www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Saint Mary in the Orthodox Concept

I've been taught that Adam and Eve were placed in a state of communion with God in Eden, and their test (if they had passed it) would have brought them to a greater height of theosis, and confirmed them in God�s love. Lossky in his "Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church" speaks of this, I think. Likewise, with the "fiat" of the Theotokos, she reached a greater height of theosis and was even "confirmed" as it were, in grace and purity. This could lead St. John of Damascus to say that the Annunciation "cleansed" her and gave her power to be the Mother of the Savior. Of course, she wasn't cleansed from actual sins (for the Church in the Matins Stikheron for the Annunciation concludes that she was already a "pure dove" and "full of grace" when St. Gabriel greeted her). The "cleansing" would be the progressive cleansing of her fallen nature (something that couldn't happen if all that had already occurred).

However, she was still human after the Annunciation. She wasn�t "sin-proofed", her grace and purity were confirmed (hypothetically speaking, if the Theotokos would have not given her "fiat" her previous purity wouldn't have counted). But yet she still fought against sin and gave herself ever more (ever more easily due to the amount of grace in her life) to God. This is the real glory of the Theotokos. She was human like us, but she humbly chose God, before, during, and after the Annunciation, and God has exalted her. To say that God would have made her "immaculateness" rest on anything else is to take Mary out of the human race and make her "rejoicing in God my Savior" to be superfluous.

Indeed, if Mary's Immaculateness didn't rest on her journey through life, but on some retroactive application of Christ's merits, then how can she truly rejoice in her Savior? Roman Catholics make St. Luke 1:46 read like Luke 18:11. "Rejoicing in God my Savior" has become "Thank you for not making me like other men" and Orthodox Christians will always condemn such things.

Adam

Fr. Deacon Lance

I can only say I don�t agree. The western view does not merely ascribe an absence of God�s grace, it posits the presence of a stain of Original Sin. To quote New Advent on this topic, since it has been quoted

That�s why it was necessary in the western view to have the Theotokos �cleansed� from this stain. Original sin is not merely a privation, it is a presence, which is why I don�t think you can discount this element of the dogma as you have.

The Theotokos is born in to the world subject to the effects of the Fall, meaning subject to death. I believe in the western view it is accepted that she was completely returned to the state of man before the Fall. Regardless, if the western Immaculate Conception is true, and she was completely cleansed or Original Sin, I don�t know how one could be drawn to any other conclusion than that she never died and was assumed in to heaven before death.

Andrew

Andrew,

I think we must first look to the way the Church currently teaches about Original Sin, so from the CCC:
III. ORIGINAL SIN

Freedom put to the test

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

Man's first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay".284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground",285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain's murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ's atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church's Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man's history:


What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288

The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 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, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

Andrew,

AS you can see the above from the CCC is in essence teaching the same thing as as the East regarding Original Sin, seeing it as a deprivation of holiness and life in the Trinity.

Again if the East and West can agree that from the moment of her conception the Mother of God was filled with the Holy Spirit, as numerous Fathers attest, I don't see the IC as an insurmountable obstacle but a Latin teaching in need of Patrisitic refinement with the help of the East. I believe this is exactly what Pope John Paul II was calling for.

You state:
"Regardless, if the western Immaculate Conception is true, and she was completely cleansed or Original Sin, I don�t know how one could be drawn to any other conclusion than that she never died and was assumed in to heaven before death."

Christ died, should we assume he had taint of sin. Of course not it is absurd. Likewise, The Theotokos, while filled with the All-Holy, Life-Creating Spirit from the moment of her conception, was still subject to the trials and limitations of fallen nature just as Christ was and as the model of the Church, died a natural death but was raised and assumed into Heaven body, soul and spirit as fitting the New Ark of the New Covenant, the New Eve who has given birth to the Resurrection and the Light.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Even the current CCC speaks of man not subject to but implicated in Original Sin. Regardless, at the time the dogma was promulgated the current Catechism didn�t exist, and the wording which New Advent uses quite explicitly was essentially the current teaching. You also cannot disconnect what is printed in the current CCC with the entire corpus of dogmatic pronouncements regarding Original Sin. Even the current CCC refers back to Trent and Orange.

This is all aside from the issue of how the dogma was promulgated, which I would say is equally as objectionable to the East.

The equating of Christ and the Theotokos here is very dangerous ground. There must be fundamental differences to consider between them since Christ had both a human and divine nature. There must surely be something different in how Christ and the Theotokos underwent temptation and desire. They cannot be the same in this regard.

You�re also confronted with the issue of the redemptive work of Christ. How could the Theotokos be free from the consequences of Original Sin at the time of her conception, and before the atoning death of Christ which freed us from the consequences of the Fall? I believe you�re put in the position of positing that somehow the merits of Christ were somehow retroactively applied to the Theotokos in order to explain this.

