Did Mary ever need forgiveness of sin?

[thegospelisgoodnews]

I have never understood why it's so hard to understand the concept that God does not have to wait for someone to sin in order to save them from sin. To believe otherwise is to suggest that God is somehow limited by time.

to believe otherwise then means Mary didn't need Jesus to die for her, and if she was without sin she could of died for everyones sins, because only a perfect human was exceptable for this sacrifice for the remission of all mankinds sins

 

[narnia59]

While there are certain Fathers who appeared to deny her sinlessness the overall teaching of Orthodoxy is that she was without personal sin. In this respect yes it is a more recent trend for anyone outside of a few theologians to deny this. However I would say that on an Internet forum such trends can seem significant whereas in real life, especially in Orthodox countries, the fact that Mary did not commit personal sin is not seriously disputed.

Thanks for this explanation. I tend to agree with that, but I find it a little distressing that you can visit many Orthodox sites who seem to teach that she was not sinless. It seems to be a move away from the historical teaching and I have to wonder if it continues if it will not become the more dominant view. I would find that to be sad indeed.

A combination of extraordinary grace resulting from God's presence (remember even before she carried Christ she dwelt within the Temple) and extradorinary piety on her part. The Theotokos is an example of Theosis par excellence; fallen man and holy God working in perfect synergy for salvation and purity.
This is why we feel it important that she was born just like us, she is an example of all that fallen man can become through God.

I think there is much common ground in the view of this being a combination of 'extraodinary' grace and piety. And while there is certainly something appealing about the idea of her being fallen, I think there is something equally appealing about her receiving the gift of being conceived in an unfallen state. It also aligns better when the ECF view of her as the new Eve.

But if you are correct here, then it would seem Orthodox would believe that Mary was indeed singled out of humanity to receive extraordinary grace, and I'm not sure why some would find it problematic that she was singled out to receive conception without sin. Either way given a unique gift related to her unique role in salvation history.

Interesting, I haven't heard it explained this way. Death however is both a spiritual as well as a physical matter so I'm still dubious but this is certainly food for thought.

I'm glad it's given you something to ponder.

While death can be both spiritual/physical, if you're implying that it is always both, I don't think I would agree with that. Physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. Spiritual death is the separation of the soul from God. While Mary experienced physical death, would you think she experienced spiritual death as well? If not, I'm having a hard time understanding why you think it would apply?

 

[narnia59]

to believe otherwise then means Mary didn't need Jesus to die for her, and if she was without sin she could of died for everyones sins, because only a perfect human was exceptable for this sacrifice for the remission of all mankinds sins

Actually I believe otherwise, but that does not mean that Mary didn't need Jesus to die for her. So false statement from the get-go.

Catholic teaching is clear that Mary needed a Savior, and that Savior was Jesus Christ.

The difference between the sinlessness of Christ and the sinlessness of Mary is that Christ is sinless by nature, and Mary is sinless by grace. Grace merited by Christ's offering of himself on the cross.

But it would appear that you believe that before God can save someone from sin, he has to wait for them to sin. Is that correct?

 

[narnia59]

Eve began the physical process. Mary ended it. In either case, including the men involved (but of course not the Spirit), they were fallen.

Who is "the women" in Genesis 3:15?

 

[Nick T]

Thanks for this explanation. I tend to agree with that, but I find it a little distressing that you can visit many Orthodox sites who seem to teach that she was not sinless. It seems to be a move away from the historical teaching and I have to wonder if it continues if it will not become the more dominant view. I would find that to be sad indeed.

Certainly it would be sad, but I think unlikely. Like I said what is on popular internet sites and the facts on the ground are usually quite different and none of the canonical Orthodox Churches teach that she committed sin in any official capacity.

I think there is much common ground in the view of this being a combination of 'extraodinary' grace and piety. And while there is certainly something appealing about the idea of her being fallen, I think there is something equally appealing about her receiving the gift of being conceived in an unfallen state. It also aligns better when the ECF view of her as the new Eve.

But if you are correct here, then it would seem Orthodox would believe that Mary was indeed singled out of humanity to receive extraordinary grace, and I'm not sure why some would find it problematic that she was singled out to receive conception without sin. Either way given a unique gift related to her unique role in salvation history.

