Orthodox Belief

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b]RezaLemmyng (Thursday, March 15, 2007 at 02:43 PM) Post #24[/b]
[b][u][color="#FF0000"]Orthodox Christians do believe that Mary was without sin for her entire life[/color][/u][/b], [u]but they do not share the Catholic Church's views on original sin[/u]. They note that St. Augustine (d. 430), whose works were not well known in Eastern Christianity until after the 17th century, has exerted considerable influence over the theology of sin that has generally taken root through the Holy See, and since Eastern Orthodoxy does not share Rome's (or most Protestants') view of original sin, [u]it considers unnecessary the doctrine that Mary would require purification prior to the Incarnation[/u]. [b][color="#FF8C00"]Instead, Eastern Orthodox theologians suggest that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state, but to her conduct after birth[/color][/b]. [b]Although this is not a dogma in the Orthodox Church, [u]there [color="#0000FF"]is the universal belief that there was a pre-sanctification of Mary at the time of her conception[/color][/u][/b], similar to the conception of Saint John the Baptist. However, there was no cleansing of original sin, [u]since Orthodox Christians believe that one cannot inherit original sin[/u], or any sin for that matter; instead, 'original sin' in Orthodoxy refers to the general tendency towards sin and pain in the world, caused by the fall of Adam.
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65507&view=findpost&p=1214168"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1214168[/url][/quote]I do not understand how this supports this user's case... This is much like the quotes I proposed and asked about when I started this topic...[quote][b]Galatians 2:11-14[/b]
"But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/55002.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/55002.htm[/url][/quote]Non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to diminish Peter's evident authority over the Church. This is misguided. In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter's teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile's salvation in [b]Acts 10 & 11[/b]. With this rebuke, Paul is really saying "Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!" The verse really underscores, and not diminishes, the importance of Peter's leadership in the Church. For why would Saint Paul be considered about the personal conduct of Saint Peter unless he was the leader of the Church?

Edited March 15, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]Orthodox Christians do believe that Mary was without sin for her entire life, but they do not share the Catholic Church's views on original sin. They note that St. Augustine (d. 430), whose works were not well known in Eastern Christianity until after the 17th century, has exerted considerable influence over the theology of sin that has generally taken root through the Holy See, and since Eastern Orthodoxy does not share Rome's (or most Protestants') view of original sin, it considers unnecessary the doctrine that Mary would require purification prior to the Incarnation. Instead, Eastern Orthodox theologians suggest that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state, but to her conduct after birth. Although this is not a dogma in the Orthodox Church, there is the universal belief that there was a pre-sanctification of Mary at the time of her conception, similar to the conception of Saint John the Baptist. However, there was no cleansing of original sin, since Orthodox Christians believe that one cannot inherit original sin, or any sin for that matter; instead, 'original sin' in Orthodoxy refers to the general tendency towards sin and pain in the world, caused by the fall of Adam.[/quote]I think that this opens up the explaination conciderably but you have to look within the context. As this mentions, there's a clear distinction between the Roman View and the Orthodox view. "Sinless" between the two churches is defined completely differently.

Thank you knightofChrist for giving me the link, now let me quote the whole thing:

[quote]All Orthodox are agreed that Mary was born with the same fallen human nature that we all share in Adam's fallen condition. By this confession we Orthodox Christians reject the Roman dogma of the "Immaculate Conception." This Roman teaching, dogmatized at the First Vatican Council (presided over by Pope Pius IX, in 1854), holds that Mary was conceived in the womb of her parents, Joachim & Anna, in a miraculous way such that she was kept from the stain of "original sin and guilt." The Roman Church (and all the Protestant churches that sprang from her in the sixteenth and following centuries) all hold that all human beings are born with the stain of Adam's guilt. We are born personally guilty for Adam's original transgression. This was the teaching of Augustine of Hippo (died AD 430) who would prove to be enormously influential in all of Western Christendom, whether Roman or Reformed. This teaching about "original sin/guilt" posed a problem for Roman theology in that it was Mary who gave humanity to our Lord Jesus Christ, thus our Lord would have been born with this "original sin/guilt." If this were the case He could not be the sinless lamb of God who could offer Himself up on our behalf. Thus the Roman Church escaped this dilemma by teaching that Mary was not born with the same fallen and guilty humanity with which we are born. She was proleptically kept from the stain of "original sin/guilt" by the grace of her Son. The Orthodox Fathers and the Orthodox Church as a whole have always taught that we are all born with a fallen, weakened, "death-bound" mortal nature inherited from Adam but that we are not born with Adam's personal guilt. Thus Mary was born with the same fallen, mortal nature that we all share and it was precisely this fallen humanity that she gave to God the Son! If this were not so He could not have healed our fallen condition. As the Holy Fathers repeatedly stated, "That which God the Son did not assume in His Incarnation is not healed." By assuming our fallen nature and uniting it to His divine nature God has healed our fallen condition and set us free from sin and death! Thus the Orthodox Church has rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception since it is not the consensus of the Tradition and since it is not logically necessary. None of us are born with Adam's personal guilt, including Mary. Therefore there is simply no need for an immaculate conception of the Theotokos. If this is what one means when asking whether Orthodox Christians believe in the sinlessness of Mary then we must answer, "no."

