Did Mary ever need forgiveness of sin?

[Standing Up]

Per the Catholics yes, per the Orthodox no.

But again, "ancestral sin" and its consequences mean something different to the Orthodox (at least from the Protestant view), and my understanding is they would not say that Jesus was free of "ancestral sin" either.

My point again is simply there is not this line that can be drawn that says the Catholic are on one side of it and everybody else on the other. The Orthodox have their own take that's different from both.

So Mary was free from ancestral sin, but Jesus wasn't. Doesn't make sense, eh? I mean Spirit was free, Mary was free, but Jesus wasn't. Or maybe Spriti was free, Mary wasn't free, Jesus had both.

 

[narnia59]

So Mary was free from ancestral sin, but Jesus wasn't. Doesn't make sense, eh? I mean Spirit was free, Mary was free, but Jesus wasn't. Or maybe Spriti was free, Mary wasn't free, Jesus had both.

It seems like you're taking a piece of one group's teaching, matching it up with another group's teaching and trying to say someone is inconsistent?

There is indeed inconsistency between the various groups, but I don't think what you're pointing out is an inconsistency of a particular group.

Catholics would say that the nature of Christ was free from original sin. They would say that the nature of Mary was free from original sin. The difference between the two is that Christ is sinless by nature, and Mary is sinless by grace. Her state is directly a result of the merits of her son, while his is inherent in his nature.

The Orthodox (I think, they can correct me if I'm wrong) would say that both Mary and Jesus experienced ancestral sin, by their definition of what that means -- which is different from the Protestant definition, and they would say is different from the Catholic view (I'm not so sure about that).

Protestants would say that Jesus was free from original sin but Mary was not.

There is no group that teaches that Mary was free from ancestral sin but Jesus was not free from ancestral sin that I know of. So who are you talking about?

 

[Nick T]

Actually I'm pretty sure that in Orthodoxy, Christ did not assume our fallen nature. That is the human nature of Christ was entirely unfallen and without the consequences of the fall or ancestral sin.

However Christ voluntarily despite his pure and unfallen state chose to accept the consequences of Adam's sin- death on the cross, thirst, suffering ect. This does not mean that his human nature was fallen, rather than he chose to experience of consequences of our fall in order to unite and redeem us, despite his human nature having no compulsion to do so. It might be fine distinction, but I think it is an important one.

As for the Theotokos, she could not have been free from ancestral sin, as she died a natural death, and death is a consequence of the fall. Certainly she was free from all personal sin, which is why we call her the "Panagia" or "all-holy one", but not ancestral sin.

 

[narnia59]

Actually I'm pretty sure that in Orthodoxy, Christ did not assume our fallen nature. That is the human nature of Christ was entirely unfallen and without the consequences of the fall or ancestral sin.

However Christ voluntarily despite his pure and unfallen state chose to accept the consequences of Adam's sin- death on the cross, thirst, suffering ect. This does not mean that his human nature was fallen, rather than he chose to experience of consequences of our fall in order to unite and redeem us, despite his human nature having no compulsion to do so. It might be fine distinction, but I think it is an important one.

As for the Theotokos, she could not have been free from ancestral sin, as she died a natural death, and death is a consequence of the fall. Certainly she was free from all personal sin, which is why we call her the "Panagia" or "all-holy one", but not ancestral sin.

So you would disagree with those Orthodox who say that Mary actually did have some personal sin?

And are you saying that Christ's human nature is not identical to ours in that ours is fallen and his was not?

I always get so confused when I try to figure this out.

 

[Dorothea]

This I think is the crux of the difference between the Catholic/Orthodox view.

Catholics do not believe that 'what it means to be human' is equivalent to our fallen state. We were not created to be in this state -- it is a result of the fall. We are 'less human' now than Adam was before the fall because we are less than God created humanity to be.

In the Catholic view, Christ does not need to assume the condition of fallen humanity in order to redeem us. The humanity he assumes is as God created it to be. He doesn't have to come down into the pit to bring us out of the pit.

He still experiences much of the consequences of fallen humanity because he is living as a human in a fallen world. Those consequences he experiences are not the result of his human nature being fallen, but of ours.