Andrew

Andrew,

I am just pointing out that Christ who had no sin died, so we should not be disturbed that Mary who had no sin died as well. St. Elias who did have sin lives yet.

Christ saves whom He will how He will. If through a singular act of grace he chooses to redeem she who is to be His mother at the moment of her conception by gracing her with the gift of the Holy Spirit that is enough for me. I don't think it necessary to jump through the medieval hoops of retroactively applying the merits of Christ.

She who was to be the New Ark had to be perfect in order to contain perfection. The IC like the title of Theotokos is really about Christ. If Chrsit was truly God then Mary had to be filled with Holy Spirit from the moment of her conception in order to be a perfect vessel, the New Ark.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I believe you are moving what happened at the Annunciation to the Conception. Also, the treasury of merits is not a medieval accretion; it is a necessary part of the Latin doctrine of the Immaculate Conception if one subscribes to it.

It seems to me you find the western formulation of the Immaculate Conception and the view of Original Sin that goes with it to be correct and appropriate, which his fine. Anyone in communion with Rome is bound by its dogma. The content and method of framing this dogma however is not acceptable to the East. That is what all of this boils down to.

Andrew

From the Catholic Almanac.

"Original Sin : The sin of Adam,(Gn. 2:8-3:24),personal to him and passed on to all persons as a state of privation of grace. Despite this privation and the related wounding of human nature and weakening of natural powers, original sin leaves unchanged all that man is by nature. The scriptural basis of the doctrine was stated especially by St.Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:21ff.,and Romans 5:12-21. Original sin is remitted by baptism and incorporation in Christ, through whom grace is given to persons. Pope John Paul, while describing original sin during a general audience Oct. 1, 1986, called it "the abscence of sanctifying grace in nature which has been diverted from its supernatural end."

Forgive me if this definition is redundant in light of what Deacon Lance quoted from the CCC, my head is spinning a little after reading all of this thread.

I don't think the CCC and the above definition redefine the Catholic Church's teaching on original sin as it was when the dogma was promulgated but clarify it.

Now, I'm going back to reread this thread and leave posting to more brilliant minds.

Bill

Dear Bill,


Hi. Regarding your great comment:

I guess your point is that to be born free of the stain of sin does not necessarily mean you are free of death? Could you please clarify on this? I would appreciate it.

Regarding these fine posts, I would like to bring some comments from some Patristic writings, where there is mentioned the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary, as well as Her cleansing by the Holy Spirit at Her conception of Christ, but not at Her own conception by St. Anna and St. Joachim:

(St. Basil the Great, Third Prayer of Vespers of Pentecost)

(St. Gregory the Theologian, "In Praise of Virginity").

Additionally, as per +St. John Maximovitch:

Finally, and this is my personal favorite from +St. John (once again, italics are from +St. John):

I believe it is important to remember that Our Theotokos was conceived as a human, of human parents, and was subject to sin, the same as all of us, but by her virtues, remained pure and chaste. It is through this, I believe, that She was chosen to be the Theotokos, Mother of God, and Ever Virgin Mary.

I cannot believe that the devil did not do everything in his power to try to defile Her and trip her up. And yet, Mary stood firm in Her love of God, and all the goodness in mankind.

That is why She will always be the Queen of Heaven to me, forever and ever, ages unto ages!

In Christ,

Michael

Hmmm. I see that you are a Byzantine Catholic, Michael. How then can you maintain the above statement and believe the Immaculate Conception dogma as true? I've always heard the IC dogma interpreted in the sense that the Most Holy Theotokos was preserved from imperfect emotions, passions, etc. In short, according to the IC dogma, as interpreted according to the Latins, Mary was not subject to the spiritual effects of mortality (although they do believe she was subject to the temporal effects . . . how such can be split I don't know). Is this interpretation incorrect or do you deny the IC?

Adam

Dear Michael,

To clarify, I was not being the least bit sarcastic when I wrote the above.

You've asked for a clarification of my comments though, so here goes. Remember these are my thoughts only and may not hold any water with the church.

The Theotokos, being the new Eve, was somehow set apart from before her conception. The church does speak of a "preservative redemption". We speak of Mary as being the "New Eve". Being mortal but also being the new Eve, could she not have shared in the same attributes given to Adam and Eve at the creation, seeing she was to become the Birthgiver of God? (That IS a question more than a statement.) Unlike Eve, through her free will, the Theotokos chose not to sin.

I hope that clears what I wrote up for you, and remember these are my thoughts alone on this. I'm learning here, too!

Bill

Dear Adam,

Yes, I am a Byzantine Catholic in heart. I acknowledge the creation of the IC dogma, but do not find it to mesh with Eastern Theology, starting with the viewpoints of original sin.

