“Original Sin” and the Mother of God

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Tom,

Now -- IS IT A DOGMA OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH THAT MARY NEVER SINNED?

It is not "Dogma" because the Orthodox Church does not have "Dogmas". To have Dogmas means there is a "bare minimum" of Orthodoxy. But a thought such as this is completley foriegn to our faith. We are not minimalists, those who always ask, "what is the bare minimum I must do to be saved"; we are maximalists, we ask "how can I be saved the most". This is the same reason why we don't have "venial" sins, a most Latin concept.

The Orthodox Church has always taught that Mary was without sin, which is why she is called the "new Eve". True she suffered the consequences of the Original Sin, but for anyone who knows the life of the Virgin Mary will know she was completley sinless.

I would like to see those writings of the fathers in context - do you know where I could find St. John Chrysostom's?

[TomS]

I would like to see those writings of the fathers in context - do you know where I could find St. John Chrysostom's?

Chrysostom comments on Matthew 12:46-49:

"That which I was lately saying, that when virtue is wanting all things are vain, this is now also pointed out very abundantly. For I indeed was saying, that age and nature, and to dwell in the wilderness, and all such things, are alike unprofitable, where there is not a good mind; but to-day we learn in addition another thing, that even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, if there be not virtue. And this is hence especially manifest. "For while He yet talked to the people," it is said, "one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. But He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self- confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, "While He yet talked to the people;" as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private? (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44)

Regarding John 2:3-4, Chrysostom comments:

For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, "Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?" (Matt. 11,48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occassion....And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much for the salvation of her soul
(Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)

Augustine Bishop of Hippo. “Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”

Tertullian 215 AD “God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God” (The Soul 41:3

Clement of Alexandria “ The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin.”

Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) “ The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate.”(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.)

Pope Gelasius (492 a.d.) “ It belongs alone to the immaculate lamb to have no sin at all.”(Gellasii papae dicta, vol. 4, col 1241, Paris, 1671)

Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “ She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump.,sermon 2)

From Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, "Greek Fathers (Origen, St. Basil. St John Chrysostom, St Cyril of Alexander) taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults, such as ambition and vanity, doubt about the message of the Angel, and lack of faith under the Cross."

[尼古拉前执事]

Also from Augustine of Hippo, first quoted here: http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... .php?t=106

Mary was a special case, "for of her we are obliged to grant that her piety had no sin in it." Augustine, too, was obliged to grant this, refusing "out of honor to the Lord" even to raise the question of sin where she was involved; "for from him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear him who undoubtedly had no sin." (Augustine, On Nature and Grace, 42; cf also paragraphs 37-38 ) - Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: Volume 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, (The University of Chicago Press, 1971), p.314

[TomS]

Yeah. That's the problem with this tradition, historically it has so many contradictions.

I think that if you want to believe in it, then that's okay. And if you don't then that's okay too.

I find it hard to believe that the Lord is going to give us a litmus test on whether or not we thought the Theotokos was ever-sinless.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

TomS,

I could easily explain each of the quotes you gave. And where you found them, you had to thumb trough a large pile explaining the churches position...

Please don't look at this in the sense whether Christ is going to hold you accountable for this peice of the faith. Think of it in terms of better understanding the Mystery of the Church and its birth, His birth! Understanding the Mystery of the Holy Theotokos helps us all reach into our hearts and sense the love and connection we all have with Christ. Mary is called the "untrodden portal of God"! She is the person and means in which God came to His creation in the flesh, and she is testimony to how far we have fallen, and how high we can reach. She is a beacon, don't tear that beacon down!

The Theotokos, who is described as the "glorious fruit of a sacred promise", who is truly revealed to the world as higher than all creation, was piously led into the house of God, where she fulfilled the vow of her parents and was preserved by the Holy Spirit.

Thus St. George of Nicodemia writes: "Strange is the manner of thy birth. Strange is the manner of thy growing. Strange and most marvelous are all things concerning thee, O Bride of God, and they are beyond the telling of mortal man!"

Blessed John Maximovitch writes that Mary spent so much time in the Holy of Holies praying that you could say she lived in it. She desired to fulfill the commandments of God, "Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord am holy." [Lev. 19:2]

And perhaps best described by St. Ambrose: "She was a stranger to any fall into sin, but not a stranger to sinful temptations. God alone is without sin."

St. Romanos states in his Kontakion that she was given over to the temple to be raised and she received her nourishment from angels. she became a saint among saints, and just as she was dedicated, she became the "temple" and the "tabernacle" of the Lord.

St. Germanos (+733) states: "Fed by angels...the child gre and became strong, and the whole force of the curse by which we were struck in Eden was foiled".

St. Gregory Palamas in Homily 37 writes: "she passed not a few years in the Holy of Holies itself, wherein under the care of an angel she enjoyed ineffable nourishment such as even Adam did not succeed in tasting; for indeed if he had, like the immaculate one, he would not have fallen away from life,...and so that she might prove to be his daughter, she yielded little to nature, as would her Son..." He also comments that "while yet three years of age and not yet possessing the super-celestial in-dwelling (Christ), she seemed not to bear our flesh as she dwelt in the Holy of Holies."