I found this quote from Fr. George Florovsky on this issue:

It must be stressed that in the Incarnation the Word assumes the original human nature, innocent and free from original sin, without any stain. This does not violate the fullness of nature, nor does this affect the Savior’s likeness to us sinful people. For sin does not belong to human nature, but is a parasitic and abnormal growth. This point was vigorously stressed by St. Gregory of Nyssa and particularly by St. Maximus the Confessor in connection with their teaching of the will as the seat of sin.7 In the Incarnation the Word assumes the first-formed human nature, created "in the image of God," and thereby the image of God is again re-established in man.8

 

[narnia59]

I found this quote from Fr. George Florovsky on this issue:

It must be stressed that in the Incarnation the Word assumes the original human nature, innocent and free from original sin, without any stain. This does not violate the fullness of nature, nor does this affect the Savior’s likeness to us sinful people. For sin does not belong to human nature, but is a parasitic and abnormal growth. This point was vigorously stressed by St. Gregory of Nyssa and particularly by St. Maximus the Confessor in connection with their teaching of the will as the seat of sin.7 In the Incarnation the Word assumes the first-formed human nature, created "in the image of God," and thereby the image of God is again re-established in man.8

That's interesting. I thought the Orthodox didn't refer to original sin in terms of a 'stain' at all. That quote actually sounds more Catholic to me than anything I've seen from an Orthodox.

And unless I'm missing something, it's in direct contradiction to the one from Ware?

Secondly, this notion of salvation as sharing implies -- although many have been reluctant to say this openly -- that Christ assumed not just unfallen but fallen human nature.

Have I ever told you guys how much talking to you about this stuff makes my head hurt??

 

[Dorothea]

That's interesting. I thought the Orthodox didn't refer to original sin in terms of a 'stain' at all. That quote actually sounds more Catholic to me than anything I've seen from an Orthodox.

And unless I'm missing something, it's in direct contradiction to the one from Ware?

Secondly, this notion of salvation as sharing implies -- although many have been reluctant to say this openly -- that Christ assumed not just unfallen but fallen human nature.

Have I ever told you guys how much talking to you about this stuff makes my head hurt??

It sounds like Bishop Ware is talking about Christ taking on our sins and death = fallen nature, but he wasn't born with it - fallen nature.

Here's some other info on it:

The first-created Adam was unable to fulfil the vocation laid before him: to attain deification and bring to God the visible world by means of spiritual and moral perfection. Having broken the commandment and having fallen away from the sweetness of Paradise, he had the way to deification closed to him. Yet everything that the first man left undone was accomplished for him by God Incarnate, the Word-become-flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ. He trod that path to the human person which the latter was meant to tread towards Him. And if this would have been the way of ascent for the human person, for God it was the way of humble condescension, of self-emptying (kenosis).

St Paul calls Christ the ‘second Adam’, contrasting Him with the ‘first’: ‘The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven’ (1 Cor.15:47). This parallelism was developed by St John Chrysostom, who emphasized that Adam was the prototype of Christ: ‘Adam is the image of Christ ...as the man for those who came from him, even though they did not eat of the tree, became the cause of death, then Christ for those who were born of Him, although they have done no good, became the bearer of righteousness, which he gave to all of us through the cross’.

From online Orthodox Europe catachism. Link here:
An Online Orthodox Catechism » Catechism » OrthodoxEurope.org

From the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Dogmatic Tradition of the Church:

Christ saved humankind through what He is, and through what He did for us. Beginning with St. Irenaeos, the Greek Fathers continually reiterate the statement that the Incarnate Son of God "became what we are (a human being) so that we may be deified," says St. Athanasios. By assuming our human nature, the Incarnate Logos, a divine person, brought this humanity to the heights of God. Everything that Christ did throughout His earthly life was based on the presupposition that humanity was already saved and deified, from the very moment of His conception in the womb of Mary, through the operation of the Holy Spirit.

The Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Church — Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Someone from the link below is excerpting a bit from Bishop Kallistos Ware's book on this subject:

Earlier, I mentioned the Incarnation, which, from the Christian perspective , is the pivotal event in all of human history. By taking on our human nature completely, Christ identifies with us completely and restores our broken humanity. But, the question that inevitably follows is: Why did Christ have to die on the Cross? Is it not enough that He established a covenant of love with us in His Incarnation?

