Author Topic: Bishop St. Augustine of Hippo on the absolute sinlessness of the Virgin Mary.  (Read 3797 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sethrak

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,326
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Hi Tzimis ~ I don't speak for all Armenians nor for the Orthodox Church ~ just trying to see how it is thought of by others ~ the Catholic ( the Roman church ) believes we are born with the sin of Adam ~ are you saying Greek Orthodox believe the same ~ we are born with the sin of Adam ~ but just are not guilty (just that we didn't deserve ```
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 06:15:36 PM by Sethrak »
Իմաստութիւն Հոր Յիսուս՝ տո՝ւր մեզ իաստուփին՝ զբարիս խորհել եւ խոսել եւ գործել առաջի Քո յամենայն ժամ : եւ ի չար խորհրդոց ի բանից եւ ի գործոց   փրկեա  զմեզ՝ ամէն:
Jesus, Wisdom of the Father, give us wisdom, to think, speak and do what is Good before you at all times. And save us from evil thoughts, words and deed, amen.

Offline Sethrak

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,326
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
I'd like to hear from the Fathers on this ```I'll ask the priest I meet ~ do you personally think that each child has the sin of Adam, didn't our Christ wash this sin away  ~ or did he die for our sinful nature and the sins we committed after birth only ```
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 06:13:36 PM by Sethrak »
Իմաստութիւն Հոր Յիսուս՝ տո՝ւր մեզ իաստուփին՝ զբարիս խորհել եւ խոսել եւ գործել առաջի Քո յամենայն ժամ : եւ ի չար խորհրդոց ի բանից եւ ի գործոց   փրկեա  զմեզ՝ ամէն:
Jesus, Wisdom of the Father, give us wisdom, to think, speak and do what is Good before you at all times. And save us from evil thoughts, words and deed, amen.

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,514
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Let me make it clear. Sin and death is transferred to the descends of adam and eve. The RC's added guilt on top of that. Which our church doesn't endorse and considers it as an addition.
I tried to press fr Peter to see what his view is because it isn't lining up with EO canon. When he said that he, meaning his church doesn't believe in ansesreral sin. He has been silent though.  Judging from his writings His views don't seem the same. I"m not sure what his view is but it does ring Peliganist. Who was condemned by the church.  Google him and his view.  He basically teached that man had the capacity on his own without gods help to become perfected.
The church condemned his views because he didn't believe in ansesreral sin.

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,514
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
I'd like to hear from the Fathers on this ```I'll ask the priest I meet ~ do you personally think that each child has the sin of Adam, didn't our Christ wash this sin away  ~ or did he die for our sinful nature and the sins we committed after birth only ```
Yes.
Baptism washes away ansesreral sin. The fathers are all quite on unbaptized children accept for one. I will try to remember who it was. He said that children who die without baptism didn't merit salvation nor damnation. But, to trust in gods judgment.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
I'd like to hear from the Fathers on this ```I'll ask the priest I meet ~ do you personally think that each child has the sin of Adam, didn't our Christ wash this sin away  ~ or did he die for our sinful nature and the sins we committed after birth only ```
Yes.
Baptism washes away ansesreral sin. The fathers are all quite on unbaptized children accept for one. I will try to remember who it was. He said that children who die without baptism didn't merit salvation nor damnation. But, to trust in gods judgment.

If that's the case, then why do the baptized still die?
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,514
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
I'd like to hear from the Fathers on this ```I'll ask the priest I meet ~ do you personally think that each child has the sin of Adam, didn't our Christ wash this sin away  ~ or did he die for our sinful nature and the sins we committed after birth only ```
Yes.
Baptism washes away ansesreral sin. The fathers are all quite on unbaptized children accept for one. I will try to remember who it was. He said that children who die without baptism didn't merit salvation nor damnation. But, to trust in gods judgment.

If that's the case, then why do the baptized still die?
The bible says that man has to die and the body is like a seed.

1 Corinthians 15

36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.
And

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 10:54:21 PM by Tzimis »

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
I'd like to hear from the Fathers on this ```I'll ask the priest I meet ~ do you personally think that each child has the sin of Adam, didn't our Christ wash this sin away  ~ or did he die for our sinful nature and the sins we committed after birth only ```
Yes.
Baptism washes away ansesreral sin. The fathers are all quite on unbaptized children accept for one. I will try to remember who it was. He said that children who die without baptism didn't merit salvation nor damnation. But, to trust in gods judgment.

