Dear Marduk,
I'm glad you're back. You've cleared up a few things. Reading your message as a whole, I can see clearly that I might have misunderstood, and I'm very open to see the terminology you use is similar.
Nevertheless, I don't understand why you would criticize the belief of death as the cause of all things we do as merely a Byzantine, Eastern Orthodox belief. I really can care less what they believe (although I agree with their beliefs), but based on what I read, this is very Alexandrian, and very Severian. Fr. Peter Theodore will even agree with me on this one, as he is a scholar on St. Severus' writings. I've actually had this discussion recently with other Copts who misunderstand the belief of the Original Sin and what it is.
For instance, the Greek for Romans 5:12 is read differently. If you go back and read St. John Chrysostom's commentaries, he writes very clearly, "for that all have sinned," not "because all sinned." The meaning here is very different. Through one man's sin, death entered into the world, and because of death, all sinned.
Second, I agree with you that spiritual death causes us to sin. However,
for the sake of this discussion, the terminology "stain" does not indicate death, but an addition, a sin. Death is separation, a corruption, something missing in one's life. A stain is something added to one's life, something like the act of sinning. This is why I interpret your quotes differently. For instance, if I met one who did not sin at all in his/her life, I can say of this person he/she is without stain. That doesn't mean the curse is removed from them, that they are not under this curse of death, spiritual or physical. I don't think that's what St. Ephrem meant, and I'll share with you a quote by St. Jacob of Serugh in a little bit now that I have the book in my hand again.
In addition, physical death and spiritual death in my opinion are only separated (if I may use a Christological terminology) "in thought alone." What St. Paul says in Romans 5:12, he meant both. The psychological ramifications of corruption and death, physically as well as spiritually, lead all to sin. Christ came and killed death, separating the two. He partook of physical death without spiritual death, rendering death dead in its power against us. So, yes we are raised alive again in Christ, but partaking of the Life of Christ, physical death is no longer what it used to be the punishment it was, but a blessing, a grace to look forward to. We die in Christ that we may live.
Nevertheless, Satan continues to bring death back into the battlefield. By our sinning, we are recharging death unfortunately. By our life in Christ, we are keeping death dead. It is why we sing "Christ is risen from the dead, and trampled death by death, bestowing life to those who were in the tombs." He did not bestow righteousness to sinners, but life to those who were dead, so that sinners may be righteous.
It is the central teaching in Athanasius, Cyril, and Severus. I cannot accept the terminology "stain." Trust me, I understand what you mean when you say we shouldn't war over words (in the spirit of ecumenism, I try my best not to war over words in Christological debates, and in this case, I don't reject differences in the meaning of the word "stain" either). But when it comes to quotes by Church fathers who say that the Virgin was "stainless," in this particular discussion with you, I avoid the term "stain" so that I can show you why I reject it. Nevertheless, I misunderstood your use, seeing that it might mean "spiritual death."
When it comes to the conception of the Virgin Mary, I cannot accept this. As I mentioned before, many people in the Old Testament were sanctified by the Holy Spirit without removing "spiritual death." Many prophets spoke through the "Holy Spirit." That doesn't mean "spiritual death" was removed. They may have well been stainless. After all, Romans 5:14 alludes to people who have not sinned that even experience death (spiritual and physical).
A few quotes of yours that we will have to agree to disagree with:
Sanctification is simply a generic term for the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can sanctify in many various ways, and such gifts are not the same for all. The effect of the sanctification Mary received at the moment of her conception (really nothing more than the Grace of Baptism) is different from the effect of sanctification on Judas (to be an Apostle and perform miracles) and on Saul (to have the divine right of kingship). The effect of the sanctification Mary received at the moment of her conception was also different from the effect of the sanctification she received at the Annunciation. The grace Mary received at the moment of her conception was the grace to dedicate herself to God. In distinction, the grace Mary received at the annunciation was the grace to be able to bear the FULL DIVINITY, and, also, IMO, the unique grace to remain a virgin despite bearing Christ.
For several reasons. (1) I personally and wholeheartedly believe in it. (2) There is nothing in my Oriental Tradition that contradicts it, and vice-versa, when the dogma is properly understood. (3) I have hope that when it is properly understood, it will eventually be acceptable to all. (4) The proscription is only an excommunication, and not an anathema. (5) The proscription of a dogma is not an inherent part of the dogma. It is conceivable that the proscription may be lifted.
Since she was IC’d NOT for the purpose of bearing Christ, but simply to be dedicated completely to God, then it seems we are in agreement.