But that is not the end of the story! On the point of the purity of the Theotokos in the sense of her sinlessness all Orthodox are agreed that she is consecrated and holy in that God Himself has dwelt in her womb. She is called the Theotokos (bearer or birth-giver of God) and therefore the Panagia ("all-holy one" This follows from the biblical principle that wherever God dwells is holy. The Tabernacle and the later Temple, as well as the Ark of the Covenant, are all examples of this principle. These are all "set apart" from common use in the biblical Tradition by the fact that God graciously dwelt in them. In Scriptural logic whatever God touches or indwells is "set apart" from common use, which is the meaning of the word "holy." To be holy is to be set apart from common use for the indwelling of God Himself. In this sense the Virgin Mary was set apart, "holy," because God Himself dwelt within her womb. This is precisely why the Holy Church insisted on the title of "Theotokos," or "the one who bore God Himself in her womb" against the heretical denial of this title to Mary on the part of the Patriarch Nestorius. Nestorius taught that the person in Mary's womb was not God Himself but rather simply a being who was somehow united to God. Thus for the Nestorians Mary could be called "anthropotokos," or "bearer of a man," or even "christotokos," the "bearer of the Messiah," but not "Theotokos," the "bearer of God." Against Nestorius the Holy Church at the Third Ecumenical Council (AD 431) responded that if God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, did not take our flesh in the womb of the Theotokos then we are still in our sins and cannot be brought into saving union with God through her Son. It follows naturally by biblical logic that the one in whom God Himself dwelt is "holy." If this is what one means by asking whether Orthodox Christians believe in the sinlessness of Mary then we would answer, "Yes!"[/quote]

Notice the distinction.

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

[quote]All Orthodox are agreed that Mary was born with the same fallen human nature that we all share in Adam's fallen condition.[/quote][quote]By the grace of God, Mary was sinless from the moment of her conception, and remained so her whole life.[/quote]

It would seem not all orthodox are agreed. If one Orthodox Church believes Mary was sinless from "the moment of her conception", and another Orthodox Church believes "she was born with the same fallen nature" of Adam, that would seem to be a conflict.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1214265' date='Mar 15 2007, 04:47 PM']It would seem not all orthodox are agreed. If one Orthodox Church believes Mary was sinless from "the moment of her conception", and another Orthodox Church believes "she was born with the same fallen nature" of Adam, that would seem to be a conflict.[/quote]

Read it inside of the right context, all orthodox agree. You can't just quote selective sentences [as you did with the article below when you just quoted the second paragraph but not the first], you have to put it inside of the right context.

