Immaculate conception of Mary?

[justinangel]

Basically, you're confirming exactly my point; that Mary's blood "defined" Jesus' blood, thus Mary had to be "pure blood".

“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in.”
― Isaac Asimov



Justinus Angelus

 

[justinangel]

The problem in the Catholic Church is that it keeps shifting the goal posts. At one point Papal Bulls were considered to be Truth proclaimed by the Pope. However, over time some of the Papal Bulls became downright embarrassing.

Which papal bulls would these be?

Thus, in 1871 the dogma of Papal Infallibility was devised.

False. Papal infallibilty wasn't devised, but defined by Vatican l.
We have an infallible statement being made by Pope Benedict Xll in his Apostolic Constitution Benedictus Deus ( 1336 A.D.) which meets the five criteria defined by Vatican Council l over 500 years later.

1. (The Roman Pontiff speaks)
"The Apostolic Constitution, Benedictus Deus, of Pope Benedict Xll"

2. (Speaks ex-cathedra)
"with apostolic authority"

3. (We pronounce, declare, and define)
"define the following"

4. (That doctrine concerning faith and morals)

Pope Benedict declares ex-cathedra that each soul will be particularly judged immediately after death according to his or her deeds before the general day of judgment.

5. (Must be held by the whole church)
"which is to remain in force forever"

As a result only four Dogmas have been infallibly declared, placing everything else in the gray area of doctrine, not dogma.

False. There are also those dogmas which have been promulgated by the Pope in union with the College of Bishops in the Universal Magisterium (i.e., the General Councils). These four dogmas which you refer to are 'Ex-cathedra' pronouncements of the pope when acting on his own in defining the faith in the Extraordianry Magisterium. Even so, the pope still corresponds with all the bishops berfore making his lone declaration. They aren't left out in the dark, so to speak.

Then there is the spin that only matters of faith and morals can be considered when a Pope makes an infallible statement.

False. Non-Catholics have created their own spin on things, and they do so because they don't understand or choose to dismiss what the Catholic Church actually means by papal infallibilty. All Church teachings that belong to the deposit of faith - Scripture and Tradition - are regarded as infallibly true and binding on all the faithful to give their assent, albiet a magisterial definition. With regard to matters of faith (i.e., the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist and the Immaculate Conception), the doctrines which have been defined are already part of the Sacred Liturgy. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception was established by Pope Sixtus lV in 1476, almost 400 years before Pope Piux lX formally declared this infallible doctrine to be a dogma of the Church. Doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed. The dogma of the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ is also a perfect example. Belief in the hypostatic union is one thing, formally clarifying and defining what we mean by this belief as it actually has been divinely revealed and passed down is another.

"The doctrine of Mary’s Universal Mediation of Grace based on her co-operation in the Incarnation is so definitely manifest in the sources of the faith, that nothing stands in the way of a dogmatic definition."
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott (215)

And whereas Eve had disobeyed God, Mary was persuaded to obey God, that the Virgin Mary might become advocate (advocata) of the virgin Eve"
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:19:1 [inter A.D. 180/189]

"With the Mediator, you are the Mediatrix of the entire world"
St. Ephraem, Syri opera graeca et latine, v. 3 [A.D.373]

The same can be said for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

"As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain."
Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446)

"A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns."
Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446)

“Truly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.”
Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733)

So, where does that leave you? It seems to me that it leaves you like most Catholics, having to sort through the accumulated doctrines and papal statements to determine which, if any, are really significant and which can be left in the dustbin of the Vatican.

Which Church doctrines and papal statements have been left in the dustbin? You should provide examples to support your conjecture if you hope to be persuasive. Up to now, all I see is wishful thinking.



Justinus Angelus

 

[justinangel]

Pope Honorius didn't define heresy. I'm not a historian, but from what I can tell, there are about three cases where Popes seem to have been in error. But none of them spoke ex cathedra. Two were under duress, and one--Honorius--was saying that Christ never opposed the Father.

On the other hand, the other Patriarchates were each heretical about half the time between 475 and 675, according to Dave Armstrong.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html

The attack against Pope Honorius l is a red herring cast by Christians who oppose the doctrine of papal infallibility, Meanwhile they confuse the charism of inafallibilty with human impeccability. Honorius was not condemned by the holy fathers for having officially taught Monothelitism in his divine office, but because of his apparently permissive stance on this heresy. When Pope Leo ll confirmed the anathema borne by the Council, he pointed out that the offense consisted of Honorius having failed to take measures in extinguishing Monothelitism once and for all at its early stage and for having promoted it by his negligence.

