One Baptism for the remission of sins

[repentant]

Yes, she is not free from the effects of Original Sin. That is not what you are saying.

You haven't addressed how the Theotokos remained sinless between her birth and the Annunction given your understanding of Original Sin.



Somehow I don't think the problem here is my lack of understanding.



Very nice.

Show me where in your quote of the EP, where he says that she was sinless from birth to Annunctiation. And show me where I said she was. Again if you actually read what you quoted the EP on, he never said she was sinless and free of original sin until she was blessed by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus was incarnate in her womb.

Here is the EP again, pay attention...
"Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain."
Here he clearly says that she was not reinstated to the pre fall condition, at her conception, but after being visited by the Holy Spirit.

In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin,


Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.
Here he says that she was not blemished by original sin, because she was reborn in Christ. That means her Baptism so to say, was the Incarnation of Christ in her womb.

 

[MariaRegina]

So we all agree that there, unless we can show otherwise, there are two upheld traditions in the Church of requiring a lifetime confession and NOT requiring it before baptism? I was hoping that others couls share documetation regarding this (apart from mere observations and what the Creed may or may not imply).

I do know that it was some priominent Orthodx Author (Bp. Kallistos??) who talked about baptism for the Orthodox as being PRIMARILY for entrance into the Church (replacing the Old Covenant of circumcision). Surely it forgives sins... if you've committed any... and for babies who have not in any way sinned it allows for the forgiveness of sins becuase it is, again, primarily as an entrance into the Church, by way of which we recieve forgiveness of sins through the sacraments and striving to live a life for God. So, it seems to be that the Creed was not trying to define all that Baptism is for, but rather clear up a misunderstanding (or erradicate a heresey) that was promintent at the time. But I don't know that. Because of this, I would love any documentation that talks about Baptism and its purpose(s) per the Early Church and thus the Orthodox Church, although I would like to see Early documentation). If anyone has that, it would be great.

Thanks,

John

Dear John:

My question in the OP was similar to this.

And I still have not received the answer.

The Roman Catholic Church has the tradition (now at least) of not requiring a catechumen to make a full life confession. My husband was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church as an adult (post-VaticanII) and was not required to make a full-life confession either before his Baptism or shortly afterward.

However, in the Orthodox Church, I have observed two different traditions.
In the Greek Church, the catechumen does not make a full life confession before Baptism ... but is requested to do so after Baptism. However, some never do and the priest doesn't force them to do so, so it seems more of a recommendation.

Several members here said that they did make a full life confessoin just prior to Baptism, but others said that they did not have to at all.

So, there seems to be different practices.

When did these divergent practices emerge?

Have we always had different practices in the Church?

 

[Akathist]

So, there seems to be different practices.

When did these divergent practices emerge?

Have we always had different practices in the Church?

I think that there have been different practices in the church for a very very long period of time on matters not considered essential by Bishops and Patriarchs. I believe that God's grace is sufficent to overcome any deficiencieis that may or may not be happening.


That said, I don't think that someone who did not have a Lifetime confession is any less forgiven than I, who had one. My Priest is very into Spiritual Direction to the point where he meets with different one's of us in the church once or more a month for an hour or more of individual time. He probably wants lifetime confessions for this reason. Other Priest have different strengths in their parish ministry and have larger parishes and different interests or skills and have different practices.

That is my opinion of course. I don't know that there is some rule that adult catacumens are to have confession here or there or about recent events or all past sins, etc.

 

[repentant]

It's probably a jurisdictional thing. Don't forget we all have our own Patriarchs. So it's not unlikely that each one can be a little different. Although it is uncanonical to confess a non-Orthodox, if the people who gave liftime confessions where actually given the serivice of making a catechumen, then maybe it is possible. Plus alot of canons are over looked nowadays, or we would all be excommunicated, lol.

 

[Akathist]

I gave my lifetime confession after being made an official catachumen (in fact several months after). But I was NOT given the rite of reconciliation until the end of the Baptism/Chrismation service.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

It's probably a jurisdictional thing. Don't forget we all have our own Patriarchs. So it's not unlikely that each one can be a little different. Although it is uncanonical to confess a non-Orthodox, if the people who gave liftime confessions where actually given the serivice of making a catechumen, then maybe it is possible. Plus alot of canons are over looked nowadays, or we would all be excommunicated, lol.