Well, if we were not ‘hopelessly’ fallen this might be true. But, our fallen nature demanded a sacrificial act of healing. God shares our human nature through His Incarnation. The Cross signifies, in the most stark and uncompromising manner, that this act of sharing is carried to the utmost limits. The incarnate God enters into all our experience. Through the Cross, God experiences more than our human life: He experiences the fullness of human death.

Human death is both physical and spiritual. Physical death is the separation of the body from the soul. But, spiritual death has a far greater ramification: separation of the soul from God. Through the Cross, Christ the Incarnate God, experiences not only the pain and torment of a cruel physical death, but much more importantly, He experiences the utter emptiness of separation from His divine Father. In His Passion, Christ was “obedient unto death” not simply in the physical sense, but more importantly in the spiritual sense: in death, He is utterly alone, utterly isolated.

Salvation in Christ

I think what the Church is saying is that Christ takes on our sins and death and goes from the suffering of all of this through his hanging on the cross, His death, and resurrection. Not that he was born with our fallen nature.

I hope that helps clear it up.

 

[narnia59]

It sounds like Bishop Ware is talking about Christ taking on our sins and death = fallen nature, but he wasn't born with it - fallen nature.

Maybe so. All I know is that one of the most repeated objections I've heard from the Orthodox about the Catholic belief that Mary was conceived without original sin is it means she is not human like us. It's also been expressed as then being a problem with the Incarnation, because that would mean Jesus would not be human like us. That makes absolutely no sense. I totally agree with Fr. Florovsky's statement, and it completely agrees with a Catholic viewpoint. I just don't think in general Orthodoxy is that clear on the point.

Someone from the link below is excerpting a bit from Bishop Kallistos Ware's book on this subject:

Earlier, I mentioned the Incarnation, which, from the Christian perspective , is the pivotal event in all of human history. By taking on our human nature completely, Christ identifies with us completely and restores our broken humanity. But, the question that inevitably follows is: Why did Christ have to die on the Cross? Is it not enough that He established a covenant of love with us in His Incarnation?

Well, if we were not ‘hopelessly’ fallen this might be true. But, our fallen nature demanded a sacrificial act of healing. God shares our human nature through His Incarnation. The Cross signifies, in the most stark and uncompromising manner, that this act of sharing is carried to the utmost limits. The incarnate God enters into all our experience. Through the Cross, God experiences more than our human life: He experiences the fullness of human death.

Human death is both physical and spiritual. Physical death is the separation of the body from the soul. But, spiritual death has a far greater ramification: separation of the soul from God. Through the Cross, Christ the Incarnate God, experiences not only the pain and torment of a cruel physical death, but much more importantly, He experiences the utter emptiness of separation from His divine Father. In His Passion, Christ was “obedient unto death” not simply in the physical sense, but more importantly in the spiritual sense: in death, He is utterly alone, utterly isolated.

Salvation in Christ

I read through the rest of the information and was quite startled. Do the Orthodox really teach that Christ experienced separation from the Father on the cross????

 

[visionary]

Actually I'm pretty sure that in Orthodoxy, Christ did not assume our fallen nature. That is the human nature of Christ was entirely unfallen and without the consequences of the fall or ancestral sin.

However Christ voluntarily despite his pure and unfallen state chose to accept the consequences of Adam's sin- death on the cross, thirst, suffering ect. This does not mean that his human nature was fallen, rather than he chose to experience of consequences of our fall in order to unite and redeem us, despite his human nature having no compulsion to do so. It might be fine distinction, but I think it is an important one.

As for the Theotokos, she could not have been free from ancestral sin, as she died a natural death, and death is a consequence of the fall. Certainly she was free from all personal sin, which is why we call her the "Panagia" or "all-holy one", but not ancestral sin.

she died a natural death?

 

[Dorothea]

Maybe so. All I know is that one of the most repeated objections I've heard from the Orthodox about the Catholic belief that Mary was conceived without original sin is it means she is not human like us. It's also been expressed as then being a problem with the Incarnation, because that would mean Jesus would not be human like us. That makes absolutely no sense. I totally agree with Fr. Florovsky's statement, and it completely agrees with a Catholic viewpoint. I just don't think in general Orthodoxy is that clear on the point.