If that's the case, then why do the baptized still die?
The bible says that man has to die and the body is like a seed.

1 Corinthians 15

36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.
And

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

So if the Fall had never happened, Adam and Eve would still have had to die in order to get imperishable bodies?
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,514
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
I'd like to hear from the Fathers on this ```I'll ask the priest I meet ~ do you personally think that each child has the sin of Adam, didn't our Christ wash this sin away  ~ or did he die for our sinful nature and the sins we committed after birth only ```
Yes.
Baptism washes away ansesreral sin. The fathers are all quite on unbaptized children accept for one. I will try to remember who it was. He said that children who die without baptism didn't merit salvation nor damnation. But, to trust in gods judgment.

If that's the case, then why do the baptized still die?
The bible says that man has to die and the body is like a seed.

1 Corinthians 15

36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.
And

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

So if the Fall had never happened, Adam and Eve would still have had to die in order to get imperishable bodies?
Not necessarily. The bible states that in revelation those saints who are alive will be transformed in a twinkle of and eye at the second coming. So some will not taste death. They will receive a Glorified body while alive. So eventually A&E would have as well if they didn't sin.
Because of A&Es fall. Christ became the new Adam and showed man the path to salvation through theosis. Which is Knowledge of god and proper handling of Good and evil.
Adam and eve were in a place between a fall and Grace. They would have attained grace by continued communion with god. They were spiritual infants and weren't ready to receive full knowledge. Also known as the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Over time they would have been introduced to this knowledge and taught of its power and how to handle it. The devil really didn't lie to them when he said if you eat you will be like god.  So the actual tree is what man experiences today. Gaining knowledge on his own and blundering as did Adam and Eve. The Church gives man the HS as a guide towards learning how to handle Good and evil and eventually perfecting his actions to conform with mans natural will which is inclined towards god will.

Offline Sethrak

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,326
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
This oddly enough is found is found at BYU  written by an Aubrey E Young I can't attest to it being correct ~ but :

INSIGHT​S FROM ADAM AND EVE IN THE ARMENIAN TRADITION

Aubrey E. Young


History of the Ar​​menian Apocrypha
Within the greater Christian context, much was happening as the spread of religion and literature increased. The Renaissance and the Reformation led to a surge in the Christian world to inquire after the Talmud and other Jewish writings.[7] Society was deeply influenced by the Bible, and the Bible became a unifier politically and religiously.[8] It is not surprising that Hebrew philology would become popular as early Christian traditions drew upon Jewish scholars to understand and interpret the literal meaning of the Bible.[9] Also during this period of the Renaissance, after the Jewish diaspora, we see the acceptance and use of comparative languages to explain difficult concepts (hence the flourish of translations). Translations and interpretations are found in Arabic, Georgian, Slavic, Latin, and many more languages found in areas from North Africa to Eastern Europe. However, it has been said that the catalog of Armenian translations and original works is more extensive than any other translation.[10]


https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/byu-religious-education-student-symposium-2013/insights-adam-and-eve-armenian-tradition
« Last Edit: April 11, 2019, 06:14:31 PM by Sethrak »
Իմաստութիւն Հոր Յիսուս՝ տո՝ւր մեզ իաստուփին՝ զբարիս խորհել եւ խոսել եւ գործել առաջի Քո յամենայն ժամ : եւ ի չար խորհրդոց ի բանից եւ ի գործոց   փրկեա  զմեզ՝ ամէն:
Jesus, Wisdom of the Father, give us wisdom, to think, speak and do what is Good before you at all times. And save us from evil thoughts, words and deed, amen.

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • To yield and give way to our passions is the lowest slavery
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,505
  • even as to rule over them is the only liberty
  • Faith: Catholic, Carmelite
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Raleigh
This oddly enough is found is found at BYU  written by an Aubrey E Young I can't attest to it being correct ~ but :

