Did Mary ever need forgiveness of sin?

[narnia59]

The natures are not joining, but 100% (fallen) man through Mary and 100% God through the Father.

The Council of Ephesus debated hypostasis (co-existing natures)
-cited before-wiki-

Hypostasis is the RC view. Perhaps you seem to be thinking more of one of the other views (just saying, not judging).

Hypostatis is the RC view (and anybody who accepts the Council of Chalcedon), but it does not teach that Christ assumes fallen humen nature. In fact, I'd say it teaches the opposite:

So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

The council defined his humanity as being "perfect" (hardly fallen) and that his humanity undergoes "no change" -- so it does not at some point transform from fallen into unfallen.

The Catholic church teaches Christ assumed unfallen human nature. While that question appears to be open and debatable in Orthodoxy, it is not in Catholicism. And there are certainly those in Orthodoxy who teach 'unfallen'.


Q. Has anyone been exempted from the original sin?

A. Only Jesus Christ, because He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, which, being God, is without sin, and of the Virgin Mary after her cleansing of original sin by the Holy Spirit when the Angel announced to her the conception and birth of Christ.

Official creed of the Orthodox church


We must state here in very simple terms that although the Son and Word of God became Perfect Man, He became truly perfect, which means He became man without sin, just as Adam and Eve were originally created as sinless beings. Christ has no connection with sin, which entered man through the intervention of Satan.

http://www.gometropolis.org/orthodox-faith/the-incarnation-of-the-logos/the-divine-and-human-nature-of-christ/

 

[Frogster]

There are those who would argue that Mary was a mere incubator and he did not take flesh from her, but I would say Scripture finds that notion false.
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

According to the flesh there, sarx, does not mean flesh..like in nature, because it is compared to the reusurrected Christ, it was just showing two different reallities, two different states.

We might say, "when Jesus was in the flesh", but that just would be talking of his existence on earth kind of thing.


As you know, (I hope), sarx is one of the most debated words in Paul.

Peter and Paul in acts, talked about how David decayed, but Jesus did not.

Example verse.


Heb 5:7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

 

[narnia59]

Which bloodline did Mary descended from?

We know from the geneology of Jesus that Joseph was from the line of David.

We know that generally Jews married within the same tribe, so one could assume from that Mary is from the tribe of David.

But since we know that Jesus took flesh from Mary and not Joseph, and since scripture say that "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" -- we certainly know from Scripture that she was descended from David.

 

[narnia59]

That would seem what Christ did after his resurrection he "freed" our fallen condition to that of a glorified body and soul... That is why assuming the fallen condition was "necessary" for "whatever is assumed is saved". That is why we say he took our "condition" (fallen) and glorified it (with his resurrection) to a state that of the closeness to God and beyond... Of course the fathers speculate that there will be progression 'from glory to glory" after we go to Heaven ...Although not similar but in a sense the "purgatory" is that "glory to glory" life in Christ... Maybe but would hate to derail

There's that word "necessary" again....

I would say the interpretation that Christ assumed 'fallen' nature is contradictory to the decree of the Council of Chalcedon who proclaims he was "perfect" in humanity.... fallen human nature is far from perfect.

And poor concept of what purgatory is....

 

[narnia59]

According to the flesh there, sarx, does not mean flesh..like in nature, because it is compared to the reusurrected Christ, it was just showing two different reallities, two different states.

We might say, "when Jesus was in the flesh", but that just would be talking of his existence on earth kind of thing.


As you know, (I hope), sarx is one of the most debated words in Paul.

Peter and Paul in acts, talked about how David decayed, but Jesus did not.

Example verse.


Heb 5:7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

Are you professing that Jesus is no longer in the flesh? If so, when does he 'shed' his flesh?

Frogster, you could be a poster child for Sacred Tradition and where one can end up by relying on their own wit and Scripture alone.....

 

[Frogster]

Are you professing that Jesus is no longer in the flesh? If so, when does he 'shed' his flesh?

Frogster, you could be a poster child for Sacred Tradition and where one can end up by relying on their own wit and Scripture alone.....

the point was...the point was, your usage of the romans 1;4 verse.


anyway, when you can show me how we extract the sin from the death, of rom 5, then fine, but until then......

 

[narnia59]

the point was...the point was, your usage of the romans 1;4 verse.


anyway, when you can show me how we extract the sin from the death, of rom 5, then fine, but until then......

God does it by His grace working outside the norm.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

The Catholic church teaches Christ assumed unfallen human nature. While that question appears to be open and debatable in Orthodoxy, it is not in Catholicism. And there are certainly those in Orthodoxy who teach 'unfallen'.


Q. Has anyone been exempted from the original sin?

A. Only Jesus Christ, because He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, which, being God, is without sin, and of the Virgin Mary after her cleansing of original sin by the Holy Spirit when the Angel announced to her the conception and birth of Christ.

Official creed of the Orthodox church


We must state here in very simple terms that although the Son and Word of God became Perfect Man, He became truly perfect, which means He became man without sin, just as Adam and Eve were originally created as sinless beings. Christ has no connection with sin, which entered man through the intervention of Satan.

[URL]http://www.gometropolis.org/orthodox-faith/the-incarnation-of-the-logos/the-divine-and-human-nature-of-christ/[/URL]

They are saying she was fallen nature, until the Angel cleansed her right prior to conception.

RC is saying she was "clean" from her birth.

 

[Standing Up]

There's that word "necessary" again....

I would say the interpretation that Christ assumed 'fallen' nature is contradictory to the decree of the Council of Chalcedon who proclaims he was "perfect" in humanity.... fallen human nature is far from perfect.