Pope Honorius may have been expected to reach a dogmatic decision on the question of one will in Christ, but the fact is he never did. Meanwhile his reply in a letter to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was not an authoritative declaration of confirmation of the faith. He did not pronounce anything 'ex-cathedra", from the Chair of St.Peter. The pontiff merely sided with Sergius' cautionary move to discard the formula of "two operations" in Christ. But that was because it smacked of Nestorianism. It also appears that Honorius and Sergius asserted one will in Christ insofar he possessed no contrary human will which was vitiated by sin. Honorius expressed himself so ambiguously that it appeared he had embraced a form of Monophysitism (Cf. John Chapman, Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. Vll). Unfortunately the controversy flared up after the pontiff passed away. So he wasn't around any longer to explain himself in his letter to Sergius. Still Honorius hadn't come to a final conclusion for or against the patriarch's christology during his pontificate. It was more a matter of engaging in theological speculation when he shouldn't have been for so long. Thus, since Pope Honorius made no "ex-cathedra" pronouncement on this matter, the question of papal infallibilty does not arise. And although his letter to Sergius was formally an official one in reply to a formal consultation, it wasn't as public as an encyclical is in its address to the entire Church.

Suffice it to say, The Council of Constantinople lll embraced the decision reached by Pope Martin l and the bishops at the Lateran Synod in Rome (649 A.D) on this question of one or two wills in Christ. The Lateran wasn't a general council, since not all the bishops of the Church attended, but that was only because these Eastern bishops who had absented themselves were Monothelites.

Rome had spoken!

We see histrory repeating itself in Christendom today with a part of the Eastern Church being out of communion with Rome (The non-Greek Orthodox churches are a later addition.) Apart on their own, in contravention of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which received the Tome of Leo as a virtual declaration of St. Peter himself through the Pontiff, they've succumbed to the heretical belief that Jesus inherited the ancestral sin of Adam, meaning he was inclined to sin and had to overcome human pride and concupiscence which tarnishes our human nature, though he never committed any actual sins. This is why the EO regard the dogma of the Immaculate Conception to be heretical. It adds that Mary was preserved free from the effects of original sin. By their reasoning, therefore, the dogma elevates Mary above Jesus who is supposed to have been inclined to sin just like any other human being. Their rejection of the IC is the result of their own heresy.



Justinus Angelus

 

[justinangel]

The attack against Pope Honorius l is a red herring cast by Christians who oppose the doctrine of papal infallibility, Meanwhile they confuse the charism of inafallibilty with human impeccability. Honorius was not condemned by the holy fathers for having officially taught Monothelitism in his divine office, but because of his apparently permissive stance on this heresy. When Pope Leo ll confirmed the anathema borne by the Council, he pointed out that the offense consisted of Honorius having failed to take measures in extinguishing Monothelitism once and for all at its early stage and for having promoted it by his negligence.

Pope Honorius may have been expected to reach a dogmatic decision on the question of one will in Christ, but the fact is he never did. Meanwhile his reply in a letter to Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was not an authoritative declaration of confirmation of the faith. He did not pronounce anything 'ex-cathedra", from the Chair of St.Peter. The pontiff merely sided with Sergius' cautionary move to discard the formula of "two operations" in Christ. But that was because it smacked of Nestorianism. It also appears that Honorius and Sergius asserted one will in Christ insofar he possessed no contrary human will which was vitiated by sin. Honorius expressed himself so ambiguously that it appeared he had embraced a form of Monophysitism (Cf. John Chapman, Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. Vll). Unfortunately the controversy flared up after the pontiff passed away. So he wasn't around any longer to explain himself in his letter to Sergius. Still Honorius hadn't come to a final conclusion for or against the patriarch's christology during his pontificate. It was more a matter of engaging in theological speculation when he shouldn't have been for so long. Thus, since Pope Honorius made no "ex-cathedra" pronouncement on this matter, the question of papal infallibilty does not arise. And although his letter to Sergius was formally an official one in reply to a formal consultation, it wasn't as public as an encyclical is in its address to the entire Church.