INSIGHT​S FROM ADAM AND EVE IN THE ARMENIAN TRADITION

Aubrey E. Young


History of the Ar​​menian Apocrypha
Within the greater Christian context, much was happening as the spread of religion and literature increased. The Renaissance and the Reformation led to a surge in the Christian world to inquire after the Talmud and other Jewish writings.[7] Society was deeply influenced by the Bible, and the Bible became a unifier politically and religiously.[8] It is not surprising that Hebrew philology would become popular as early Christian traditions drew upon Jewish scholars to understand and interpret the literal meaning of the Bible.[9] Also during this period of the Renaissance, after the Jewish diaspora, we see the acceptance and use of comparative languages to explain difficult concepts (hence the flourish of translations). Translations and interpretations are found in Arabic, Georgian, Slavic, Latin, and many more languages found in areas from North Africa to Eastern Europe. However, it has been said that the catalog of Armenian translations and original works is more extensive than any other translation.[10]


https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/byu-religious-education-student-symposium-2013/insights-adam-and-eve-armenian-tradition
Yuck.
I think they only posted it to say "See? Someone from Armenia said God used to be a man!" Assuming the translation is even remotely correct, which you might know much better than me.
Wishing to grant pardon for ancient debts, he who cancels the debts of all people came himself and dwelt among those who were estranged from his divine grace; and tearing apart the record of sin, he hears from everyone: Alleluia.

Offline Sethrak

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,326
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Well, he's not Armenian he had to have looked over a translation ~ claiming to have read a couple manuscripts ~ he is or was a Mormon I guess ~ full of crap mostly ~ they, the upper elders talk like the have paper bum outlets ~ they are still writing the bible ~ the Later Day Saints they calls themselves ~ they never made much sense when it comes to the life of Christ ~ they teach: They can be Christ, God of their own planet ~ they say it with a straight face ~ nice people most of rank and file ~ except for being in no way Christian ~ the Protestants may be missing much of the story ~ but the Mormons are still making it up as they go ```
« Last Edit: April 12, 2019, 12:49:37 AM by Sethrak »
Իմաստութիւն Հոր Յիսուս՝ տո՝ւր մեզ իաստուփին՝ զբարիս խորհել եւ խոսել եւ գործել առաջի Քո յամենայն ժամ : եւ ի չար խորհրդոց ի բանից եւ ի գործոց   փրկեա  զմեզ՝ ամէն:
Jesus, Wisdom of the Father, give us wisdom, to think, speak and do what is Good before you at all times. And save us from evil thoughts, words and deed, amen.

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,514
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
I'd like to hear from the Fathers on this ```I'll ask the priest I meet ~ do you personally think that each child has the sin of Adam, didn't our Christ wash this sin away  ~ or did he die for our sinful nature and the sins we committed after birth only ```

http://suscopts.org/wiki/The_Sacrament_of_Baptism

Why Do We Baptize Infants?

    Baptism is essential for salvation and without it a person cannot enter the Kingdom of God, “Most assuredly I say to you, unless a person is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5). Infants are no exception since they are born with the corrupt nature due to the original sin. Therefore, infants are baptized to insure their salvation.
    Circumcision was a symbol of baptism (Col 2:11-13). Now if God commanded that infants enter in the Old Covenant with Him, should we prevent them from entering in the New Covenant?
    Crossing the Red Sea was also a symbol of baptism (1 Cor 10:1-2). Undoubtedly, infants crossed the sea with their parents so why should today’s infants be prevented from being baptized?
    St. Peter said to the people on Pentecost, “Be baptized… and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2:38-39). This is a clear implication that children are accepted in baptism.
    Holy Scripture records several occasions where families and entire households were baptized together (Acts 16:14-15, 33; 1 Cor 1:16). This is another implication that children were baptized.
    There is not a single biblical verse that supports the prevention of infants’ baptism. On the contrary, our Lord said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 19:14), and “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven” (Mt 18:10)

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Oh look, another source that proves that Copts are not Pelagians...
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,514
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Oh look, another source that proves that Copts are not Pelagians...
I never said Copts are. I said fr Peter is.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,364
Oh look, another source that proves that Copts are not Pelagians...
I never said Copts are. I said fr Peter is.

I think its strait up Pelagianism. The OO teach it.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Oh look, another source that proves that Copts are not Pelagians...
I never said Copts are. I said fr Peter is.

I think its strait up Pelagianism. The OO teach it.

THANK YOU! I just knew I remembered that there was a statement like that from him somewhere, but I couldn't quite find it.


Tzimis, I try to give you the benefit of the doubt when Iconodule calls you a liar. But it's getting more and more difficult.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,514
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Well, he is there teacher on this forum and the only exposure I have with OO. I can also link his teachings on another forum where he explicitly states that there is no such thing as Ansesreral sin.  Maybe someone can start a new thread and directly ask them if they believe in it. Would clear it up.