And poor concept of what purgatory is....

Perfect in humanity is simply like us. Flesh, blood, emotions, etc (Hebrews). Not necessarily like pre-fall Adam.

 

[narnia59]

They are saying she was fallen nature, until the Angel cleansed her right prior to conception.

RC is saying she was "clean" from her birth.

Go back and reread. The discussion was about Christ assuming unfallen human nature, which both statements say he does.

 

[narnia59]

Perfect in humanity is simply like us. Flesh, blood, emotions, etc (Hebrews). Not necessarily like pre-fall Adam.

We are far from "perfect" in humanity.....

 

[narnia59]

We're the "any old tent". He dwells in us, He saved us, while we were yet sinners, He died for us. My body His temple.

Yes, but the Holy Spirit "assumes" nothing from us as Christ did from Mary.

And we are not yet 'filled' with his glory as he dwelt in the Tabernacle. We are being transformed into the perfected dwelling place, whereas both Mary and the Tabernacle were sanctified prior.

 

[narnia59]

Also from the Council of Chalcedon:

So the proper character of both natures was maintained and came together in a single person. Lowliness was taken up by majesty, weakness by strength, mortality by eternity. To pay off the debt of our state, invulnerable nature was united to a nature that could suffer; so that in a way that corresponded to the remedies we needed, one and the same mediator between God and humanity the man Christ Jesus, could both on the one hand die and on the other be incapable of death. Thus was true God born in the undiminished and perfect nature of a true man, complete in what is his and complete in what is ours. By "ours" we mean what the Creator established in us from the beginning and what he took upon himself to restore. There was in the Saviour no trace of the things which the Deceiver brought upon us, and to which deceived humanity gave admittance. His subjection to human weaknesses in common with us did not mean that he shared our sins. He took on the form of a servant without the defilement of sin, thereby enhancing the human and not diminishing the divine. For that self-emptying whereby the Invisible rendered himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things chose to join the ranks of mortals, spelled no failure of power: it was an act of merciful favour. So the one who retained the form of God when he made humanity, was made man in the form of a servant. Each nature kept its proper character without loss; and just as the form of God does not take away the form of a servant, so the form of a servant does not detract from the form of God.

 

[Standing Up]

Go back and reread. The discussion was about Christ assuming unfallen human nature, which both statements say he does.

Believe your quotes are an interpretation of the Creed. Here's the Creed.

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;in all things like unto us, without sin;begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸ&#957, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
Nothing about perfect man defined as pre-fall, but human (truly man). Like us in all things, but w/o sin.

The question is from where did the w/o sin part come? Mary as "clean". or God. or both.

If Mary as "clean", then from her conception (RC) or right before Jesus' conception (EO apparently).

Begotten of the Father is really the definition of w/o sin. For in Adam, all have the 'fallen nature'.

 

[whitetiger1]

Are you professing that Jesus is no longer in the flesh? If so, when does he 'shed' his flesh?

Frogster, you could be a poster child for Sacred Tradition and where one can end up by relying on their own wit and Scripture alone.....

Amen. That is I am seeing a very dangerous thing. I also see the mental and spiritual gymnastic Frog has to go through to justify his ideas

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I think in the EO tradition we strongly emphasize Mary's free will in the plan of salvation for mankind; that is her "yes" oh behalf of humanity, her "let it be done to me according to thy will".

In our minds, if she was immaculately conceived, she did not have a say in the matter. She was pre-determined to conceive the savior and her free will is limited. God saved her, but not in accordance with her free-will; that is, she was saved before she was born.

Although Orthodox do accept that God chooses his elect from the foundation of the world in some way, we also strongly assert that this does not affect man's free will to accept or reject God's plan of salvation (i.e. it's a mystery).

So then to us, the I.C. teaching seems to throw a kink in this understanding; it seems to be inconsistent with how we understand grace and the free and willing reception of such. My 2 cents

 

[Ortho_Cat]

So in Orthodoxy are the consequences we inherit from Adam's sin limited to physical consequences? Or are there spiritual ones as well?

both. we are oriented towards sin and death.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I just stick to the early creeds as they did a much better job of defining the deity and humanity of Jesus then I ever could.

 

[narnia59]

I think in the EO tradition we strongly emphasize Mary's free will in the plan of salvation for mankind; that is her "yes" oh behalf of humanity, her "let it be done to me according to thy will".

In our minds, if she was immaculately conceived, she did not have a say in the matter. She was pre-determined to conceive the savior and her free will is limited. God saved her, but not in accordance with her free-will; that is, she was saved before she was born.

Although Orthodox do accept that God chooses his elect from the foundation of the world in some way, we also strongly assert that this does not affect man's free will to accept or reject God's plan of salvation (i.e. it's a mystery).

So then to us, the I.C. teaching seems to throw a kink in this understanding; it seems to be inconsistent with how we understand grace and the free and willing reception of such. My 2 cents

As Catholics we strongly emphasize Mary's free-will yes to God as well -- her fiat is the model for all of us and a response to God's grace.

So can you please explain to me the logic behind the EO view that if Mary was conceived without original sin, it means her free will was removed?

From the Catholic perspective, this is the exact same state Eve was created in, and she most certainly had the free-will to say yes to Satan. So why would the EO conclude that Mary no longer could respond to God of her own free will?

Why in Orthodoxy does no original sin result in no free will, and what is the basis for that belief? It seems to deny that Adam and Eve were ever capable of sinning in the first place.

 

[Philothei]

The IC is not in the Tradition of the East neither is that Christ assumed the pre-fall man... We just prefer to leave it at that