I read through the rest of the information and was quite startled. Do the Orthodox really teach that Christ experienced separation from the Father on the cross????

I believe what it's saying there is he experienced what humans experience through sinning and death at the time of his going to the Cross and dying. IOW, I believe the Bishop is trying to stress the suffering Christ went through in bearing our sins and death. No, he is never separated from the Father.

 

[Dorothea]

she died a natural death?

Yes. She reposed like the rest of humans, but we believe on the third day, Christ took her bodily up to heaven, but this is not a dogma in our Church - the Assumption.

 

[visionary]

Yes. She reposed like the rest of humans, but we believe on the third day, Christ took her bodily up to heaven, but this is not a dogma in our Church - the Assumption.

an assumption ...I see

 

[Nick T]

So you would disagree with those Orthodox who say that Mary actually did have some personal sin?

Yes, I do. The historical teaching of Orthodoxy is that Mary was free from all personal sin and our liturgy reflects this, referring to her as both "All-Holy" and "Immaculate". Its not a matter that would cause serious division; as has been mentioned some saints did not hold it. However the general historical consensus certainly leans towards sinlessness.

Maybe so. All I know is that one of the most repeated objections I've heard from the Orthodox about the Catholic belief that Mary was conceived without original sin is it means she is not human like us. It's also been expressed as then being a problem with the Incarnation, because that would mean Jesus would not be human like us. That makes absolutely no sense. I totally agree with Fr. Florovsky's statement, and it completely agrees with a Catholic viewpoint. I just don't think in general Orthodoxy is that clear on the point.

On Christ, his sinlessness, and his inheritance of ancestral/original sin both Catholic and Orthodox are I believe in agreement. Both of us agree he had no personal sin and both of us agree that he only experiences death because he voluntarily chose to do so, not that he was born into it (thereby covering both Orthodox and Catholic definitions of original/ancestral sin). Therefore that Florovsky should agree with Catholic teaching on this matter shouldn't be surprising.

When we say the Immaculate Conception separates us from Mary we are not making any kind of broad statement that the unfallen nature is somehow inhuman (on the contrary we state it is more fully human than even we are). Rather we merely express the fact that in Orthodoxy one of the great wonders of the Virgin Mary was that she, the "All-Holy one" who bore God in her womb, was fallen just like us. By saying she was not fallen you take away from this sense that she was "just one of us" as it were.

she died a natural death?

Of course! In Orthodoxy we believe that Mary died like every human being, and it was only after her death that she was resurrected and bodily assumed.

This is the biggest problem I have with the Roman doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; while I fully accept she was free from all personal sin I cannot see how she could die unless she inherited the consequences of the Fall.

 

[visionary]

Yes. She reposed like the rest of humans, but we believe on the third day, Christ took her bodily up to heaven, but this is not a dogma in our Church - the Assumption.

So was John commissioned to kill her by Jesus on the cross in order for her to be dead when He resurrected?

 

[Nick T]

So was John commissioned to kill her by Jesus on the cross in order for her to be dead when He resurrected?

Ah, a bit of a misunderstanding here; she was assumed on the third day after her death, not after Christ's!

It was years after Christ's ascension that Mary finally died of natural causes, and then resurrected/bodily assumed.

 

[Dorothea]

Ah, a bit of a misunderstanding here; she was assumed on the third day after her death, not after Christ's!

It was years after Christ's ascension that Mary finally died of natural causes, and then resurrected/bodily assumed.

 

[visionary]

Ah, a bit of a misunderstanding here; she was assumed on the third day after her death, not after Christ's!

It was years after Christ's ascension that Mary finally died of natural causes, and then resurrected/bodily assumed.

It was the third day part that has me confused.

 

[Dorothea]

It was the third day part that has me confused.

All humans rise on the third day of their repose on earth, with the exception of those there at His Second Coming. We rise just as Christ did. He showed us what happens when we die on earth, but He also showed us His rising in His crucified and glorified body. When we depart this life, we physically die. Our bodies lay lifeless in the tomb while our souls/spirits rise to be with God. Our bodies reunite with our souls/spirits at His Second Coming.

