Okay wow...many things to talk about:
Personally, I've never pondered the idea of whether the Theotokos knew she was immaculately conceived. The interest on the matter would be on the same level as me wondering if the Theotokos knew at, say, age 7 that she would be the Theotokos. I do not see any fruit that can come from an intellectual consideration of whether the Saints had an omniscient knowledge of exactly what Graces they had received/were receiving/would receive from God.
Blessings,
Marduk
I think this does need intellectual consideration. As I said before, St. Luke offers us an implication that she never knew. The interest of the matter is not, imo, at the same level as wondering if the Virgin Mary would know she would be the Theotokos. For one thing, we know that she never knew. For another thing, she wasn't even the Theotokos YET. But according to the belief of the IC, she was IC'ed since her conception. I think this speaks volumes. Do you know of any saint sanctified for a role not knowing they were sanctified? Does God just give grace to people without their knowledge? Does God condemn people without their knowledge? Do we raise our children without telling them that they were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? The knowledge about people's state, good or bad is the reason for continual evangelization and teaching as well. Knowledge of your own status requires serious thought, imo.
St. Jacob's belief on the matter really is not a Faith-defining issue. At the very least, if the COC has made it a Faith-defining issue, it is a very recent development in teaching. Since most documents from the Synod are not in English, maybe it will take some time.
But I ask you this, honestly. We both know that we don't live and breathe by every word from any human, even a Saint. Do you think it is proper for the Synod to respond to the Catholic Church's making the IC a faith defining issue, by themselves making something else a faith-defining issue? To me, it would seem the proper or even better course of action would be to leave the matter the way it always was - theologoumenon.
People I've known have understood through Sunday schools, priestly sermons, messages of HH in his weekly sermons that the IC is condemned. If you read the dialogues between the Coptic and the Catholic churches, you will find that one thorn in the issue of unification among many in the eyes of the Coptic Church is the IC. Among the laity, I've heard many things like the General Resurrection will be bodiless, or that they never heard of St. Severus, the pillar of faith, or that a one-day old infant had to have committed some sort of sin (not understanding fully the idea of what it means that "
no-one is undefiled even if he lives a single day on earth"), or that if someone looked at you with an evil eye, you're cursed (ya, that I've heard). There are many many laity I've met who do not have a correct understanding of the Trinity as well, even at an adult age.
The Church has expressed strong opposition of the IC for the main reason because of the liturgical prayer of the departed which as I stated before, "For no-one is undefiled even if he lives a single day on earth." This "no one" includes the Virgin Mary in the eyes of the Coptic Church. The Coptic Church also uses Romans 5:12-14 as their support, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because of which all sinned. (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses (even over those who had not sinned) according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come....)"
The Coptic Church's opposition I would contend however is just the other side of the same coin as the Latin Church's dogmatic acceptance. If it's theologomenoun, why make it a dogma? Why then join a church that condemns anyone who does believe it?
These are good points to ponder. I would ask that you consider the ramifications of your comments for our beliefs regarding the Forerunner. St. John was sanctified even BEFORE he was born. Does this mean St. John lost his free will, or any part of it?
Blessings,
Marduk
True, but he was raised as a Forerunner and knew he was to be the Forerunner. It was very clear when the Pharisees asked him who he was, and he gave them the prophecy from the great Isaiah, understanding fully well his role. Luke's gospel does not give us that option. The Virgin Mary however was understood as one to be raised as a Virgin devoted to the altar according to tradition, but not to know that she would be the one who would bear the Logos.
In addition, just as we can't say the Forerunner was IC'ed, so we can't say the same of the Theotokos. The Holy Spirit have descended and given grace to anyone He wills, as the Old Testament (OT) has shown. Prophets, judges, kings, priests, even pagans at some points. It is a matter of sanctification for the role, just as the OT vessels were washed with water and anointed with oil for a purpose. The anointing however does not indicate a removal of Original Sin. So I don't mind the idea that the Virgin Mary was anointed from conception, but I personally find it unacceptable to remove Original Sin from conception.
Are you absolutely sure that the Synod and HH's appeal to St. Jacob is an indication that they are trying to make it a Faith-defining issue? Is it possible that their appeal is simply to emphasize that there are Fathers (actually I can count only two in the early Church) who express the belief that Mary's sanctification occurred at the Annunciation? In other words, maybe their point is not to make it a Faith-defining belief, but rather to insist on the fact that it remain theologoumenon.
For if it is their purpose to make it a Faith-defining belief, wouldn't that mean the Armenians are heretics for believing it (albeit not as dogma, but as theologoumenon).
Blessings,
Marduk
I was waiting for Salpy to reply before I can mention anything. It seems that as far as the Coptic Church knows, the Armenian and Syriac churches don't believe it. Whatever goes on inside the other Churches, I can't answer that for you.
As much St. Jacob goes, he is a significant post-Chalcedonian father who expressed his opposition to Chalcedon (he was born in 451, at the heart of the matter itself). He is also a Syriac father continuing in the poetic tradition of St. Ephrem. The Coptic Church throughout her history has mingled traditions with the Syriac Church in the past and have probably the closest relationship together besides the Churches in Africa (for instance, St. Severus had departed in Egypt's deserts themselves, the fasting of three days commemorating Jonah and the people of Nineveh, and we have a "Syrian" monastery in Egypt). Many of St. Jacob of Serug's writings are translated in Arabic and have been read by many. I don't know a Coptic priest who does not know who St. Jacob of Serug is, especially since Coptic people love the Theotokos very dearly and his writings have become influential in Coptic Mariology.