Offline Xavier

  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary through the Holy Souls in Purgatorial Purification.
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,040
  • Mary Co-Redemptrix, pray for Re-Union of Churches.
    • Marian Apostolate Life Offering.
  • Faith: Traditional Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Quote from: Sethrak
I accept the absolute sinless view of Maryam ~ and Christ fruit of her womb

+1, Sethrak. As discussed on the other thread, not only Latin but Byzantine Tradition amply supports it, as even Eamonomae mentioned on this thread. Here is Documentation from Byzantine Sources that the Most Holy Virgin Maryam, our Mother, was sanctified in the Womb from the First Moment of Her Conception: "First of all – the patriarch Photius. In his first homily on the Annunciation, he says that Mary was sanctified ek Brephous. This is not an easy term to translate; the primary meaning of Brephos is that of a child in the embryonic state. Ek means origin or starting point. The phrase seems to me to mean not that Mary was sanctified in the embryonic state, that is to say, during her existence in her mother’s womb, but that she was sanctified from the moment of her existence as an embryo, from the very first moment of her formation – therefore – from the moment of her conception. (1)

A contemporary and opponent of Photius, the monk Theognostes, wrote in a homily for the feast of the Dormition, that Mary was conceived by “a sanctifying action”, ex arches – from the beginning. It seems to me that this ex arches exactly corresponds to the “in primo instanti“ of Roman theology. (2)

St Euthymes, patriarch of Constantinople (+917), in the course of a homily on the conception of St Anne (that is to say, on Mary’s conception by Anne and Joachim) said that it was on this very day (touto semerou) that the Father fashioned a tabernacle (Mary) for his Son, and that this tabernacle was “fully sanctified” (kathagiazei). There again we find the idea of Mary’s sanctification in primo instanti conceptionis. (3)

Let us now turn to more explicit evidence.

(St) Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of the hesychasm (+1360) in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand, Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans conceptionis“, and on the other, he states quite as categorically as any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”. (4)

The Emperor Manuel II Paleologus (+1425) also pronounced a homily on the Dormition. In it, he affirms in precise terms Mary’s sanctification in primo instanti. He says that Mary was full of grace “from the moment of her conception” and that as soon as she began to exist … there was no time when Jesus was not united to her”. We must note that Manuel was no mere amateur in theology. He had written at great length on the procession of the Holy Spirit and had taken part in doctrinal debates during his journeys in the West. One can, therefore, consider him as a qualified representative of the Byzantine theology of his time. (5)

George Scholarios (+1456), the last Patriarch of the Byzantine Empire, has also left us a homily on the Dormition and an explicit affirmation of the Immaculate Conception. He says that Mary was “all pure from the first moment of her existence” (gegne theion euthus). (6)" https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church/ When on the Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne, the Byzantine Liturgy says, "This Day, O Faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the Spotless Lamb, the Most Pure Tabernacle, Mary.", it's a mystery to me how She Who is described as Most Pure and Spotless can be thought by some to be Spotted, and presumably not Most Pure as well, in opposition to all the Liturgy explicitly declares here.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2019, 11:58:19 AM by Xavier »
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

"Pray the Rosary every day to obtain Peace for the world"

Offline Xavier

  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary through the Holy Souls in Purgatorial Purification.
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,040
  • Mary Co-Redemptrix, pray for Re-Union of Churches.
    • Marian Apostolate Life Offering.
  • Faith: Traditional Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Quote from: Gloria Tibi Trinitas
she was conceived with original sin. Yet, the Holy Spirit came on her in the womb and sanctified her in the same manner as Jeremiah and John the Baptist

Hi Gloria Tibi Trinitas. It's true that in the medieval Latin period, there was the true doctrine taught by the Latin Fathers, and another theory apart from it, (1) The Immaculate Conception as held by St. Anselm, (2) "immaculate animation" (Mary was sanctified the instant after conception) as held by St. Bernard. But both groups agreed the Blessed Mother was personally sinless and Trent defined this. It seems to me that Orthodox who believe today in the sinlessness of the Theotokos are quite close to Catholics. And if Catholic and Orthodox Bishops agree, they can define at least that Mother Mary is personally sinless, even if, as you believe, sanctified after conception.