[quote]All Orthodox are agreed that Mary was born with the same fallen human nature that we all share in Adam's fallen condition. By this confession we Orthodox Christians reject the Roman dogma of the "Immaculate Conception." This Roman teaching, dogmatized at the First Vatican Council (presided over by Pope Pius IX, in 1854), holds that Mary was conceived in the womb of her parents, Joachim & Anna, in a miraculous way such that she was kept from the stain of "original sin and guilt." The Roman Church (and all the Protestant churches that sprang from her in the sixteenth and following centuries) all hold that all human beings are born with the stain of Adam's guilt. We are born personally guilty for Adam's original transgression. This was the teaching of Augustine of Hippo (died AD 430) who would prove to be enormously influential in all of Western Christendom, whether Roman or Reformed. This teaching about "original sin/guilt" posed a problem for Roman theology in that it was Mary who gave humanity to our Lord Jesus Christ, thus our Lord would have been born with this "original sin/guilt." If this were the case He could not be the sinless lamb of God who could offer Himself up on our behalf. Thus the Roman Church escaped this dilemma by teaching that Mary was not born with the same fallen and guilty humanity with which we are born. She was proleptically kept from the stain of "original sin/guilt" by the grace of her Son. The Orthodox Fathers and the Orthodox Church as a whole have always taught that we are all born with a fallen, weakened, "death-bound" mortal nature inherited from Adam but that we are not born with Adam's personal guilt. Thus Mary was born with the same fallen, mortal nature that we all share and it was precisely this fallen humanity that she gave to God the Son! If this were not so He could not have healed our fallen condition. As the Holy Fathers repeatedly stated, "That which God the Son did not assume in His Incarnation is not healed." By assuming our fallen nature and uniting it to His divine nature God has healed our fallen condition and set us free from sin and death! Thus the Orthodox Church has rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception since it is not the consensus of the Tradition and since it is not logically necessary. None of us are born with Adam's personal guilt, including Mary. Therefore there is simply no need for an immaculate conception of the Theotokos. If this is what one means when asking whether Orthodox Christians believe in the sinlessness of Mary then we must answer, "no."

But that is not the end of the story! On the point of the purity of the Theotokos in the sense of her sinlessness all Orthodox are agreed that she is consecrated and holy in that God Himself has dwelt in her womb. She is called the Theotokos (bearer or birth-giver of God) and therefore the Panagia ("all-holy one" This follows from the biblical principle that wherever God dwells is holy. The Tabernacle and the later Temple, as well as the Ark of the Covenant, are all examples of this principle. These are all "set apart" from common use in the biblical Tradition by the fact that God graciously dwelt in them. In Scriptural logic whatever God touches or indwells is "set apart" from common use, which is the meaning of the word "holy." To be holy is to be set apart from common use for the indwelling of God Himself. In this sense the Virgin Mary was set apart, "holy," because God Himself dwelt within her womb. This is precisely why the Holy Church insisted on the title of "Theotokos," or "the one who bore God Himself in her womb" against the heretical denial of this title to Mary on the part of the Patriarch Nestorius. Nestorius taught that the person in Mary's womb was not God Himself but rather simply a being who was somehow united to God. Thus for the Nestorians Mary could be called "anthropotokos," or "bearer of a man," or even "christotokos," the "bearer of the Messiah," but not "Theotokos," the "bearer of God." Against Nestorius the Holy Church at the Third Ecumenical Council (AD 431) responded that if God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, did not take our flesh in the womb of the Theotokos then we are still in our sins and cannot be brought into saving union with God through her Son. It follows naturally by biblical logic that the one in whom God Himself dwelt is "holy." If this is what one means by asking whether Orthodox Christians believe in the sinlessness of Mary then we would answer, "Yes!"[/quote]

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1214223' date='Mar 15 2007, 03:58 PM']I think that this opens up the explaination conciderably but you have to look within the context. As this mentions, there's a clear distinction between the Roman View and the Orthodox view. "Sinless" between the two churches is defined completely differently.

Thank you knightofChrist for giving me the link, now let me quote the whole thing:
Notice the distinction.

Reza[/quote]


Forgot this last part...


[quote]Going further, it is the belief among Orthodox Christians (reflected in the liturgical texts of the Church) that the [b]Theotokos lived without willful sin[/b], at least after the point of the Incarnation of God the Son in her womb. This is an important emphasis since it underlines the fact that fallen humans like Mary and every last one of us can indeed live without sin if we will but receive and cooperate with God's amazing grace! But this teaching has never been considered a point of "dogma," necessary for membership in the Holy Church. [color="#800080"]Indeed, St. John Chrysostom, a very prominent Father and Teacher of the Orthodox Church, believed that the Theotokos sinned in a minor way when she apparently "pushed" our Lord into His first miracle at Cana.[/color] So if an Orthodox believer has trouble accepting the teaching of the complete absence of willful sin on the part of the Theotokos he will find himself in good company! But that she lives an exceptionally holy life is beyond any question.