You call it IC, I call it sanctification, but we both know we don't mean the same thing.
Yes, Baptism only removes the spiritual consequences of Original sin (sin, in all its forms and understanding, loss of original justice, loss of sanctifying Grace, spiritual death), not the temporal/physical consequences (i.e., death, corruption, etc.). This is the same Grace that Mary received at her conception, and which the Forerunner received while yet in his mother’s womb.
So I suppose there's a belief of St. John's IC brewing in Catholic circles as well?
Now we’re getting somewhere. Previously, you spoke of death, and it seemed like you were not making a distinction between physical death, and spiritual death (which is why I said your understanding seems more Byzantine than Coptic). But now I see you are distinguishing between the temporal/physical consequences of original sin from the spiritual consequences of original sin. So I apologize for my assumption earlier. On this basis, given my explanation above of what Baptism does, I think we can come to an agreement. But, as always, more questions are welcome.
I sorta agree with this. But know that I also do not separate physical and spiritual death when it comes to the time before Christ, including the Virgin Mary and John the Forerunner. When talking about St. Paul, St. Athanasius, etc. they never distinguished between spiritual and physical death. They talked about death as a whole.
I have to respectfully disagree. I saw "equality" as a matter of previous actions, not state of the soul. Equality can also be a matter of humanity. Christ is equal to us by His human nature, equal to the Father by His divine nature. In this case, it is clear the "equality" is in the matter of their "innocence," and I interpret this to mean their previous actions of sinlessness.
I think “utterly equal” is different from mere “equal.” Like you said, there are different kinds of equality, but “utter equality” is a different thing, n’est pas.
Agree to disagree here as well. As you say, one was under physical death, and one wasn't. Yet the latter sinned, and the former didn't. I like to think the same for spiritual death before the Annunciation. I mean think of it this way. What makes something "utterly equal"? Surely, if "utterly," why draw the line on only spiritual death, and not physical death like other Latins do? It would seem to me they are more consistent when using this quote. While my consistency lies in drawing the line in their actions before making a pivotal decision for all mankind. Through Eve decision under no spiritual or physical death, we were all made dead. Through Mary's decision under physical and spiritual death, we were all made alive. Both were utterly equal in the position they were put in, and both were utterly equal in their "stainless life" (the way I define it) before that pivotal moment.
I’ll agree that it MIGHT be only in reference to the fact that both Christ and Mary never sinned, but when we say Christ is “sinless” do you think we mean only that Christ never sinned, and not actually that Christ also did not have the stain of original sin? Thus, when a Father compares Mary’s sinlessness to Christ’s, why should we automatically think that it refers only to the fact of not sinning actively?
Let's understand from St. Jacob of Serugh how this comparison is made not because of a grace similar to that of baptism, but solely of her own will to which she is compared to Christ as spotless:
Our Lord descending to earth beheld all women;
He chose one for Himself who among them all was pleasing.
He searched her and found humility and holiness in her,
and limpid impulses and a soul desirous of divinity.
And a pure heart and every reckoning of perfection,
because of this He chose her, the pure and most fair one.
...
He observed her, how exalted and pure from evil,
nor stirs in her an impulse inclined to lust.
And she allows no thought for luxury,
nor worldly conversation which causes cruel harm.
Desire for worldly vanity does not burn in her,
nor is she occupied with childish things.
...
She was a person of discernment, full of the love of God,
because our Lord does not dwell where there is no love.
When the Great King desired to come to our place,
He dwelt in the purest shrine of all the earth because it please him.
He dwelt in a spotless womb which was adorned with virginity,
and with thoughts which were worthy of holiness.
...
Maiden, full of beauty hidden in her and around her,
and pure of heart that she might see the mysteries which had come to pass in her.
This is beauty, when one is beautiful of one's own accord;
glorious graces of perfection are in her will.
However great be the beauty of something from God,
it is not acclaimed if freedom is not present.
...
If another had pleased more than her, He would have chosen that one,
for the Lord does not respect persons since He is just and right.
If there had been a spot in her soul or a defect,
He would have sought for Himself another mother in whom there is no blemish.
This beauty which is teh most pure of all beauties,
exists in the one who possesses it by means of a good will.
...
She was made pure like John and like Elisha,
like Elias and like Melchisedek, who were renowned.
She ascended to the degree of these heights in beauty,
so she was chosen to be the Mother of the Son of the Holy One.
She drew near to the limit of virtue by her soul;
so, that grace which is without limit dwelt in her.