Suffice it to say, The Council of Constantinople lll embraced the decision reached by Pope Martin l and the bishops at the Lateran Synod in Rome (649 A.D) on this question of one or two wills in Christ. The Lateran wasn't a general council, since not all the bishops of the Church attended, but that was only because these Eastern bishops who had absented themselves were Monothelites.

Rome had spoken!

We see histrory repeating itself in Christendom today with a part of the Eastern Church being out of communion with Rome (The non-Greek Orthodox churches are a later addition.) Apart on their own, in contravention of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which received the Tome of Leo as a virtual declaration of St. Peter himself through the Pontiff, they've succumbed to the heretical belief that Jesus inherited the ancestral sin of Adam, meaning he was inclined to sin and had to overcome human pride and concupiscence which tarnishes our human nature, though he never committed any actual sins. This is why the EO regard the dogma of the Immaculate Conception to be heretical. It adds that Mary was preserved free from the effects of original sin. By their reasoning, therefore, the dogma elevates Mary above Jesus who is supposed to have been inclined to sin just like any other human being. Their rejection of the IC is the result of their own heresy.



Justinus Angelus

 

[justcoolforyou]

Says you and the Roman Catholic Church, even though you're quoting from the King James Version of the Bible which is well-known for the use of wording that is straight out of the seventeenth century. You have, at least, put your finger on the only possible argument for the immaculate conception--a misinterpretation of the words of the angel to Mary.

However, even if we take them to mean what you say, it doesn't follow that she ALWAYS was 'full of sinlessness," nor did the angel say any such thing to her, so it's still a legend without any Scriptural basis.

Check this video out on this:

 

[justinangel]

Christ restored HUMAN nature in His Own HUMAN body and soul, and we are Baptized into this Resurrected Human Nature that Christ IS... The UNION of humanity with divinity is not restored, but is attained, in this union with Christ through Baptism...”

In EO theology, which I’ve come across, our tainted human nature is the result of original sin. All human beings share in the sin of Adam by being like him in nature: inclined to sin. Before Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they existed in a perfect mode of existence; meaning their human will had been directed towards God, and having been so, I would think that their humanity was united with the Divine. The union of divinity and humanity in the person of Jesus Christ restored that perfect mode of existence which Adam and Eve were in before they disobeyed God. Those who are incorporated in Christ may participate in this perfect mode of existence that Christ restored through the cleansing of baptism. What I can infer is that human beings are restored to this perfect mode of existence through the cleansing of baptism. We retrieve, so to speak, what Adam had forfeited by his disobedience: the original justice and holiness. Still, I understand that what follows after baptism is the process of theosis, which resembles the Catholic idea of justification and sanctification being an on-going process as we grow in perfection.

The fall of Adam recurs again and again in our own lives, as we strive not to sin at all. The less we sin, the more perfect we become in the likeness of Christ. However, we should keep in mind that our covenant with God resembles the one He established with Israel. The relationship between God and His chosen people follows a cyclical restoration-fall-restoration pattern towards final restoration completed in and through Christ. What is to be attained is final restoration in consequence of the original Fall from grace. God's relationship with Israel all began when He separated a group of fallen people from the fallen people of other nations. Unless Adam and Eve had originally existed in a perfect mode of existence, there couldn't reasonably be a fall from grace. Sanctifying grace renders us perfect in God's estimation. It intrinsically cleanses the soul of all stain of sin and heals it, rendering us just in God's sight.

We need to move on to maturity [be ye perfected, as God is perfect]... So we are grafted INTO the perfected human nature of Christ which Adam had, and beyond this we gain maturity in Christ unto union with Him in the Marriage of the Lamb...