I believe that the reason many have trouble with the idea of the [b]lack of willful sin[/b] on the part of the Theotokos is the Western Christian assumption of the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin (referred to above) [b]which wrongly asserts that all humans are born not only with Adam's fallen[/b], mortal, weakened nature but that they are also born guilty of Adam's personal guilt. Once again, the belief in [b]the lack of willful sin on the part of the Theotokos[/b] is important precisely because it emphasizes the reality that we fallen humans can live without willful sin by God's grace if we will allow God to so mold us through His grace received through the mysteries of the Body of Christ, the Church and by a life of ascetic effort -- a very difficult task, but not impossible. Many Protestants reject this possibility because of the idea of the Total Depravity of fallen human nature that is rooted in the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin/Guilt.

As we Orthodox Christians pray repeatedly, "Let us commend ourselves, each other, and all our life to Christ our God," and in so doing let us follow in the footsteps of the Holy Theotokos as we walk with her in the amazing grace of her Son!

Fr. Bill Caldaroni, Pastor, Holy Transfiguration Orthodox Church[/quote]

Forgive me, but I see somewhat of a conficlt within the Orthodox Churches, she was sinless, but she was not sinless. Even Fr. Caldaroni seems to address this somewhat... Could there just be a hesitation to agree with the Catholic Church on the matter of the sinlessness of the Theotokos?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1214270' date='Mar 15 2007, 04:54 PM']Forgot this last part...


Forgive me, but I see somewhat of a conficlt within the Orthodox Churches, she was sinless, but she was not sinless. Even Fr. Caldaroni seems to address this somewhat... Could there just be a hesitation to agree with the Catholic Church on the matter of the sinlessness of the Theotokos?[/quote]

No what Fr. Caldaroni addresses is that some Early Church Fathers disagreed with the church's mainstream position, which isn't uncommon, alot of Early Church Fathers said things that the church as a whole might not have agreed with, even Roman Saints.

[quote]Since the Middle Ages, Catholic theologians had argued the question of whether or not Mary had been subject to original sin. In general, the Franciscans argued in favor of her "immaculate conception", the doctrine that she, from the moment of her conception, had been preserved by God from all sin and all tendency to sin; the Dominicans, on the other hand, including most notably Thomas Aquinas, argued that Mary's sinlessness is a grace granted to her at some time after her conception. In 1854, Pope Pius IX effectively ended the debate for Catholics by proclaiming the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception", stating that "the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of her conception was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race." ("Ineffabilis Deus", issued on 8 December 1854).[/quote]Eastern Catholics even take a different position on this issue then the western Romans.

[quote]Amongst Eastern Catholics, the Orthodox belief is also held (technically in violation of its requirement as a dogmatic article of faith and not merely a theological opinion).[/quote]

Note: I didn't forget about that last part, rather everyone else had the link but the point was that if you select individual sentences, it's very easy to interpret orthodoxy as you'd like, rather then what is... and what is is that it's universal in Orthodoxy, that the Roman Position isn't taken.

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

And it would also seem that Orthodox Churches are not agreed that the Theotokos did not sin. Some say she never willfully sinned others say she did. Some are at least close to the Catholic understanding of the sinlessness of the Theotokos, while others are far from that understanding.

[Mr.Cat]

The problem with the Orthodox believers is that there is no central leadership like the Catholic Church has with the Pope and the Holy See. Moreover, many doctrines are not “dogmatic” in their belief and not very clearly defined, leading to doctrinal dissent and disagreement. But the Orthodox does have a strong commonality of belief which for most cases is sufficient but there is much disagreement on many theological issues.

Because of this one Orthodox can reject that the Blessed Virgin is sinless, another can claim this happened at the coming of the Angel, another can claim it happened at the conception of our Blessed Lord, and still another can claim she was always sinless. But a fundamental problem exists in the Orthodox acceptance of the “Immaculate Conception” is that they believe that one is not born with any sin, so in their view everyone is immaculate after being conceived it is simply they suffer from original sin. This is not Catholic belief concerning Original Sin so the definition makes sense to us for we do profess, as the Holy Council of Trent defined, that original sin is more than just a suffering under and that it is transmitted like a sin.