Yup, we all agree that the Virgin was pure, sinless and unique, we only disagree on whether this was ontological or whether Mary was able to significantly contribute .

In all honesty I don't think this would be such a conflict between our churches if it wasn't for the fact that Rome declared it an infallible dogma that must be believed to be 100% true. While it's origins may lie in perfectly Orthodox beliefs, such as the sinlessness of Mary and her status as the New Eve, it was only fully developed in the post-schism West and with distinctly Western ideas of original sin. As such the Eastern Churches (be they Chalcedonian or Miaphysite) could never accept it as anything more than a pious opinion.

I'm glad it's given you something to ponder.

While death can be both spiritual/physical, if you're implying that it is always both, I don't think I would agree with that. Physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. Spiritual death is the separation of the soul from God. While Mary experienced physical death, would you think she experienced spiritual death as well? If not, I'm having a hard time understanding why you think it would apply?

Allow me to clarify what I meant: I would argue that the separation of soul and body is in itself both "spiritual" and physical- spiritual in the sense that it is inherited from Adam as a result of his sin and physical in the sense that it is induced by physical means; certainly I'm not proposing that Mary experienced that true "spiritual death" that is separation from God.

In any case I think its a matter that can only be left in agreement to disagree. In Orthodoxy we have no example other than Christ (who died unnaturally and voluntarily) of an unfallen human living in a fallen world so exactly what would happen is very much a matter of speculation for us.

 

[Frogster]

Frogster, please explain how the "all men" in blue is intended to be a different group of people than the "all men" in red.

Romans 5:12 12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--


Romans 5: 18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men

And "could mean" millions does not demand to mean millions. St Paul is who chooses the word "many" -- please explain why.

you have to explain, the fact stands, it says ALL, and ALL, established the context. Many can mean the ALL also, because ALL were indeed many. No?

 

[narnia59]

Certainly it would be sad, but I think unlikely. Like I said what is on popular internet sites and the facts on the ground are usually quite different and none of the canonical Orthodox Churches teach that she committed sin in any official capacity.

Probably the one I've seen that I'd think was 'most' official is the Greek Orthodox of America site -- they seem to take the position of Chrysostom and offer it as Orthodox teaching:

However, even after she gave birth to the Son of God, Mary was not exempted of less serious ("venial") sins. St. John Chrysostom attributes to Mary the sin of vanity, in the context of the first miracle of Christ in Cana of Galilee.

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

So does that not fit your definition of a teaching in an official capacity? If not, what does and what resources to you recommend that do?

Yup, we all agree that the Virgin was pure, sinless and unique, we only disagree on whether this was ontological or whether Mary was able to significantly contribute .

In all honesty I don't think this would be such a conflict between our churches if it wasn't for the fact that Rome declared it an infallible dogma that must be believed to be 100% true. While it's origins may lie in perfectly Orthodox beliefs, such as the sinlessness of Mary and her status as the New Eve, it was only fully developed in the post-schism West and with distinctly Western ideas of original sin. As such the Eastern Churches (be they Chalcedonian or Miaphysite) could never accept it as anything more than a pious opinion.

I understand the difficulty of it being made dogma. I guess I just see difficulty when something is not declared dogma as well as it does seem to allow some to drift.

Allow me to clarify what I meant: I would argue that the separation of soul and body is in itself both "spiritual" and physical- spiritual in the sense that it is inherited from Adam as a result of his sin and physical in the sense that it is induced by physical means; certainly I'm not proposing that Mary experienced that true "spiritual death" that is separation from God.

In any case I think its a matter that can only be left in agreement to disagree. In Orthodoxy we have no example other than Christ (who died unnaturally and voluntarily) of an unfallen human living in a fallen world so exactly what would happen is very much a matter of speculation for us.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant by that.

 

[narnia59]

you have to explain, the fact stands, it says ALL, and ALL, established the context. Many can mean the ALL also, because ALL were indeed many. No?

"Many" generally means a unspecified, large number.

"All" as you are interpreting its usage here, is every individual person in the group. Which means you still need to explain how if "all" means every single individual, the usage of "all men" in blue is somehow different than the usage of "all men" in red -- why sometimes it's referring to every individual, and sometimes it's not. What is your basis for the claim that St. Paul means two different things when he uses the term "all men"?

