Did Mary ever need forgiveness of sin?

[Dorothea]

Narn, again, I think to understand what he's saying, it helps to be inside the Church because sometimes things said others cannot understand. You have experienced that as a Catholic, I'm sure.

Just reading it plainly I cannot agree with his wording, but I can understand what he's saying to a certain extent from only my POV.

First off spiritual death is worse than physical because it's eternal torment.

Is the bishop speaking of Christ from his humanity? This could make sense. Going into hades can mean separation from God because at that time, people were in hades separated from God. Christ conquered death and broke the separation of his people from him.

Why does the bishop use that terminology, I don't know. You'd have to ask him.

PS: sorry I couldn't quote you. I'm on my phone.

 

[Dorothea]

Also, I just noticed the link. That site is pretty good, but some people have said some of their info isn't very good or can be a bit OTT.

 

[narnia59]

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.

So if that is the historical teaching, am I correct that it is a more recent trend to accept that she was not sinless?

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.

So if she was fallen, how do you explain her ability to not sin as we do?

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.

I think she could die because she wasn't living in a vacuum -- she was still living in a fallen world. Creation fell along with man, right?

Your view seems to hold that the only way a person's physical nature can be impacted is by their own personal spiritual nature. I'd say that's just not true. Our bodies live in and are also impacted by the world around us, regardless of what our spiritual state may be.

Adam and Eve would not have experienced illness or death prior to their sin not simply because of their internal state of holiness, but also because creation was still intact, holy, in harmony with man, and a friend to our physical bodies. Fallen creation spews earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and germs at our physical nature. Why would an internal state of holiness make a person's body immune to fallen creation?

Christ's death was caused by the physical actions of fallen men; Mary's was caused by the physical actions of fallen creation. Is there really a difference in that? Her death does not give testimony that she was not created without original sin. It simply gives testimony that even a person in that state can be physically impacted by a fallen creation.

 

[Dorothea]

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.

Actually, the sentence following what you highlighted explains what he means. All of this is about humanity's sins and death, not his. He's experiencing these by taking upon the sins and death of the world.

 

[narnia59]

Narn, again, I think to understand what he's saying, it helps to be inside the Church because sometimes things said others cannot understand. You have experienced that as a Catholic, I'm sure.

Just reading it plainly I cannot agree with his wording, but I can understand what he's saying to a certain extent from only my POV.

First off spiritual death is worse than physical because it's eternal torment.

Is the bishop speaking of Christ from his humanity? This could make sense. Going into hades can mean separation from God because at that time, people were in hades separated from God. Christ conquered death and broke the separation of his people from him.

Why does the bishop use that terminology, I don't know. You'd have to ask him.

PS: sorry I couldn't quote you. I'm on my phone.

Maybe I should ask him. Do you think he'd answer my phone call?

Yes, I understand about having to have a certain frame of reference to best understand. But I also know that just because somebody is a bishop and a Catholic theologian, that doesn't mean he is offering authentic Catholic teaching. I would assume that would be true about Orthodoxy as well.

The problem with viewing it as being about Christ's humanity, and not the person of Christ, is that separates his divinity from his humanity, which is about as problematic as separating him from the Father.

 

[narnia59]

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.

Actually, the sentence following what you highlighted explains what he means. All of this is about humanity's sins and death, not his. He's experiencing these by taking upon the sins and death of the world.

I agree it's very much about humanity's sins, but I think it has to be very much about his death. He is the one dying, after all.

 

[Dorothea]

Maybe I should ask him. Do you think he'd answer my phone call?

Yes, I understand about having to have a certain frame of reference to best understand. But I also know that just because somebody is a bishop and a Catholic theologian, that doesn't mean he is offering authentic Catholic teaching. I would assume that would be true about Orthodoxy as well.

The problem with viewing it as being about Christ's humanity, and not the person of Christ, is that separates his divinity from his humanity, which is about as problematic as separating him from the Father.

I just think you are not understanding him as he meant. Read my last post.

Yes, Bishop Kallietos Ware is a valid and correct bishop.

 

[narnia59]

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.

Is it Orthodox doctrine that our souls rise on the 3rd day after death? What is going on in the meantime?

 

[Dorothea]

I agree it's very much about humanity's sins, but I think it has to be very much about his death. He is the one dying, after all.

Does anybody know for sure the extent of what He experienced on the cross and died and his descent into Hades. Yes, the Scriptures say He gave up His spirit on the Cross. Wouldn't this mean His humanity died? Not His divinity, which is impossible.

 

[Frogster]

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.

why isn't mary mentioned in romans 5? since you speak of the sin of adam.

where is the exemption? red=mine.


18Therefore, as one trespas led to condemnation for all ( I don't see an exemption here for mary).justification and life for all men.

 

[Frogster]

There is something in the text that there was an issue of Yeshua would not have spoken to her the way that He did. She ignored Him and pushed. Not that it lead to sin, but that it exposed something Yeshua was not ready to reveal.

sis, it is fun to finally agree with ya..YESHUA LIVES!

 

[Dorothea]

Is it Orthodox doctrine that our souls rise on the 3rd day after death? What is going on in the meantime?