So Orthodox objection is moreover around the declaring it a dogma (they fell it is unnecessary) and further to use the phrase “immaculate conception” is redundant. But generally speaking the theologies both propose she was without sin.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1214274' date='Mar 15 2007, 05:03 PM']And it would also seem that Orthodox Churches are not agreed that the Theotokos did not sin. Some say she never willfully sinned others say she did. Some are at least close to the Catholic understanding of the sinlessness of the Theotokos, while others are far from that understanding.[/quote]

Well the church as a whole does take a position, and you should research that, as I posted above... Roman Theologians also have taken different positions but that doesn't mean that the church never took a position, just that some Saints have a different opinion or perspective.

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

Let me understand your stand. Did the Theotokos ever willfully sin or not? "Original Sin" aside.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote]QUOTE(KnightofChrist @ Mar 15 2007, 04:47 PM) *
It would seem not all orthodox are agreed. If one Orthodox Church believes Mary was sinless from "the moment of her conception", and another Orthodox Church believes "she was born with the same fallen nature" of Adam, that would seem to be a conflict.[/quote][quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1214267' date='Mar 15 2007, 05:51 PM']
Read it inside of the right context, all orthodox agree. You can't just quote selective sentences [as you did with the article below when you just quoted the second paragraph but not the first], you have to put it inside of the right context.
Reza[/quote]

Forgive me but please explain to me how one Orthodox says Mary was born with the sinful nature of Adam, and another says she was sinless from the moment of conception. How is this not a conflict? How could the Theotokos be both sinless from conception, and yet still be born with the sinful nature of Adam?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1214275' date='Mar 15 2007, 05:04 PM']The problem with the Orthodox believers is that there is no central leadership like the Catholic Church has with the Pope and the Holy See.[/quote] Actually this is false, just as the Roman's have a Pope or Patriarch, so does the Orthodox Churches.

His Holiness Pope Shenounda III - Coptic Orthodox Patriarch
His Holiness Moran Mor Ignatios Zakka I - Syriac Orthodox Patriarch

The problem is that you're over simplifying and just don't understand the history of the church. Back before the Great Schism, there were 4 Holy Sees [Rites], North [Eastern Orthodox], East [Syriac], West [Roman], South [Coptic]. These were 4 different jurisdictions, the Roman is just but a single one of them.

[quote]Moreover, many doctrines are not “dogmatic” in their belief and not very clearly defined, leading to doctrinal dissent and disagreement.[/quote]This is wrong, as a matter of fact, at the time that the church was united [prior to the Great Schism] the other churches used to look to the Copts to calculate Easter and the Calender, the most advanced theological school was located in Egypt and was Coptic, the Father of Monisticism was Coptic Orthodox, and the church always has had an official position on doctrine. As a matter of fact, we're very "dogmatic" with our beliefs, just that you don't know much about our doctrines to comment on them, nor our history.

[quote]But the Orthodox does have a strong commonality of belief which for most cases is sufficient but there is much disagreement on many theological issues.[/quote] As there has been in the roman world.

[quote]Because of this one Orthodox can reject that the Blessed Virgin is sinless, another can claim this happened at the coming of the Angel, another can claim it happened at the conception of our Blessed Lord, and still another can claim she was always sinless. [/quote]The problem is that you don't understand [and havn't taken the time to understand] the Orthodox official position, which always has been but have gone on your own tangent about this issue. The truth is that you won't find a single orthodox agree with the Roman position on St. Mary's immaculate conception [as the Romans affirm].

Wikipedia and every other source that actually understands Orthodoxy [and has done the research] affirm that Orthodox don't subscribe to the Roman position, if you can't acept this, then that's your choice.