Other hymns describe her as "indeed more holy than the heavenly powers".

The Orthodox Church believes without question she was preserved in the Holy of Holies far away from the world and fed by the angel Gabriel for 12 years, and was without sin - the New Eve.

Orthodox Christians, especially Protestant converts, should be very guarded with their zeal against the Latin juggernaut. There is this tendency to humanize holy things, and it is usually because of our lack of faith and belief in the things of God. People always think to question everything in the Church, but they hardly ever stop to question themselves.

I perhaps more than any other person Tom, can sympathize with you. In some ways this very issue was a watershed in my life. Of course I never heard this taught in the GOA or the OCA ( the OCA would have the Holy Theotokos as a bar maid if they could), it was in the GOC where I learned to stop trusting my own critical mind and started to really trust what the Church and the Holy Fathers had to say. It's very hard to describe. It was like running with a hang-glider down a slope not really knowing if you could fly with it, but once it took off, you knew it was right. After more study on the subject, I learned, as always, the Church is unambiguous on the matter.

If I could recommend a newly published book...

http://www.easternchristian.com/page207.html

[Грешник]

Taken from a chat conversation with Father Hieromonk George of Dormition Skete on the topoc of the Sinlessness of Mary, Why She was Chosen and How this all fits with the teachins of the Orthodox Church. 21.11.03

---

Ok, original sin is yet another latin invention. It doesn't exist.The ancient Fathers never used the expression "original sin." The patristic phrase is ancestral sin. Original sin is bound up with the teaching that every generation of people is guilty of the transgressions of the previous generation. So the current generation is in a pitiable condition. We're guilty of 7000 years of sins. But this contradicts the Scripture, where the Lord said the soul that sins shall die. We don't suffer for the sins of our parents, we suffer for our own sins. The ancestral sin concept, on the other hand, has no guilt passed on. The ancestral sin refers precisely to the Fall of Adam and Eve, and the inherited condition we live in. We are not guilty of their sins, but we have inherited the fallen nature that they bequeathed to us. Death and sin are closely bound. We sin, because we die. Think about this carefully. Sin and death are bound with one another. Because our nature is subject to death, we sin. By granting us eternal life, Christ delivered us from sin. The corruptibility of our nature is the foundation of why we fall into sin.

56Now the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God Who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. [1 Cor. 15:56,57]

Sin is not really the death of the soul, in the sense that the soul will continue to exist by God's grace for eternity. Death is the separation of soul and body. Spiritual death, that is, death of the soul, is much more serious than bodily death.

54But whenever this corruption should put on itself incorruption, and this mortal should put on itself immortality, then the word which hath been written shall come to pass: “Death is swallowed up in victory. [1 Cor. 15:54]

55“O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?” [1 Cor. 15:55]

I have read many fathers speak of the Virgin Mary in the most sublime terms, calling her sinless. On the other hand, we know from the words of Scripture that no one lives without sin. The beauty and lovableness, if I can use that term, of the Virgin Mary is not in her sinlessness, thats not the focus: the focus is that she gave birth to God. She has the same fallen nature as each one of us, or I should say, Had. What is exceptional in her regard is that she always directed her will to the doing of good. She never once allowed herself to choose evil. Saint Dorotheos of Gaza talks about this potential in each one of us. We all consciously choose to do evil; no one forces us. She always directed herself to the doing the will of God, with the help of God. Now, even in such holy condition, God by a special act of His grace, purified her womb so that this small place might become worthy of the God of the universe to dwell in. From that time, she became filled with divine grace as no other human being ever has. Imagine if you will God the Son, incoporeal, invisible, uncircumscribable praised by the heavenly powers. Now imagine Him taking on the whole of human nature through the Virgin Mary's body and the Holy Spirit. The place where He would dwell must become more spacious than the heavens, a dwelling worthy of God. In Heaven God dwells in a place worthy of Him; now He takes up His dwelling in a created womb. This is not to infer that her womb was unclean. But that by Divine Grace it was made worthy of the indwelling of God. It was meet and right that the Virgin should live a supernatural life, but this is not the reason God chose her. God created the entire human race, that He might reveal Himself to us through her. Or, from another point of view, creation came into existence for her, that through her He might reveal Himself. The Virgin Mary is the crown of our race. God loves her as no other human being, because she loves Him as no other. She cared for Him as no other person could have, giving Him food from her own body. Don't get hung up on predestination ideas, as if God made her who she was without her freewill. He chose her, because she chose Him. She, of her own freewill, accepted to become the living tabernacle of the Living God. The OT Tabernacle prefigured her, who is the true Ark of God which contains the true manna, that is, our Lord Jesus Christ. As Adam and Eva partook of the forbidden fruit, so now Christ sacrifices Himself on the wood of the Cross, that He might give us the true Fruit, Himself. In the mystery of Holy Communion

[Seraphim Reeves]

Tom,

Yeah. That's the problem with this tradition, historically it has so many contradictions.

Do you have any "contradictory traditions" in mind? I would think, to make such a statement, you've come across some obvious examples.

Seraphim