Romans 5:12 12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--


Romans 5: 18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men

 

[Nick T]

Probably the one I've seen that I'd think was 'most' official is the Greek Orthodox of America site -- they seem to take the position of Chrysostom and offer it as Orthodox teaching:

However, even after she gave birth to the Son of God, Mary was not exempted of less serious ("venial") sins. St. John Chrysostom attributes to Mary the sin of vanity, in the context of the first miracle of Christ in Cana of Galilee.

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

So does that not fit your definition of a teaching in an official capacity? If not, what does and what resources to you recommend that do?

You are right, that is indeed an official source. I must admit I had no knowledge of that particular article of the website of Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America and had myself in mind an article on Orthodox Church of America's website which affirmed her sinlessness (OCA - Q &amp A - Sinlessness of Mary).

Well, it seems I was wrong in saying that none of the Bishops say that she was sinful in an official capacity but I would still maintain that this is not the majority opinion. One only has to read the Akathist or the prayers of the Liturgy to get a great impression of either sinlessness or at the very least extreme purity.

 

[narnia59]

You are right, that is indeed an official source. I must admit I had no knowledge of that particular article of the website of Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America and had myself in mind an article on Orthodox Church of America's website which affirmed her sinlessness (OCA - Q &amp A - Sinlessness of Mary).

Well, it seems I was wrong in saying that none of the Bishops say that she was sinful in an official capacity but I would still maintain that this is not the majority opinion. One only has to read the Akathist or the prayers of the Liturgy to get a great impression of either sinlessness or at the very least extreme purity.

Thanks Nick, appreciate the discussion. I do think most of the more official sites I've seen either say she is sinless or do not address the issue at all.

I understand that type of fluidity is more inherent in Orthodoxy than Catholicism -- you guys would see that as more positive as we would see the nailing things down as being a plus. Different strokes I suppose.

 

[Frogster]

"Many" generally means a unspecified, large number.

"All" as you are interpreting its usage here, is every individual person in the group. Which means you still need to explain how if "all" means every single individual, the usage of "all men" in blue is somehow different than the usage of "all men" in red -- why sometimes it's referring to every individual, and sometimes it's not. What is your basis for the claim that St. Paul means two different things when he uses the term "all men"?

Romans 5:12 12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--


Romans 5: 18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men

i showed you that, obviously ALL that believed, and received grace. I showed you Rom 8;9, but you're ignoring that too, we know paul did not mean universalism, yet you ignore that also.

17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.


Seems like you are really ignoring the whole point.

Those that did not, did not.

You still have the burden of proof. It says ALL sinned, and many are the ALL. Cant there be many in the ALL?

 

[narnia59]

i showed you that, obviously ALL that believed, and received grace. I showed you Rom 8;9, but you're ignoring that too, we know paul did not mean universalism, yet you ignore that also.

17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.


Seems like you are really ignoring the whole point.

Those that did not, did not.

You still have the burden of proof. It says ALL sinned, and many are the ALL. Cant there be many in the ALL?

Actually the burden of proof is on you. You are the one asserting the claim that these texts "prove" that Mary cannot be sinless. I'm not claiming that they prove she was. I'm simply stating they don't support your case, your statement, your assertion. The burden of proof is on you that they do prove your case, your statement, your assertion.

Paul says that:
1) death spready to all men
2) all men sinned
3) there was condemnation for all men
4) there is acquittal and life for all men

I'm taking the position that when Paul uses the term "all men" he's making a generic statement about mankind, not statements about specific individuals. My position is that Paul uses the same term consistently throughout the context of his teaching to mean the same thing, which would be the logical conclusion in understanding someone's text.

Essentially you are taking the position that #2 and #3 Paul is referring to every individual who ever lived, and that in #1 and #4, he doesn't mean that at all. Your position is that Paul uses the same term in the same sentence in the same context to mean two different things. That is not consistent with solid interpretation, so you should have to 'prove' why your assertion is correct.

 

[Frogster]

Actually the burden of proof is on you. You are the one asserting the claim that these texts "prove" that Mary cannot be sinless. I'm not claiming that they prove she was. I'm simply stating they don't support your case, your statement, your assertion. The burden of proof is on you that they do prove your case, your statement, your assertion.