St. Proclus of Constantinople: “As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Homily 1
St. Ephrem of Syria: “Those two innocent women, Mary and Eve, had been utterly equal, but afterwards one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life.”
- “You and your mother are the only ones IMMUNE from all stain; for there is no spot in Thee, o Lord, nor any taint in your Mother.”
St. Jacob of Sarug actually sits on the fence. In one place, he states that Mary was free from the sentence of Adam and Eve at the annunciation, yet in another place, he states, “the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier…if ANY STAIN had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Of course, for St. Jacob to state that God selected her based on her soul not having any stain means that Mary must have been “stainless” even BEFORE the Annunciation. To me, the only legitimate interpretation possible is that St. Jacob believed that she received Graces to have a stainless soul BEFORE the Annunciation, while believing that the Grace she received at the Annunciation was a different kind of Grace. For surely the Grace for Mary to be OVERSHADOWED by the FULL divinity must be of an entirely different order than the Graces received at Baptism by which creatures are cleansed of the stain of all sin. In any case, St. Jacob certainly cannot be used to make any sort of DEFINITE statement against the teaching of the IC.
I was wondering if you can give us a text of Proclus' first homily, that maybe we can understand the context of this quote.
I would contend that one can interpret St. Ephrem through St. Jacob, since both have a common poetic tradition, especially in the praises of the Theotokos. For one thing, I find nothing contradicting my beliefs when saying that she is "the cause of life." As we sing in the Coptic Church, she is the "salvation of our father Adam."
I would personally interpret the "immunity of sin" in the case of the Theotokos not in the sense of Original Sin, but in the sense of her will. It is for this reason why Christ chose her, especially for her life among people and still maintaining perfection and immaculate righteousness. They have an immense love for the Theotokos, and perhaps it explains why St. Ephrem felt she was the "only one." Or perhaps, she's the only one in bodily form due to the Assumption along with Christ. Nevertheless, I don't know the context of this quote nor have I read enough of St. Ephrem to understand his meaning. I can only with some confidence say that because both Sts. Ephrem and Jacob are of Syriac traditions, St. Jacob had to have some influence from the writings of his predecessor St. Ephrem.
I disagree that St. Jacob cannot be used as a source of definitive statement. For it could simply mean as I stated before in a matter of her own personal will, she chose not to sin her whole life. It was very clear from his writings that it was at the Annunciation the curse was removed from her. This does not mean St. Jacob was inconsistent in his thoughts. It simply alludes to the fact that there is another interpretation of the word "stain" or "immaculate." Coptic hymnology is filled with such language, and yet still the heirarchs (who above anything know Coptic hymnology by heart) would still vehemently reject the IC.
The amazing thing about the Theotokos is that unlike Eve who was without Original Sin and sinned, that the Theotokos was in Sin and did not sin. Through freedom Eve chose to disobey God through a commandment that demanded her obedience, while the Theotokos chose to submit in obedience to God in a request that did not demand her obedience. This is the most amazing thing about the Theotokos, and why we praise her, along with her immaculate and stainless life. What is more amazing? A person who is IC'ed, doesn't sin and "chooses" to be the Theotokos, or a person who is under the Curse of Sin, yet doesn't sin, and chooses to be the Theotokos?
Finally, I'd like to comment on Isa's post providing quotes by Pope Leo. It seems that Leo taught the following based on these quotes:
Christ alone was born without sin.
That no one is undefiled even if one lived a single day.
Christ alone was born without sin because He was the only one born through a Virgin (in which case undefiled by concupiscence both carnally and mentally) and maintaining her virginity.
That the Virgin had to accept the conception in thought before it was actually occurring.
The Virginity and Chastity of the Theotokos is her stainless state of mind, with which Christ used for His incarnation. In fact, he seems to teach that the source of one being born of the curse of the Original Sin was man's seed. So it was imperative that the seed come from a divine source and that the mother be a Virgin for Christ to be born without Original Sin. Because of this, He took from her human nature without natural seed from which Original Sin is transmitted, but from Divine Seed, a unique conception.
He seems to make no mention of her being IC'ed as a source of the IC of Christ. In fact, the source is clear as if taking the words out from the Creed: Virginity and the Holy Spirit (although I would personally stress not Virginity as if sexual intercourse is dirty, but Virginity as to avoid the old seed and become the New Seed...it's not very clear to me whether Leo teaches this or not, but this is my belief based on St. Severus of Antioch).
The only thing confusing about any of the quotes is one thing, and perhaps Isa can help me out on this one for clarity's sake. Leo states in his second sermon on the Nativity: "And to this end, without male seed Christ was conceived of a Virgin, who was fecundated not by human intercourse but by the Holy Spirit. And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one received purification from the Source of
her conception. For no taint of sin penetrated, where no intercourse occurred."
Context clues to me make me interpret this as while others receive taint from intercourse, the Virgin received purification from conception of Christ. Is that what is meant by "her conception," i.e. the conception that occurred in her? Or is he alluding, as possibly could be the alternative Latin interpretation, she also was IC'ed? Perhaps, consulting the Latin may help us better understand a better translation. I personally lean towards the former not because of personal leaning but because of the sentence right after, "For no taint of sin penetrated, where no intercourse occurred" as a clarification of the former sentence, not as a separate and independent act, as I'm anticipating would be the Latin interpretation.
I don't know. This seems to be what I'm reading in Leo. Perhaps, other quotes of clarification can help prove me wrong?
God bless.
PS Forgive me for the lengthy post.