I love listening to Fr. Hopko's lecture tapes. On one he talks about some canons where priests are supposed to have the entire Psalter committed to memory. He said that often when he hears a priest complaining about people not following the canons, he is tempted to demand they recite the Psalter from memory.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I gave my lifetime confession after being made an official catachumen (in fact several months after). But I was NOT given the rite of reconciliation until the end of the Baptism/Chrismation service.

Yes, and I believe this MUST always wait until after becaue it is absolution that is the sacrament. Confession is just a necessary precursor... how I understand it.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Dear John:

My question in the OP was similar to this.

And I still have not received the answer.

The Roman Catholic Church has the tradition (now at least) of not requiring a catechumen to make a full life confession. My husband was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church as an adult (post-VaticanII) and was not required to make a full-life confession either before his Baptism or shortly afterward.

However, in the Orthodox Church, I have observed two different traditions.
In the Greek Church, the catechumen does not make a full life confession before Baptism ... but is requested to do so after Baptism. However, some never do and the priest doesn't force them to do so, so it seems more of a recommendation.

Several members here said that they did make a full life confessoin just prior to Baptism, but others said that they did not have to at all.

So, there seems to be different practices.

When did these divergent practices emerge?

Have we always had different practices in the Church?

I'm still curious if anyone has any documentation to shed any light on these questions that Aria and I were wondering about.

 

[Rilian]

Show me where in your quote of the EP, where he says that she was sinless from birth to Annunctiation. And show me where I said she was.

It's not what you said, it's the implication of what you're saying. I think the real problem is you haven't defined exactly what you mean by original sin. Though perhaps you mean the corruption of human nature and the introduction of death in to the world, you're saying things that make it sound like that's not all you mean. When you have said

We are born with sin. The sin of Adam and Eve. How can you doubt this? It's not just death, death was a result of sin.

We are born with the sin of Adam and Eve with us

I said we are born with the sin of Adam and must be cleansed

we are always in a state of sin, and always have sin within us.

You sound a lot like you think original sin is something personally within us, a stain on our souls, and not primarily an absence of communion with God and something we suffer the effects of. You make it sound like this is an objective state of sin. The implication would be that humanity, and of course then the Theotokos, does not simply suffer from the effects of the Fall. Were that true the Theotokos would not be sinless, which she is and which many church Fathers have testified to.

So perhaps I'm just not clear on what you mean by original sin and so perhaps then the consequence of what you're saying is not really that the Theotokos sinned. I will just lay that aside and assume it's not what you mean.

Again if you actually read what you quoted the EP on, he never said she was sinless and free of original sin until she was blessed by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus was incarnate in her womb.

I read the article. The insult is not necessary and does nothing to advance your argument.

Here is the EP again, pay attention...
"Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain."
Here he clearly says that she was not reinstated to the pre fall condition, at her conception, but after being visited by the Holy Spirit.

In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin,


Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.
Here he says that she was not blemished by original sin, because she was reborn in Christ. That means her Baptism so to say, was the Incarnation of Christ in her womb.

I would say consider the passage below that I quote out of an article by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos on the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary. His Eminence I think states well the meaning and effects of original sin and states most clearly of anywhere I have seen the meaning of the conception of the Theotokos and her state before God from that time to the Annunciation. I think it is a much better piece than what is in the interview with the Ecumenical Patriarch. I bolded the parts I think are most relevant.

The Archangel Gabriel called the Virgin Mary "full of grace." He told her: "Rejoice, O thou who art full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women" (Luke 1:28-29). The Virgin Mary is called "full of grace" and is characterised as "blessed" since God is with her.

According to Saint Gregory Palamas and other holy Fathers, the Virgin Mary had already been filled with grace, and was not just filled with grace on the day of the Annunciation. Having remained in the holy of holies of the Temple, she reached the holy of holies of the spiritual life, theosis. If the courtyard of the Temple was destined for the proselytes and the main Temple for the priests, then the holy of holies was destined for the high priest. There the Virgin Mary entered, a sign that she had reached theosis. It is known that in the Christian age, the narthex was destined for the catechumens and the impure, the main church for the illumined, the members of the Church, and the holy of holies (altar) for those who had reached theosis.

