is as true in the East as it is in the West. Our Fathers in the early Church used liturgical texts as a sure norm of faith to formulate our belief in the Holy Trinity. I think it is no big stretch to use this same deposit of faith (i.e. liturgical prayer) to formulate our faith about God's redemptive work in man (as represented in the Holy Godbearer). The Feast of the Dormition and Assumption of St. Mary the Mother of God (as it is called among all Armenian Churches) teaches us that we too shall rise just as she has (as the liturgies of all the ancient Churches clearly attest).

reply: I'm not sure what statements you are referring to. St. Germanos of Constantinople, in reference to the Holy Mother of God had the following to say,

"You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and YOUR VIRGINAL BODY is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth COMPLETELY EXEMPT FROM DISSOLUTION INTO DUST. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptiblity truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life." (On the Dormition of the Holy Godbearer, Sermon 1 -emphasis mine)

Which to me does not sound like he believed that her body "decomposed in the grave." As for Roman Catholic authors denying things, I'm not impressed with this at all (if indeed Fr. Daley did this -which others are denying). Fr. Raymond Brown thought that there was not enough evidence in Scripture to support our Lady's Virgin Birth of Christ and barely enough for our Lord's Bodily Resurection. Lets face it, the modern scholastics (of East and West) have tended to down-play the Traditional faith of both Churches.

reply: Who said "the Fathers were always right"? Individual Fathers all made errors more or less. It is their collective witness (especially when unified) which impacts and reflects Holy Tradition. Couple this with the "law of prayer" and we have a powerful witness and support for the Assumption of the Mother of God.

reply:
First off, Cyril of Jerusalem lived from around AD 315-386. If indeed you are correct that he did not specifically mention her bodily Assumption (which I have yet to see), this does not prove anything. You are making an argument here from "silence" which, to me, is very weak. Perhaps his liturgical texts were just as clear as ours are and he did not need to specifically spell it out in his homily. Perhaps he wanted to focus on another aspect of the feast? The choices are endless. To argue what you are arguing is to say that one could not give a homily on the Resurrection of Christ during Pascha without speaking of Christ's Bodily Resurrection. When, infact, it is very possible to speak on a host of themes relative to the Resurrection without preaching specifically about Christ's own Body rising. And if this did happen, it would not prove the speaker did not believe in it -just that he chose another theme (e.g. our own rising again, etc.).

reply: No, actually he said he didn't know what happened. Unless one believes that St. Epiphanios was omniscient, this shouldn't be shocking. He erred on the Orthodoxy of Icons why not the Orthodoxy of Mary's Assumption. Or perhaps he was just unfamiliar with the origin of the tradition and didn't know which way to judge. So, he left the question open. This doesn't prove anything execpt the fact that HE didn't know.

reply:
The only dissenting voice I have seen that even comes close to casting a doubt about the authenticity of this teaching is St. Epiphanios. And his witness is undecided. You seem to clinging to your interpretation of the words of one Father in deference to the overwhelming witness of many other Fathers and the Church's liturgical Tradition. No Father ever taught that St. Mary's body was still in the grave corrupting. Many Fathers taught the exact opposite. The Church's liturgical texts teach the exact opposite. This, to me, qualifies as universal attestation. In fact, I'd like to know what other Church Father ever understood Epiphanios' words to mean what you are implying -or to present him in the fashion you are presenting him, namely as one who's witness calls into question St. Mary's Bodily Assumption.

Finally, I would say, if your sole criterea of faith is sola scriptura and sola canonum, then I can understand why you would not accept the teaching of the Bodily Assumption of St. Mary the Mother of God. With such a position which directly contradicts "Lex orandi, lex credendi" I don't think there's anything more I can really offer.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

Dear Friends,

Just my two cents' worth here.

The Catholic AND Orthodox Churches have always believed, as the Eastern liturgical tradition underlines, that the Mother of God was "Most Immaculate" and "Ever Immaculate" and had no stain of sin in her.

The same is true for her being taken bodily to Heaven.

Fathers and theologians notwithstanding, as Fr. Thomas Hopko said, Orthodox Christians would be hard-pressed to believe against what the prayer life of their Church holds as the rule of faith.

That is the real question here. What does the rule of prayer of the Orthodox Church teach us about its rule of faith.

I would like to be a stick in the mud here and call on the Moderator to close this thread as I think we're repeating ourselves here.

In addition, with no offense to anyone, I personally find the very thought that the Mother of God could be other than All-Holy and without ANY stain of sin positively upsetting and revolting. The same is true about the issue of her bodily Assumption into Heaven.

If the Orthodox Church actually doesn't hold fast to this Apostolic Faith - and I have yet to see any statement from any Orthodox Church to this effect - then the Orthodox Church is, frankly, not "Apostolic."

Sorry, but as St Augustine said during discussions about Original Sin, "Let us exclude, for the Honour of Our Lord, any mention of His Holy Mother."

Most Holy Mother of God, save us!

Alex

Alex,
Why should the discussion be closed. It is exactly such an attitude as that, that prevents a Theological consensus from developing.
I think we should rather start exploring the text of Luke 1: 28 What does he imply when he uses the term "chaire kecharitomene" or Jerome's "gratia plena"?
Here is the crux of the issue the scripture here explicitly states that the Virgin Mary was sinless.
Mary is our model in that she was the first person the receive Jesus Christ. As Mary bore (Theotokos) Christ in her womb physically, all Christians now have the previlege of bearing God within them spiritually. By God's grace and mercy we are purified and empowered to become like Him.

Stephanos I

It is truly right to bless you, O Theotokos, ever blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without defilement you gave birth to God the Word: True Theotokos. we magnify you.

Dear Stephanos,

"Theological consensus" is not something we need to worry about when it comes to doctrines concerning the Holy Trinity, the Divine Incarnation and the Most Holy Mother of God.

It seems that some here are more "absolutistic" about artificial birth control than about what our rule of prayer/rule of faith affirms about the Theotokos.

Alex

Dear Brethren,

Besides finding that link to Cyril of Jerusalem, I've contributed all that I need to contribute right now.

I've never been rebuked by anyone in authority over me for stating what I have stated here: the teachings are various and not dogmatic regarding the Dormition/Assumption and the non-sinlessness/sinlessness of the Theotokos, at least in the Orthodox Church.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

You've never been rebuked?

Well, there's always a first time . . .

Forgive me a sinner!

Alex

Well, that's the main difference between the Orthodox and the Catholics - we have a "court of last resort" (aka, the Pope) to settle these matters one way or the other.

Last time I checked it had been settled.