Regarding St. Thomas, yes, in many passages, he expresses what to him seemed a difficulty, namely, how it was that Mary was redeemed. According to what St. Thomas felt at one point in his life, it seemed the Blessed Mother, after having one moment in sin, could then be redeemed by Christ at a later moment. But at other times, the analogy of the bird saved from falling into a pit, saved pre-emptively not after its fall, was proposed. St. Thomas at times held to the Immaculate Conception itself, as when the Doctor wrote "Purity is increased by withdrawing from its opposite: hence there can be a creature than whom no more pure is possible in creation, if it be free from all contagion of sin: and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin who was immune from original and actual sin." (From: "puritas intenditur per recessum a contrario: et ideo potest aliquid creatum inveniri quo nihil purius esse potest in rebus creatis, si nulla contagione peccati inquinatum sit; et talis fuit puritas beatae virginis, quae a peccato originali et actuali immunis fuit." Please see: http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/snp1042.html#3184 - but I don't mean to deny the Doctor seemed uncertain about it), and thus the disagreement carried on. But as was noted by Rev. Fr. Kappes, the Byzantine Theologians often favored the Immaculatists. That's why historically speaking, many say Byzantine Mariology was close to the IC.

At any rate, it will have to be more carefully considered in future, hopefully in a joint council between Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Tzimis quoted St. Irenaeus,
Quote from: St. Irenaeus
And if the former (Eve) did disobey God, yet the latter (Mary) was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocate) of the Virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience.

Amen to St. Irenaeus. There's nothing in the whole passage that a Catholic would disagree with, as far I can see. St. Irenaeus insists the Virgin Mary was in every way like the virgin Eve. But the virgin Eve was in the state of original innocence. Thus, we hold that Mary, as New Eve, was in that state in which Eve was in when she was created, before she had fallen. Mary actually ended up being all that Eve should have been.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2019, 12:16:15 PM by Xavier »
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

"Pray the Rosary every day to obtain Peace for the world"

Offline Gloria Tibi Trinitas

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Quote from: Gloria Tibi Trinitas
she was conceived with original sin. Yet, the Holy Spirit came on her in the womb and sanctified her in the same manner as Jeremiah and John the Baptist

Hi Gloria Tibi Trinitas. It's true that in the medieval Latin period, there was the true doctrine taught by the Latin Fathers, and another theory apart from it, (1) The Immaculate Conception as held by St. Anselm, (2) "immaculate animation" (Mary was sanctified the instant after conception) as held by St. Bernard. But both groups agreed the Blessed Mother was personally sinless and Trent defined this. It seems to me that Orthodox who believe today in the sinlessness of the Theotokos are quite close to Catholics. And if Catholic and Orthodox Bishops agree, they can define at least that Mother Mary is personally sinless, even if, as you believe, sanctified after conception.

Regarding St. Thomas, yes, in many passages, he expresses what to him seemed a difficulty, namely, how it was that Mary was redeemed. According to what St. Thomas felt at one point in his life, it seemed the Blessed Mother, after having one moment in sin, could then be redeemed by Christ at a later moment. But at other times, the analogy of the bird saved from falling into a pit, saved pre-emptively not after its fall, was proposed. St. Thomas at times held to the Immaculate Conception itself, as when the Doctor wrote "Purity is increased by withdrawing from its opposite: hence there can be a creature than whom no more pure is possible in creation, if it be free from all contagion of sin: and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin who was immune from original and actual sin." (From: "puritas intenditur per recessum a contrario: et ideo potest aliquid creatum inveniri quo nihil purius esse potest in rebus creatis, si nulla contagione peccati inquinatum sit; et talis fuit puritas beatae virginis, quae a peccato originali et actuali immunis fuit." Please see: http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/snp1042.html#3184 - but I don't mean to deny the Doctor seemed uncertain about it), and thus the disagreement carried on. But as was noted by Rev. Fr. Kappes, the Byzantine Theologians often favored the Immaculatists. That's why historically speaking, many say Byzantine Mariology was close to the IC.

At any rate, it will have to be more carefully considered in future, hopefully in a joint council between Catholic and Orthodox churches.
I would agree that there is not a great chasm for the most part in terms of official Catholic doctrine. What St. Bernard says makes sense. It explains how the  Mother of God is pure of all sin without ascribing to her something only proper of Christ. I think the IC is wrong because it fails to explain any differentiation between the human perfection of Christ unique to His mediation and Mary's absolute purity, which leads some (I know the Vatican doesn't dogmatize this) in the Catholic Church to conclude she is "co-redemptrix". While she does participate in aiding our salvation through her intercession and the role she played in giving birth to our Lord, I think this verges too far in exalting her beyond reason into a demigod.