 

[visionary]

All humans rise on the third day of their repose on earth, with the exception of those there at His Second Coming. We rise just as Christ did. He showed us what happens when we die on earth, but He also showed us His rising in His crucified and glorified body. When we depart this life, we physically die. Our bodies lay lifeless in the tomb while our souls/spirits rise to be with God. Our bodies reunite with our souls/spirits at His Second Coming.

Really.. that is the first I have heard of this.

 

[narnia59]

I believe what it's saying there is he experienced what humans experience through sinning and death at the time of his going to the Cross and dying. IOW, I believe the Bishop is trying to stress the suffering Christ went through in bearing our sins and death. No, he is never separated from the Father.

I think that article was paraphrasing him... I got my copy of the book out and this is what he actually says:

Death has both a physical and a spiritual aspect, and of the two it is the spiritual that is the more terrible. Physical death is the separation of man’s body from his soul; spiritual death is the separation of man’s soul from God. When we say that Christ became “obedient unto death” (Phil. 2:8), we are not to limit these words to physical death alone. We should not think only of the bodily sufferings which Christ endured at his Passion – the scourging, the stumbling beneath the weight of the Cross, the nails, the thirst and heat, the torment of hanging stretched on the wood. The true meaning of the Passion is found, not in this only, but much more in his spiritual sufferings – in his sense of failure, isolation and utter loneliness, in the pain of love offered but rejected.

The Gospels are understandably reticent in speaking about his inward suffering, yet they provide us with certain glimpses. First, there is Christ’s Agony in the garden of Gethsemane, when he is overwhelmed by horror and dismay, when he prays in anguish to his Father, “If it is possible, let this cup pass from me” (Matt. 26:39), and when his sweat falls to the ground “like great drops of blood” (Luke 22:44). Gethsemane, as Metropolitan Antony of Kiev insisted, provides the key to our whole doctrine of the Atonement. Christ is here confronted by a choice. Under no compulsion to die, freely he chooses to do so; and by this act of voluntary self-offering he turns what would have been a piece of arbitrary violence, a judicial murder, into a redemptive sacrifice. But this act of free choice is immensely difficult. Resolving to go forward to arrest and crucifixion, Jesus experiences, in the words of William Law, “the anguishing terrors of a lost soul…the reality of eternal death”. Full weight must be given to Christ’s words at Gethsemane, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death” (Matt. 26:38). Jesus enters at this moment totally into the experience of spiritual death. He is at this moment identifying himself with all the despair and mental pain of humanity; and this identification is far more important to us than his participation in our physical pain.

A second glimpse is given us at the Crucifixion, when Christ cries out with a loud voice, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). Once again, full weight should be given to these words. Here is the extreme point of Christ’s desolation, when he feels abandoned not only by men but by God. We cannot begin to explain how it is possible for one who is himself the living God to lose awareness of the divine presence. But this at least is evident. In Christ’s Passion there is no play-acting, nothing is done for outward show. Each word from the Cross means what it says. And if the cry “My God, my God…” is to signify anything at all, it must mean that at this moment Jesus is truly experiencing the spiritual death of separation from God. Not only does he shed his blood for us, but for our sakes he accepts even the loss of God.

“He descended into hell” (Apostles’ Creed). Does this mean merely that Christ went to preach to the departed spirits during the interval between Great Friday evening and Easer morning (see 1 Pet. 3:19)? Surely it has also a deeper sense. Hell is a point not in space but in the soul. It is the place where God is not. (And yet God is everywhere!) If Christ truly “descended into hell”, that means he descended into the depths of the absence of God. Totally unreservedly, he identifies himself with all man’s anguish and alienation. He assumed it into himself, and by assuming it he healed it. There was no other way he could heal it, except by making it his own.

I don't think there's any way to read that but what he's saying -- Christ was separated from the Father. I also don't think that's Orthodox teaching at all. It seems to me he brought some of his "Protestant" into Orthodoxy with him.

Here's a book review by an Orthodox source that interprets what he said in the same way I am. It also takes him to task about the 'fallen human' nature quote.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_tow.aspx

Sorry to digress the thread... that just sent me for a loop when I saw it because it didn't seem Orthodox. Why do the Orthodox recommend his book for learning about Orthodoxy though?