Paul says that:
1) death spready to all men
2) all men sinned
3) there was condemnation for all men
4) there is acquittal and life for all men

I'm taking the position that when Paul uses the term "all men" he's making a generic statement about mankind, not statements about specific individuals. My position is that Paul uses the same term consistently throughout the context of his teaching to mean the same thing, which would be the logical conclusion in understanding someone's text.

Essentially you are taking the position that #2 and #3 Paul is referring to every individual who ever lived, and that in #1 and #4, he doesn't mean that at all. Your position is that Paul uses the same term in the same sentence in the same context to mean two different things. That is not consistent with solid interpretation, so you should have to 'prove' why your assertion is correct.

if you had just answered the basic question, it would prove it..

here goes again..

What creation, other than adam, could mary be born into?

 

[narnia59]

if you had just answered the basic question, it would prove it..

here goes again..

What creation, other than adam, could mary be born into?

She was born into Adam. So was Christ.

 

[Philothei]

She was born into Adam. So was Christ.

How do you know that? Which Fathers say that or council?

 

[narnia59]

How do you know that? Which Fathers say that or council?

By 'born into' I mean they are direct physical descendants of Adam. Do you mean something different by that term?

 

[Philothei]

Thanks for this explanation. I tend to agree with that, but I find it a little distressing that you can visit many Orthodox sites who seem to teach that she was not sinless. It seems to be a move away from the historical teaching and I have to wonder if it continues if it will not become the more dominant view. I would find that to be sad indeed.

Please do not say things that we are not saying ... I never said she was not sinless...Personally think she was it is just that she is called spotless in our hymns and there is the tradition that does. The church NEVER made it into dogma and out of piety we do reverence her in such way. I prefer to call a spade a spade instead of mincing my words that is all I will say. Tradition is different from dogma we just do not have it

I think there is much common ground in the view of this being a combination of 'extraodinary' grace and piety. And while there is certainly something appealing about the idea of her being fallen, I think there is something equally appealing about her receiving the gift of being conceived in an unfallen state. It also aligns better when the ECF view of her as the new Eve.

She is the new Eve not becasue she was born like that .....as a New Eve. And please find me where the ECFs say Mary was born pre-fall nature... That would be awesome so we know which ECFs you refer to ...

She was the New Eve AFTER the incarnation that does not mean she was the New Eve prior... I think the RC has a problem with postiori and priori...

But if you are correct here, then it would seem Orthodox would believe that Mary was indeed singled out of humanity to receive extraordinary grace, and I'm not sure why some would find it problematic that she was singled out to receive conception without sin. Either way given a unique gift related to her unique role in salvation history.

Uniqueness cannot change one's nature... you are either human and in a fallen state or not. Where do you see the Fathers says she was given EXTRA Grace for the EXTRA job she had...I think the grace like I said before was given to her and it was what she did with it that is unique and extaordinary. Yeah she was special and all and pious but to say that she had "extra grace" we are walking on muddy ground that God favors some and some he does not???

"Set apart" and for the job does not mean that you are "more than human"
at all...It means you are extra blessed for the special job you are chosen for. You are blessed and have more responsibility than other with grater hats comes more responsibility and the credit is given both to you and God. To the person who is chosen also needs to meet the challenge of that choice. Many are called but few are chosen... comes to mind. The chosen are the ones who indeed answer that call and become worthy of that calling.

 

[Philothei]

The strange part is that even pre-fall humans are still created with the possibility of fall just not with the fallen condition ....so they still have free will they are still vulnatrable etc. So I truly have a hard time to determine what good the pre-fall man would do to the incarnation or to Mary? They were still not saved for one thing...And it makes no sense to be born "spotless" as the minute they enter our fallen world they can still chose to sin ...for they have free will.

In the EO the fall does not account for Eve's and Adam's sins for we can sin in our own so we are accountable for our own sins.

 

[Frogster]

She was born into Adam. So was Christ.

but all of the bible teaches that he was free from sin. So far, you can't argue from rom 5, the adam chapter, to prove your point.

 

[narnia59]

but all of the bible teaches that he was free from sin. So far, you can't argue from rom 5, the adam chapter, to prove your point.

Nor can you use Romans 5 to prove that Mary was not free from sin.