And you should read the part about comparing Eve and Mary. It's just awesome. One part I like to quote when interpreting her "utter equality," besides the position they were both put at (if I can quote the whole thing for you, I should just type the whole book here), they were also both virgins:
"Two virgins who received the message from two messengers;
two by two, generations were sent forth, one against another.
Satan sent a secret to Eve by means of the serpent;
the Lord sent the good tidings to Mary by means of the Watcher."
In anticipation of something you might answer back with, let me just tell you I agree with you that free will is not taken away if one is baptized, or has a grace similar to that (as the IC). But here, we're arguing that she reached a measure of purity not by her state of nature, but by her own doing, her own will. This leads us to believe that when the Syrian poets speak of her "stainless" life, they speak of her as a women without doing sin, not without spiritual death.
You misunderstand my question. I'm not questioning free will brother. I'm simply asking which is more amazing? Those under the curse who don't sin or those not under the curse who don't sin? This is a matter of contemplation that I find why the Theotokos is most amazing, stainless even under the curse of Original Sin (in the way I understand though, since there's no belief in our church of some sort of "stain").
But Mary was also under the curse of death (physical death, that is, not spiritual death). The dogma of the IC does not deny that.
I am saying both spiritual and physical death, she still was stainless and made a decision to bestow upon us all the One Who will bestow life to those who were in the tombs.
So now we have two immaculate events? One at conception and one at the Annunciation? I thought the Latins thought the conception was enough for the Incarnation?
First of all, yes, I think that is a popular Latin theologoumenon, but it is not what the dogma of the IC actually teaches. The Apostolic Constitution on the dogma merely states that the she was IC’d because it was fitting for her AS the Theotokos. But it does NOT say that she was IC’d because it was necessary for her TO BE Theotokos. Like I said, this latter belief is a Latin theologoumenon which I myself do not hold. Though I would add that in the quotes I provided earlier of EOC Fathers, St. Proclus of Constantinople makes an explicit causal connection between the immaculateness of Jesus’ birth and Mary being immaculately conceived.
Secondly, yes, there are two immaculate events. The Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception of Jesus Christ. The Immaculate nature of their respective conceptions came about differently. Mary was immaculately conceived by the Grace of Baptism being applied to her at the moment of her conception. In distinction, Jesus was immaculately conceived because he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, without a human father. So the IC does not give to Mary anything that is uniquely Christ’s.
You misunderstood my question. I understood previously from you as if you implied the Virgin Mary was "made immaculate" twice. One at her conception, and one at the Annunciation. I'm not talking about two conceptions of two different people. I'm only talking about the Theotokos.
Now with the icing of the cake, the quotes of St. Jacob of Serug concerning the Annunciation and what it did the Theotokos:
Indeed, the Holy Spirit came to Mary,
to let loose from her the former sentence of Eve and Adam.
He sanctified her, purified her and made her blessed among women;
He freed her from that curse of sufferings on account of Eve, her mother.
...
The Spirit freed her from that debt that she might be beyond
transgression when He solemnly dwelt in her.
He purified the Mother by the Holy Spirit while dwelling in her,
that He might take from her a pure body without sin.
...
The Word had descended that He might become flesh; on this account,
by the Spirit He purified the one from whom He had become flesh,
so that He might become like us in everything when He descended,
except for this: that His pure body is without sin.
...
He made her pure, limpid, and blessed
as that Eve, before the serpent spoke with her.
He bestowed on her that first grace which her mother had,
until she ate from the tree which was full of death.
The Spirit who came made her like Eve of old,
though she did not hear the council of the serpent nor his hateful speech.
...
He sanctified her body and made her without hateful lusts,
as the virgin Eve had been until she lusted.
The sin which entered Adam's race with impulses of desire,
the Holy Spirit cast out from her when He came within her.
That increase of evil inclination which the serpent effected,
He wiped from her and filled her with holiness and integrity.
...
She rose up to this measure on her own,
until the Spirit, that perfecter of all came to her.
She was full of grace from God which was more exalted than all;
the Only-begotten dwelt in her womb to renew all.
All the quotes in this whole long message I wrote to you from St. Jacob was all not from different homilies, but one homily (Homily 1 in the book "On the Mother of God" by St. Jacob of Serug), in order that there is no doubt one should understand the context of Jacob's understanding of the "equality" between Mary and Eve, what "stainless" means, and what happened at the Annunciation as opposed to the Latin belief of the conception of Mary herself.
This is OO Mariology at its heart.
God bless.