Jesus did not enjoin us to be 'perfected,' but to “be perfect” (Matthew 5:48). We read in Job 1:1: ‘There was a man in the land of Hus, whose name was Job, and that man was simple and upright, and fearing God, and avoiding evil.’ [DRB]. ‘In the land of Uz there was a blameless and upright man named Job, who feared God and avoided evil.’ [NAB]. ‘There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil’ [KJB]. The Hebrew word for “perfect” in this verse is tōm, which has a number of different usages. It can mean “integrity of mind”, “simplicity of mind as opposed to mischief and ill design” and “innocence”. Thus Job isn’t being described as being a totally sinless and morally perfect man, but rather as a man who diligently tried to keep God’s commandments to the best of his ability. What Jesus means by being perfect, then, is that we obey God’s commands and try to be sinless, albeit our fallen state. Though not absolutely, we do reach a state of perfection each time we resist temptation and avoid committing a sin. God’s sanctifying grace renders us perfect in His estimation. Mortal sin deprives us of sanctifying grace. Our imperfection lies in how we fail to align our will with God’s will. As long as we do God’s will, we are perfect. Our growth in spiritual perfection is measured by how consistently we do the will of God for the sake of His love and goodness. In this way, God created Adam and Eve perfect. Before the fall, their will was directed towards God and they were in a state of sanctifying grace – a perfect mode of existence. They were created perfect by having been given a will that was made to be directed towards God, and they remained so as long as they freely chose not to disobey.

Man (Adam) was not created sinful by nature. As the result of God’s creative work, Adam and Eve were entirely sinless (blameless) and holy. ‘Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness… God saw all that he had made, and it was very good’ (Genesis 1: 26, 31). Our sinful condition is the result of the historical consequence of our abuse of free will. The fall of Adam and Eve was not the result of some defect in God’s creative work. They couldn’t have been made in God’s image and be sinful by nature at the same time. Nor could they have been for the most part holy and sinless, since this notion does an injustice to the true freedom and consequences of free will. Free will presupposes that although Adam and Eve were completely sinless and originally in a state of grace, they were still capable of choosing to be sinful.

“However, the EO don't believe that we are conceived and born inherently guilty."

True enough, though we do not lack for guilt thereby, mind you.

From the Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church, by Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D.D.

Q. Are we responsible for the original sin?

A. Personally none; because we did not personally commit the sin of our First

Parents; but we are charged with it by inheritance because we were in Adam

and Eve when they sinned, and for this reason the Apostle Paul writes:

"..all have sinned." ...Book of Romans, Chapter 5, Verse 12.

Q. What is required for Baptism, and is it necessary for infants?

A. Faith in Christ. Baptism is necessary for infants also, because while they

do not have personal sins, nevertheless they do have original sin of which

they need to be cleansed.

If we weren’t even guilty by association, then how is it we could ever be “charged” with the sin of Adam and Eve by ancestral inheritance? That's quite a strong verb to apply to the totally innocent. And why the need for all of us, including infants who haven’t yet committed any personal sins, to be “cleansed” through the water of baptism, if we are born in a state of spiritual cleanliness and innocence? The truth is that we all are conceived and born spiritually dead and unclean. 'There shall not enter into it [Heaven] any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb' (Rev. 21:27).

I came across an article on an EO website whose author claims that the Catholic Church teaches “original guilt” rather than “original sin”. But this is not true. He also states that Catholics believe Mary was preserved free from contracting the stain of original sin by necessity; in other words, if Mary hadn’t received this singular privilege from God, Jesus would have been conceived and born in the state of original sin. However, the dogma states that Mary was conceived immaculately because it was fitting she be on account of her Divine Maternity. Not unlike the first Marian dogma, this third one is in principle Christo-centric. She had to be entirely holy and pure because her Son was from the moment he was conceived and incarnated (Luke 1:35). Jesus came into the world mentally and spiritually perfect. There was not the slightest flaw in his human constitution - no pride and not the least inclination to sin, just like Adam when he was originally created in God's image. For Jesus, it wasn't a matter of attaining perfection, but rather not falling from it. Jesus came into the world to restore it to God's grace and reverse the Fall. As the new Eve, Mary was intimately associated with her Son in his work of redemption. " "He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to thy word.'" (St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100). "And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith" (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22). Not unlike her Divine offspring Jesus, Mary had to be entirely holy and sinless throughout her entire life in order to loose the knot of Eve's disobedience. The doctrine of the New Eve is totally senseless if Mary had been created short of perfection by being inclined to sin. Irenaeus equates Mary's spiritual purity and sinlessness with her virginity. She was as pure and spotless throughout her entire existence as Eve was before the Fall. And by being so, Mary restored in her person the state the woman had forfeited by her disobedience through her obedience. Concupiscence of the eyes and of the flesh transpired upon the Fall and were not causative of it. "The former [Eve] was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve" (A.H. V.19.1).