Thus, the Virgin Mary had reached theosis even before she received the visitation of the Archangel. Toward this goal, she used a special method of knowing God and communing with God, as Saint Gregory Palamas interprets in a wonderful and divinely inspired manner. This refers to stillness, the hesychastic way. The Virgin Mary realised that no one can reach God with reasoning, with the senses, with imagination or human glory, but rather only through the intellect. Thus she deadened all the powers of the soul that came from the senses, and through noetic prayer she activated the intellect. In this manner she reached illumination and theosis. And for this reason she was granted to become the Mother of Christ, to give her flesh to Christ. She didn't have simply virtues, but the god-making Grace of God.

The Virgin Mary had the fullness of God's Grace, in comparison to (other) people. Of course, Christ, as the Word of God, has the whole fullness of Graces, but the Virgin Mary received the fullness of Grace from the fullness of Graces of her Son. For this reason, in relation to Christ she is lower, since - Christ had the Grace by nature, whereas the Virgin Mary had it through participation. In relation to people, however, she is higher.

The Virgin Mary had the fullness of Grace, from the fullness of Graces of her Son, prior to the conception, during the conception and after the conception. Prior to the conception the fullness of Grace was perfect, during the conception it was more perfect, and after the conception it was very perfect (St. Nikodemos the Haghiorite). In this manner the Virgin Mary was a virgin in body and a virgin in soul. And this physical virginity of hers is higher and more perfect than the virginity of the souls of the Saints, which is achieved through the energy of the All-holy Spirit.

No human is born delivered of the original sin. The fall of Adam and of Eve and the consequences of this fall were inherited by the whole human race. It was natural that the Virgin Mary would not be delivered from the original sin. The word of the Apostle Paul is clear: "all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). In this apostolic passage it shows that sin is considered to be a deprivation of the glory of God, and furthermore that no one is delivered from it. Thus, the Virgin Mary was born with the original sin. When, though, was she delivered from it? The answer to this question must be freed from scholastic viewpoints.

To begin with we must say that the original sin was the deprivation of the glory of God, the estrangement from God, the loss of communion with God. This also had physical consequences, however, because in the bodies of Adam and of Eve corruption and death entered. When in the Orthodox Tradition there is talk of inheriting the original sin, this does not mean the inheriting of the guilt of the original sin, but mainly its consequences, which are corruption and death. Just as when the root of a plant dies, the branches and the leaves become ill, so it happened with the fall of Adam. The whole human race became ill. The corruption and death which man inherits is the favourable climate for the cultivation of passions and in this manner the intellect of man is darkened.

Precisely for this reason the adoption by Christ through His Incarnation of this mortal and suffering body, without sin, aided in correcting the consequences of Adam's sin. Theosis existed in the Old Testament as well, just as the illumination of the intellect also did, but death had not been abolished; for this reason the god-seeing Prophets all went to Hades. With Christ's Incarnation and His Resurrection, human nature was deified and thus the possibility was given to each person to be deified. Because with holy Baptism we become members of the deified and resurrected Body of Christ, for this reason we say that through holy Baptism man is delivered from the original sin.
When we apply these things to the case of the Virgin Mary we can understand her relationship with the original sin and her being freed from it. The Virgin Mary was born with the original sin; she had all the consequences of corruption and death in her body. With her entrance into the holy of holies, she reached theosis. This theosis though was not enough to deliver her from its consequences, which are corruption and death, precisely because the divine nature had not yet united with the human nature in the hypostasis of the Word. Thus, at the moment when, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the divine nature was united with human nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Virgin Mary first tasted her freedom from the so-called original sin and its consequences. Furthermore, at that moment that which Adam and Eve failed to do with their free personal struggle, occurred. For this reason, the Virgin Mary at the moment of the Annunciation reached a greater state than that in which Adam and Eve were prior to the fall. She was granted to taste the end of the goal of creation, as we will see in other analyses.

For this reason for the Virgin Mary Pentecost did not have to happen, it was not necessary for her to be baptised. That which the Apostles experienced on the day of Pentecost, when they became members of Christ's Body through the Holy Spirit, and that which happened to all of us during the mystery of Baptism, occurred for the Virgin Mary on the day of Annunciation. Then she was delivered from the original sin, not in the sense that she was delivered from the guilt, but that she obtained the theosis in her soul and body, due to her union with Christ.

The full text of the article is here.

I'll also mention that I hesitated in posting here again because I felt a great deal of anger earlier. I will not post in this thread again and may take some time away from the board.