[quote]All Orthodox are agreed that Mary was born with the same fallen human nature that we all share in Adam's fallen condition. By this confession we Orthodox Christians reject the Roman dogma of the "Immaculate Conception." This Roman teaching, dogmatized at the First Vatican Council (presided over by Pope Pius IX, in 1854), holds that Mary was conceived in the womb of her parents, Joachim & Anna, in a miraculous way such that she was kept from the stain of "original sin and guilt." The Roman Church (and all the Protestant churches that sprang from her in the sixteenth and following centuries) all hold that all human beings are born with the stain of Adam's guilt. We are born personally guilty for Adam's original transgression. This was the teaching of Augustine of Hippo (died AD 430) who would prove to be enormously influential in all of Western Christendom, whether Roman or Reformed. This teaching about "original sin/guilt" posed a problem for Roman theology in that it was Mary who gave humanity to our Lord Jesus Christ, thus our Lord would have been born with this "original sin/guilt." If this were the case He could not be the sinless lamb of God who could offer Himself up on our behalf. Thus the Roman Church escaped this dilemma by teaching that Mary was not born with the same fallen and guilty humanity with which we are born. She was proleptically kept from the stain of "original sin/guilt" by the grace of her Son. The Orthodox Fathers and the Orthodox Church as a whole have always taught that we are all born with a fallen, weakened, "death-bound" mortal nature inherited from Adam but that we are not born with Adam's personal guilt. Thus Mary was born with the same fallen, mortal nature that we all share and it was precisely this fallen humanity that she gave to God the Son! If this were not so He could not have healed our fallen condition. As the Holy Fathers repeatedly stated, "That which God the Son did not assume in His Incarnation is not healed." By assuming our fallen nature and uniting it to His divine nature God has healed our fallen condition and set us free from sin and death! Thus the Orthodox Church has rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception since it is not the consensus of the Tradition and since it is not logically necessary. None of us are born with Adam's personal guilt, including Mary. Therefore there is simply no need for an immaculate conception of the Theotokos. If this is what one means when asking whether Orthodox Christians believe in the sinlessness of Mary then we must answer, "no."

But that is not the end of the story! On the point of the purity of the Theotokos in the sense of her sinlessness all Orthodox are agreed that she is consecrated and holy in that God Himself has dwelt in her womb. She is called the Theotokos (bearer or birth-giver of God) and therefore the Panagia ("all-holy one" This follows from the biblical principle that wherever God dwells is holy. The Tabernacle and the later Temple, as well as the Ark of the Covenant, are all examples of this principle. These are all "set apart" from common use in the biblical Tradition by the fact that God graciously dwelt in them. In Scriptural logic whatever God touches or indwells is "set apart" from common use, which is the meaning of the word "holy." To be holy is to be set apart from common use for the indwelling of God Himself. In this sense the Virgin Mary was set apart, "holy," because God Himself dwelt within her womb. This is precisely why the Holy Church insisted on the title of "Theotokos," or "the one who bore God Himself in her womb" against the heretical denial of this title to Mary on the part of the Patriarch Nestorius. Nestorius taught that the person in Mary's womb was not God Himself but rather simply a being who was somehow united to God. Thus for the Nestorians Mary could be called "anthropotokos," or "bearer of a man," or even "christotokos," the "bearer of the Messiah," but not "Theotokos," the "bearer of God." Against Nestorius the Holy Church at the Third Ecumenical Council (AD 431) responded that if God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, did not take our flesh in the womb of the Theotokos then we are still in our sins and cannot be brought into saving union with God through her Son. It follows naturally by biblical logic that the one in whom God Himself dwelt is "holy." If this is what one means by asking whether Orthodox Christians believe in the sinlessness of Mary then we would answer, "Yes!"[/quote]

Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1214282' date='Mar 15 2007, 05:11 PM']Forgive me but please explain to me how one Orthodox says Mary was born with the sinful nature of Adam, and another says she was sinless from the moment of conception. How is this not a conflict? How could the Theotokos be both sinless from conception, and yet still be born with the sinful nature of Adam?[/quote]

It has to do with putting it in the right context. First you've got to define the different kinds of sin. There's the sinful nature of Adam but then there is sins that we make choices to commit. St. Mary didn't sin in regards to sins that were deliberately made, but she was subject to the sinful nature of Adam inherently [as the article says more elaborately].

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

I found this to be very informative... [url="http://www.ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/articles/catholic/holymother.htm"]SOURCE[/url]

[quote][b]The Immaculate Conception: The Holiness of the Mother of God in East and West[/b]

Dr. Alexander Roman alex.roman@unicorne.org

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, proclaimed by Rome as an article of the Catholic faith in the 19th century, has long been an additional point of disagreement between East and West on the subject of Mariology or the theological study of the role of Mary. In what way is this so and what are the possibilities for overcoming the difficulties here?

The Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception itself affirms that the Mother of God, from the moment of her Conception in the womb of St Anne, was preserved free of the “stain of Original Sin.” In other words, she who was called to assume the great role in salvation history as the Mother of the Divine Word Incarnate and the Ark of the New Covenant was prevented from contracting the sin of Adam.

The foundation of this definition is and always has been the resolution of the issue of: a) the fact that all have fallen in Adam and: b) how can the Mother of Christ, from whose very flesh the Son of God fashioned a Body for Himself by which we are saved and sanctified, ever be said to have been a subject of sin?

St Augustine of Hippo himself, when commenting on Original Sin, affirmed that the Mother of God must always be excluded from any such consideration to begin with. But it was only later with the Blessed John Duns Scotus, the Franciscan theologian, that the theological reasoning behind this view was worked out: The Virgin Mary was preserved free from Original Sin because the FUTURE merits of Christ’s passion and death were applied to her at her conception.

By the seventh century, the Byzantine East was celebrating the feast of the Conception of Saint Anne. This festival was first adopted in the West by the English Church from whence it soon spread elsewhere. It is still to be found in the calendar of the Anglican Church.

The West, however, was divided on whether the Mother of God could be said to have been conceived without Original Sin. St Thomas Aquinas and others, in fact, replied to this question in the negative and one could be a Latin Catholic in good standing while denying the Immaculate Conception.

However, even before this theological position was proclaimed as a binding dogma on all Catholics by Rome, there was strong, local devotion to it throughout the Catholic world centuries before.

Religious associations organized to honour the Immaculate Conception abounded in the Middle Ages and later. They wore a medal similar to the Miraculous Medal of more recent times, invoked the Virgin as the “Immaculate Mother” and even took the “bloody vow” or a vow to defend to the death her Immaculate Conception.

Even some Catholic empires proclaimed the Immaculate Conception as a dogma to be held by all their faithful subjects.

We know that the Spanish Empire did so and anyone who was a subject of the Spanish king was obliged to accept the Immaculate Conception. The Church, built by the Spaniards, in New Orleans, Louisiana is a mute testimony to the local proclamation of this dogma by the Spanish Church.

The Immaculate Conception also came to be reverenced in Orthodox countries, especially during the height of the Baroque period in the Kyivan Church and also by Greeks, as Father John Meyendorff has shown.

The Ukrainian Saint Demetrius of Rostov, for example, belonged to an Orthodox Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception (for which he was called before an Orthodox Synod to give account).

St Demetrius and others of his day prayed the rosary, recited the Hail Mary at the turn of each hour, the Little Office of the Virgin Mary and even the Psalter of the Mother of God composed by St Bonaventure. His “Easternized” prayer in honour of the Sorrows of the Mother of God survives in many Orthodox prayerbooks today as the “Tale of the Five Prayers!”

(The rosary known as the “rule of prayer of the Mother of God” was likewise prayed throughout by Orthodox Christians, especially by St Seraphim of Sarov whose main icon of the Mother of God was actually a Western picture of Our Lady of the Annunciation, known today as “Our Lady, Joy of all Joys” and is among the most popular icons of the Theotokos in Russia.)

The Kyivan Orthodox Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception likewise took the bloody vow and produced Western-style depictions of Our Lady of Grace and their invocation was, “Most Immaculate Theotokos, save us!” This was a play on the “Panaghia” or “All-Holy” invocation to the Virgin Mary that is a refrain in so many liturgical services (“All Holy Theotokos, save us!”)

Some of the icons themselves came to be venerated as Orthodox miraculous icons as Professor Poselianin shows in his magnum opus, “Bogomater” (“The Immaculate Mother” as one example, although a copy of this icon is not included).

The website of the Orthodox Church in America likewise affirms that the icon for the feast of the Conception of St Anne in Orthodoxy depicts the Mother of God very much as the Western picture of Our Lady of Grace, with hands stretched downwards and standing on a globe etc.

Despite the acceptance of this doctrine in certain Orthodox circles, the fact remains that the doctrine itself was not acceptable to the Eastern Churches. Very often, Roman Catholic commentators have attacked Orthodoxy for refusing to accept this doctrine for, otherwise, this must mean that Orthodox Christians believe the unspeakable – that the Mother of God was conceived in and contracted Original Sin . . .