According to the Orthodox catechism from Europe, it is. I posted the link a couple of pages back. I'm on my phone so I am not able to do much. I can post that info when I get home, if you'd like.

 

[Dorothea]

I just noticed we're going way off topic. LOL. A new thread in a different forum would need to be made on the subject we were discussing, narnia.

 

[narnia59]

why isn't mary mentioned in romans 5? since you speak of the sin of adam.

where is the exemption? red=mine.


18Therefore, as one trespas led to condemnation for all ( I don't see an exemption here for mary).justification and life for all men.

So since St. Paul then says "so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all" (I don't see an exemption here for anyone), can I assume you believe this text proves universal salvation?

 

[narnia59]

I just noticed we're going way off topic. LOL. A new thread in a different forum would need to be made on the subject we were discussing, narnia.

True enough. One thing does tend to lead to another.

 

[Frogster]

So since St. Paul then says "so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all" (I don't see an exemption here for anyone), can I assume you believe this text proves universal salvation?

no at all, we have 5;17, that says "those who receive grace", some don't receive, and don't believe, not to mention this..

Rom 8:9You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

Ok, so now what creation was Mary in, if not the Adamic one? and why no exemption of her in 5?

What else was she born into, some other creation?

 

[narnia59]

no at all, we have 5;17, that says "those who receive grace", some don't receive, and don't believe, not to mention this..

Rom 8:9You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

Ok, so now what creation was Mary in, if not the Adamic one? and why no exemption of her in 5?

What else was she born into, some other creation?

Sorry Frogster, you can't have it both ways. "All" can't mean everybody with no exceptions when you want it to, and not mean that when you don't.

 

[Standing Up]

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.



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.



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.

So, to try to sum.

EO/RC believe Mary was free from personal sin. EO believes she inherited Adam's sin (ancestral), but RC believes she was also free of inherited, fallen man, ancestral sin.

P (I'd guess) believes Mary inherited the fallen nature of Adam (like EO), and probably sinned in her life (unlike EO/RC). (I wonder if childbirth didn't automatically per the Law make her unclean/in sin, which is why she had to make an offering.)

Good question in your last paragraph. If she didn't inherit Adam's nature (fallen), and if she didn't sin in her life, then 1) why did she die and 2) why a saviour?

For Jesus Christ, He didn't inherit fallen nature (Adam) and didn't sin in His life, though He could have (was tempted, can understand us, per Hebrews). His death was because He "drank" our sins (this cup in the Garden), became sin for us, and offered His life for ours.

Thoughts?

 

[Philothei]

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.

Huh? What freedom are you talking about? Humans including Christ have free will period. At least for the EO Christ had free will like any other human example the fact he was tempted. Theotokos was tempted too. ONLY Christ is the ONLY sinless yet lived as man no one else by definition of being human. Then again Christ was not only man but Godman. Thus he did not sin. As far as the EO idea of "took flesh" yeah he did took flesh as it was after the fall for the EO the "fallen" is a state a condition NOT a "change" in who man is. Man is still the one who is created in the image and likeness of God. Man can never be "lower" than what he was made to be... He cannot lose all his image and likeness ONLY can get them "tarnished". "whatever cannot be assumed cannot be saved " comes to mind (st. Athanasius) so by definition Christ had to assume our condition otherwise He could not save us.

 

[Doxology]

Well as has been already established the question is not did Mary need the forgiveness of sins .... of course she did but the question seems to me is did she need the forgiveness of sins in time because sin was allowed to touch her(poor wording since sin is not a substance but meh) or did she receive the forgiveness of sins solely in eternity on account of the merits of her Son so that sin would not be allowed to touch her.

Catholics seem to think the later although historically this was always a divisive issue since not all Catholics historically did support the doctrine for example st. Bernard of Clairvaux and st. Thomas Aquinas(not to mention many Thomists after him) both taught that Mary was conceived in a state of sin whereas individuals like Bl. Duns Scotus upheld the view that she was immaculately conceived.

Protestants of course think the former as do I and I will give you my reason for thinking that the blessed mother was conceived in iniquity and born a sinner with a sinful nature like us all. I believe that Mary was a sinner because she had a human father (St. Joachim) and hence was conceived in the normal fashion i.e she was the fruit of her parents concupiscence whereas Christ is unique in that he alone had no human genetic father and to say that the sole reason of this was to in some way show that he was special seems ridiculous I feel that this fact has special significance as the scripture says clearly that in Adam all die note well it does not say in Adam and Eve all die but in Adam (suggesting that if Eve alone fell we would be alright) further scripture teaches that Levi was able to pay tithes in his father Abraham suggesting that he existed in his father ... now a person is primarily his/her soul so we can conclude that Levi's soul was in his father Abraham and hence we receive our souls from our fathers ... Christ had no human father so his soul was not inherited but created new like Adams and hence he alone knew no inherited sin whereas Mary inheriting her soul from Joachim which connecting her all the way back to Adam made her guilty of original sin ... Christ had no human father precisely so that he would be preserved from original sin.

God bless.