‘If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the reatum of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only razed, or not imputed; let him be anathema.’
The General Council of Trent, Session V.

Anyway, some English translations of the original Latin text inaccurately read “the guilt of original sin is remitted.” Perhaps the author of that article was confused by a copy with this poor translation, though he doesn’t cite the Canon. Reatus refers to the state that accrues from a culpa (an actual wrong doing). Reatus culpa is guilt associated with the sentence (culpability). Reatus poena is the penalty of the sentence. Adam and Eve incurred the personal guilt (reatus culpa) of original sin and also the penalty (reatus poena). All their descendants at the moment they are conceived receive only the penalty of original sin (reatus poena). This penalty includes, for instance, being deprived of the original grace of justice and sanctity, the loss of integrity, ignorance, suffering, and death. All of us have been banned from paradise and are capable of committing sins once we have reached the age of reason. There is no human being who has never sinned besides Mary. Babies are born deprived of sanctifying grace; they suffer and die, even soon after they are born, since they all do in fact grow without exception only to commit personal sins of their own. So although babies and very young children aren’t personally guilty of having committed any sins (reatus culpa), they still incur the penalty of original sin (reatus poena), because they are capable of sinning once they are old enough. Many of them do in fact suffer and die while still too young. No descendant of Adam and Eve is culpable of eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, but they still receive the penalty of original sin. A just God would not exact this penalty unless all human beings were guilty in some sense. Culpa contracta is the special phrase the Catholic Church uses to distinguish personal guilt (reatus culpa) from contracted guilt by association, which equals reatus poena. Hence, the Catholic Church does not teach original guilt. The personal sin of Adam is not imputed to us. If it were, God would certainly be unjust. But as Adam's descendants, we do receive the same penalty for his wrongdoing, since we all do sin once we are mature enough.

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
Romans 5, 12

We do hold to the notion that we can be very sinful without committing sin for the wanting to sin when not sinning...This we call VIRTUE, you see... Not doing what one wants to do when the doing of it is wrong...

I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
Romans 7, 15-19

Vice: Not doing what we want (that which is natural), but doing the very thing we hate (that which is unnatural).

It appears Paul defines virtue as not doing what one hates and thus doing what one doesn’t want to do, albeit the passions. We lost complete mastery over the passions as a result of Adam’s sin. Adam had complete mastery before his fall from grace, since he wasn't created proud and lustful. God had created Adam to be naturally good and inclined to be good. Human nature is still good despite the Fall, however wounded it may be. The natural ability to direct the will towards the good was a divine gift that God bestowed on Adam (man) on condition that he remain faithful. As a result of his sin, we cannot master our passions completely, but we don't have a "sin nature" as Protestants believe. By nature, because of God's sufficient grace, we are still inclined to be good and to do what is righteous. But because human nature is wounded, we often fall in our weakness. Since we are God's creative work, which is good, our obedience to Him is natural; what is unnatural is the sin that we commit. Neither Jesus nor Mary were deprived of this preternatural gift of having complete mastery over the passions, which is an effect of original sin. That's because pride and concupiscence (effects of original sin) weren't part of their nature.

To be continued.


J.A.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Basically, you're confirming exactly my point; that Mary's blood "defined" Jesus' blood, thus Mary had to be "pure blood".

I think because of the limitless power of God it really doesn't matter what condition her blood was in. Heck, God says he can make children from rocks:

And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. Matthew 3:9

 

[justinangel]

We hold that he [Christ] was tempted by both pride and concupiscence in His fallen human nature, and that in it He crushed both, and all manner of all other human sinfulness that arose in Him in the course of His Life... That He was exactly like us in every respect save sin... And that in His Life, He overcame all these inclinations to sin...