The crux of the matter here lies, however, not in a disagreement over Mary’s total sinlessness and holiness from her Conception.

In fact, the East does indeed affirm Mary’s All-holiness in its liturgical tradition. The liturgical celebration, and that from early times, of the Conception of St Anne ALREADY means that the Mother of God was a saint at her Conception and was sanctified by the Spirit as the Temple of the Most Holy Trinity – only feasts of saints may be celebrated, after all!

(The same holds true for John the Baptist, whose Conception is ALSO celebrated in the calendar of the Orthodox Church.)

So both East and West already affirm Mary to be All-Holy and Ever-Immaculate.

What is the problem then?

The problem is in the thorny issue of Original Sin and the way in which it has been understood in the West, taking its cue, as it does, from Saint Augustine.

For the Christian East, Original Sin does not totally ravage human nature. Adam’s personal sin resulted in death for all his descendants, the experience of concupiscence and the darkening of the mind that makes us subject to temptation etc.

So if Mary died, then she had indeed been subject to the effects of Original Sin i.e. she could not be said to have been conceived without it.

But by her great sanctification at her Conception and at other times in her life (Annunciation, Pentecost, Dormition/Assumption) God deemed to bestow on His Temple, the Ark of the New Covenant, the fullness of His Gifts of Grace.

And so, the effects of Original Sin, while not completely taken away from Mary, were mitigated in an exemplary way.’

Thus, she suffered no pain when she gave birth to Christ and her passing into eternal life was but a gentle falling asleep (or “Dormition”). Furthermore, she was taken in body and soul to Heaven by Her Son as her body was not to experience corruption. And she continues to grow in holiness in heaven as holiness is a dynamic, rather than static, thing.

So, for the East, when the West affirmed that the Mother of God was conceived without Original Sin, this implied that she did not die – something the East had always believed as its liturgical tradition (“lex orandi, lex credendi”) bore out.

But today the West understands the “stain of Original Sin” in a way that would be compatible with the view of the East. Perhaps this was all a misunderstanding that was artificially maintained across centuries by ill-will on both sides – who can know for sure?

And the West does not deny that the Mother of God was under the effects of Original Sin, even though her great holiness mitigated greatly her experience of these.

Ultimately, a mutual agreement on this issue would centre on the matter of a common and clear definition concerning Original Sin.

It would also have to be based on whether Rome’s definition of the Immaculate Conception, rooted in a form of Augustinianism as it is, cannot be adapted to a more ecumenical perspective that would be open to Eastern theological/patristic viewpoints.

Certainly, there could be no question that the East would ever need to adopt the IC dogma, given the fact that the matter of the All-holiness of the Mother of God was never a point of disagreement in the East and that the dogma itself is the product of a purely Western theological paradigm.

Apart from the dogmas of the Divine Maternity and Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God, as defined by the Councils, the East prefers to keep all else concerning the Virgin Mary as part of its own intense, inner liturgical piety towards her.

As the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom sings of Mary:

“Having commemorated our Most Holy, Most Pure, Most Blessed and Glorious Sovereign Mother of God and Every-Virgin Mary, with all the Saints, let us give offer ourselves and one another unto Christ our God!”[/quote]

Edited March 16, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[N/A Gone]

[quote]79. It is already possible to identify the areas in need of fuller study before a true consensus of faith can be achieved:
[b]1)[/b] the relationship between Sacred Scripture, as the highest authority in matters of faith, and Sacred Tradition, as indispensable to the interpretation of the Word of God;
[b]2)[/b] the Eucharist, as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, an offering of praise to the Father, the sacrificial memorial and Real Presence of Christ and the sanctifying outpouring of the Holy Spirit;
[b]3)[/b] Ordination, as a Sacrament, to the threefold ministry of the episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate;
[b]4)[/b] the Magisterium of the Church, entrusted to the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him, understood as a responsibility and an authority exercised in the name of Christ for teaching and safeguarding the faith;
[b]5)[/b] the Virgin Mary, as Mother of God and Icon of the Church, the spiritual Mother who intercedes for Christ's disciples and for all humanity.[/quote]

Ut Unum Sint, when speaking about the unitfied Church mentions these principles. WHat is the status on catholic/orthodox discussion here?