Consequently, I do not believe a further refinement of dogma was necessary for proper veneration of Our Theotokos. Therefore, I guess, if pushed for an answer, then I will say that the IC dogma makes no sense to me, and I agree with +St. John Maximovitch that this was an attempt to honor and glorify Our Lady, but instead caused the opposite effect of taking away a lot of Her victories.


Dear Bill,

Thank you for clarifying. I know you are not being sarcastic. I believe you and I are actually on the same page in this regard.

Peace to all.

Michael

I find the idea that the Theotokos by virtue of her immaculate conception did not suffer "an adversary" to be strange indeed. If Jesus Christ Himself suffered temptation (from outside) why could not the same be said for the Blessed Virgin? In fact, if anything can be learned from the Scriptures and spiritual writers of the Orthodox Catholic tradition, heightened virtue actually invites attack from the evil one. Adam and Eve in their "immaculate state" illustrate this point precisely!

Certainly the events revealed in the Gospels of Jesus's suffering and death accompanied by His holy Mother must have been a time of great testing for Mary, who no doubt loved her Son more perfectly and intimately than any mother ever had or has since. Would not anyone be tempted to hate and lash out against those who brutually murder your child...especially on false pretenses?

The saints during their earthly lives must constantly guard against temptation through vigilance and asceticism. Mary as the first and perfect disciple of Jesus lived a life of perfect asceticism patterened after her Son (even possibly teaching Him in youth how to be an ascetic). Even if she was preserved from the ancestral sin or "fallen state" of her ancestors, the whole cosmos in which she lived and all of humanity were not preserved. The world of Mary and Jesus, which they were seeking to renew through His salvific mission, was fundamentally different from the Paradise of Adam and Eve. Therefore a greater degree of asceticism was required than that of our original parents who needed only to reject the single temptation of the serpent.

St. John Maximovitch was quoted by Michael as saying:

With all due respect to this holy man of God, his understanding of the Catholic teaching of the effects of the immaculate conception of Mary is inaccurate. The Theotokos was not "placed in the state of being unable to sin". Granted, God's great gift to Mary more than likely had an accompanying "preservative grace," since as the ark of the new covenant she would be subject to even greater attacks by the evil one. But I have never seen anything in the dogma that indicates she was "unable to sin".

As to the rationale for her being glorified more than others despite her not suffering with the "impulse to sin," this should not in any way diminsh her glory in the Church. To say this risks diminshing as well the glory of Our Lord's struggle with temptation in the wilderness with Satan. Did not His human will "learn obedience" through the "suffering"? Could not Mary's will do the same despite her being preserved (as was her Son) from the ancestral sin?

Also, despite her being "full of grace", she still needed to grow in the wisdom and knowledge of God, which is a natural state for all creatures since God is infinite. This growth would not have ocurred in the state of paradise, but rather in the midst of a fallen world. She thus shared in the common struggle of all of humanity.

Finally, Mary's victory over our adversary was greater than our own since as one who was without sin (participating intimately in the purity of her Son, the "only sinless One") she struggled as a pure pilgrim in a sinful world - a world that has rejected God - and participated intimately in the mission of her Son to redeem it. She also continued to struggle as the Mother of the Church - her Son's "Body" and the "new creation", many years after Jesus ascended to His Father in heaven. Hence her glory is greater than our own.

Gordo

After doing a little research, it seems my ideas are a bit flawed.

www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm22.htm [ewtn.com]

www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm24.htm [ewtn.com]

You learn something new every day.

Dear Gordo,

As per EWTN [ewtn.com] as refered by Bill (thank you Bill, interesting stuff here), L'Osservatore Romano states, based upon Duns Scotus:

(bold is my own).

This affirms to me that +St. John Maximovitch did indeed understand the concept for the Dogma of The Immaculate Conception as pronounced by the Roman Catholic Church, and finds, as explained above, that it does not truly mesh with the Orthodox understanding of original sin. If the concept of the IC is theologically correct, then +St. John's quote of
is possibly valid. I cannot believe Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and Our God and Father, are not like that, but instead are just and loving.

Our Church is a Church of faith, love, and the fear of God. I acknowledge those and respect those who promote and accept fully the Dogma of Immaculate Conception. However, for me personally, as an Orthodox believer, in communion with the See of Peter, this proclamation does not logically flow with the concept of what I have learned and been taught in the Eastern Church.

So, as a wise person, whom I worked with closely and respected highly, once said, "Let's agree to disagree on this point."

Gordo, one last thing, you bring out absolutely legitimate points, which all appear to not coincide with the links that Bill provided. It seems that many of us have a hybird interpretation of the Dogma of Immaculate Conception. How does this alter your view and opinion looking at Bill's links?

Peace, and in Christ,

Michael