 

[MariaRegina]

Thanks for posting this speech, Rilian.

You will be missed and I surely hope that you will come back to TAW.

 

[repentant]

Rilian, don't leave on account of me. I am sure when you say anger you are talking about me. I am not angry, I am just writing on a message board. I don't really know how writing can convay anger without SOME THING LIKE THIS!!!! That to me would seem like anger.


What I am basically saying, since my point hasn't come across, yet (I am sorry English is not my first language, let alone trying to convey what I am saying in writing). We are all born with a stain. This stain is from the sin of our ancestors, Adam and Eve. It is called original sin, because, we suffer the effects of Adam and Eve's sin, death and sinfullness. We are not held liable for this sin, but we need to be cleansed from it in order to acheive the state of Grace, the Adam and Eve had pre-fall. The only difference is, we can not reach it on earth but, we reach it in heaven. Their are saints who reached Grace on earth, such as the Theotokos, but they did not reach the full state of Grace until after their death, and they entered heaven, and are in full communion with God, like Adam and Eve were pre fall.
I never said anything against the EP's quote you posted, but probably said it in a different way. Also some parts of the new letter you posted, contradicts the firts letter you posted by the EP.

 

[MariaRegina]

Repentant,

What is your first language? You seem to have an excellent command of the written English language.

I teach and tutor Intensive English at my university. So I know the struggles you are experiencing. There was one lady who just received her Masters in Linguistics. She had tremendous difficulty pronouncing English and could not say one sentence without great difficulty, but she excelled in her written papers. Somehow she passed the English exam mandated by the university (TOEFL).

 

[Akathist]

Rilian, don't leave on account of me. I am sure when you say anger you are talking about me. I am not angry, I am just writing on a message board. I don't really know how writing can convay anger without SOME THING LIKE THIS!!!! That to me would seem like anger.
.

repenant, when you say things like "Am I amoung Orthodox?" (or was it "sometimes I don't think I am among Orthodox"?) and "if you had read ... that you posted..." it comes accross as angry and arguementative. You don't have to use all caps to express anger.

You mentioned that you don't feel that your message is getting across about Original Sin, and I think that it is not a language barrier. I think that others here do not agree with you.

I am not an expert on this subject. I think that baptism is not so much about Original Sin as it is the "Putting on Christ" (the prayer we sing at Baptism). You don't agree. Sometimes I feel that my message is not "getting through", but I realize that you and I just disagree.

I am not an expert. I could be wrong. Or, on the part that I stated at least once... that Baptism is about many layers of things.. I could be right. But again, you don't seem to agree. You probably understand what I say, but don't agree.

Nevertheless, this topic is educational for me. Thank you.

 

[repentant]

Repentant,

What is your first language? You seem to have an excellent command of the written English language.

I teach and tutor Intensive English at my university. So I know the struggles you are experiencing. There was one lady who just received her Masters in Linguistics. She had tremendous difficulty pronouncing English and could not say one sentence without great difficulty, but she excelled in her written papers. Somehow she passed the English exam mandated by the university (TOEFL).

My first language is Greek. I also can speak some Turkish, or Arabic. And I appreciate your comments on my English, but I know it is horrible, lol.

 

[repentant]

repenant, when you say things like "Am I amoung Orthodox?" (or was it "sometimes I don't think I am among Orthodox"?) and "if you had read ... that you posted..." it comes accross as angry and arguementative. You don't have to use all caps to express anger.

You mentioned that you don't feel that your message is getting across about Original Sin, and I think that it is not a language barrier. I think that others here do not agree with you.

I am not an expert on this subject. I think that baptism is not so much about Original Sin as it is the "Putting on Christ" (the prayer we sing at Baptism). You don't agree. Sometimes I feel that my message is not "getting through", but I realize that you and I just disagree.

I am not an expert. I could be wrong. Or, on the part that I stated at least once... that Baptism is about many layers of things.. I could be right. But again, you don't seem to agree. You probably understand what I say, but don't agree.

Nevertheless, this topic is educational for me. Thank you.

I don't think that we neccasarily disagree, it is just we are coming on here with 2 different points of view. You say we put on Christ when we are Baptized, which I agree with. But this topic was about Baptism for foregiveness of sins. This is the point of Baptism I am speaking of. There are alot of things Baptism does for the soul.