That said, I am aware some Orthodox theologians have taught the Immaculate Conception in the past in various forms, including St. Dmitry of Rostov. An Orthodox Christian cannot be deemed as a heretic for holding the IC, as Bishop Kallistos Ware said if I remember correctly. It shouldn't be a communion dividing issue per se if an explanation of how her sinlessness differs from Christ's is made and the individual extremes of putting Mary on the same level as Christ the High Priest are extinguished.

That's interesting that St. Thomas said that. Do you think he's referring to be immunized to original sin at the very conception?

I own the book by Fr. Kappes on the IC but have yet to read the whole thing. So far, from the little I did read, it has informed my opinion that the IC is very close to the truth but fails only in the respect it doesn't account for the fact that Christ is our only perfect human representative. Mary is sinless but even in her role as new Eve she cannot qualify as our Redeemer.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2019, 06:18:10 PM by Gloria Tibi Trinitas »

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic/sometimes atheist
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,457
  • don't even go there!
Well, he is there teacher on this forum and the only exposure I have with OO. I can also link his teachings on another forum where he explicitly states that there is no such thing as Ansesreral sin.  Maybe someone can start a new thread and directly ask them if they believe in it. Would clear it up.

Well, there definitely is no such thing as "ansesreral" sin. Do you, by any chance, mean "ancestral"?
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Xavier

  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary through the Holy Souls in Purgatorial Purification.
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,040
  • Mary Co-Redemptrix, pray for Re-Union of Churches.
    • Marian Apostolate Life Offering.
  • Faith: Traditional Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Thanks for the response, Gloria Tibi Trinitas. Thus is an old thread and I don't know if you're still reading, but I saw your response and here's my reply:

(1) We know St. Augustine included original sin as being sin.
(2) Therefore, if St. Augustine says Mary is entirely without sin?
(3) Don't you think the Doctor is saying She had neither original or actual sin?

It's interesting you consider St. Bernard's theory of "Immaculate Animation" but not Conception to be possibly true. St. Bernard said it because he wanted Mary to be redeemed by Christ, but it seemed to him Mary needed to have sin first, at least for one instant, and then be redeemed. But St. Anselm and others said that as God can rescue a beatiful sparrow after it falls into a garbage bin and thus becomes dirty, He can also rescue the same beautiful sparrow by preventing her from falling in the first place; and it is fitting He do this for just One Person, His Mother.

I would argue as follows. Theosis means that the Creature becomes by Grace all that God is by Nature, as we become sons and daughters of God.

(1) Mary is the Model of Theosis. But She wouldn't be a perfect Model unless She were perfectly divinized, sinless by Grace as He is by Nature.
(2) Further, Scripture calls both Jesus and Mary Full of Grace, although in different senses. Jesus is the Source of Grace, Mary has all His Graces.
(3) As Jesus in His Humanity had no original sin, and this was due to Him by Nature; so one could say Mary had no original sin, by His Gift of Grace.

These are confirmed by Biblical Parallels like the Ark of the Covenant being created out of stainless gold, a Patristic Parallel applied to Mary.

The final statement in St. Augustine, that Mary's new birth and its abundant grace dissolves our old condition of original sin is another indicator that birth was grace-filled and Holy. St. Andrew of Crete calls the Holy Theotokos the Firstfruits of the Second Creation. But the Second Creation must be greater than the first. Hence, Mary must have been created greater than Eve. But Eve was created Immaculate. Hence, Mary too must have been created Immaculate; and preserved it for all of us.

God bless, Gloria.
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

"Pray the Rosary every day to obtain Peace for the world"

Offline recent convert

  • Orthodox Chrisitan
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,451
  • St.David of Wales pray for us
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
In chapter 34 of the translation of the Enchiridion of St. Augustine ( I have), he states it was her faith not lust that made St. Mary as worthy of being Theotokos. This seems, to me anyway, to line up with the praises we give her as more honorable than the angels & magnification but not an immaculate conception.

http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augenchiridion/enchiridion24-53.html

St. Augustine wrote this late in life for the average layperson & it is straight to the point on his theology & ecclesiology. Our retired parish priest (formerly RCC) told me Augustine’s theology is not always reliable but his ecclesiology is. This is the only work of St. Augustine i really have some knowledge on but he also affirms the Orthodox Trinity ( no filioque) via a more ancient Apostles Creed.
Antiochian OC NA

Beware the wrath of the guardians of "love."