We Catholics hold that we are tempted by the Devil, who exploits the warring members of our bodies. 'Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour. Whom resist ye, strong in faith: knowing that the same affliction befalls your brethren who are in the world' (1 Pet. 5:8-9). We mustn’t lean towards Gnosticism which diametrically opposes the spiritual and the physical realms. Human nature is not corrupt. What is corrupt is corruption itself. Sin is precisely that which is contrary to the goodness of our human nature which God created and called good (Genesis 1). It is the damage to our nature that we ourselves inflict by the exercise of our free will that constitutes sin. The sin which we have inherited from Adam is the warping and deformation of our nature. It is never natural for us to sin, or else we couldn’t be held morally accountable. We are moral by nature, so the sins we commit are contrary to our nature through the abuse of our free will. I doubt we could even cooperate with God’s grace and be virtuous if we possessed a sin nature. As the old saying goes: “A leopard cannot change its spots.” This proverb might accommodate the Calvinist who believes that we can’t ever be declared intrinsically righteous by God through His grace because of our corrupt sin nature, and so only the alien righteousness of Christ can save us by imputation to our account.

Jesus was the perfect man who possessed a perfect human nature. He possessed a human nature that did not include sin because of the choices he made. It wasn’t the case that he had a sinful nature, but managed to overcome it. He had no affinity with sin whatsoever: not in thought, word, or deed. 'Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him' (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus chose never to damage the goodness of his human nature, unlike Adam. Nor could he have had the potential to do it in his humanity. Aquinas held that perfection in this world amounts to someone or something achieving its purpose. Human perfection lies in us achieving our proper end, viz. our intellectual capacities of understanding God and directing our will towards God by conforming it to His will. Adam and Eve were created perfect in this way, but they were not created absolutely perfect. Unlike God, they had the potential to do what was contrary to His will, but not because of a corrupt nature. They just weren’t absolutely perfect like God. They chose to damage what God originally created them to be upon following the Tempter’s suggestion. God blamed the serpent for what had transpired in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:14).

Unlike Adam, Jesus is a divine Person in his humanity. If he were inclined to sin by being affected by pride and concupiscence, then in his divine Person, he would have had the intellectual potential to not know God and do what was contrary to Himself. This is something we Catholics cannot accept. The idea amounts to material heresy. By his substantial grace of union with the Father, pride and concupiscence weren't part of our Lord's human constitution. And since God preserved Mary free from all stain of sin by his intervening grace, these weren't attributes of hers either. St. Ephraem affirms in accord with the Apostolic Tradition: "There is no flaw in Thee, and no stain in thy Mother."

"For in Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form."
Colossians 2, 9

In Catholic theology, we have not lost our natural faculties because of Adam’s sin. Human beings are still capable of understanding God and directing their will towards God by conforming it to His will. However, because of Adam’s sin, we have been deprived of the Divine gifts to which our human nature has never had any strict right in the first place: complete mastery of the passions and integrity, immortality, sanctifying grace, and the Beatific Vision of God. These preternatural gifts that were never due to us when God created Adam and Eve were bestowed by God in strict accordance on His terms as He wished. Their conservation depended on Adam’s fidelity. Catholics believe that Jesus could not have been denied these gifts in his sacred humanity because of his Divine person. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and beheld the Beatific Vision (the intuitive knowledge of God which produces heavenly beatitude) throughout his existence on earth. Even though human beings have been deprived of the preternatural gift of complete mastery of the passions, Jesus did not have to be deprived of it himself to be fully human, since Adam received this gift when God had created him. Pride and lust had no affect in him. Adam and Eve chose to disobey God in a perfect state of innocence. They weren't affected by pride and any dark desires. They couldn't have been if they were still in paradise and hadn't yet acquired the knowledge of good and evil.

We hold it (the Immaculate Conception) to be heretical because it makes Mary the single and sole exception to the very condition of the rest of humanity that Jesus incarnated to save us from.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception would be heretical if in fact Jesus was inclined to sin because of pride and concupiscence and Mary wasn't. But he couldn’t have inherited this ancestral sin, as you put it, unless he had contracted original sin. Both the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon declared that Jesus was "fully human" – “but without sin.” Our human nature is wounded and in need of being healed because of the effects of original sin which are there despite any actual sins of ours: "concupiscence of the flesh, concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life."

"For whereas the Word of God was without flesh, He took upon Himself the holy flesh by the holy Virgin, and prepared a robe which He wove for Himself."
St. Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and anti-Christ, 4 (A.D. 200)

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary wasn’t subject to inheriting the stain of original sin or that she was in no need of a saviour. The difference between Mary and the rest of humanity is that she was redeemed in the most perfect way in view of the foreseen merits of Christ. Mary was saved by being preserved free from contracting this stain which was her lot as well, while the rest of us have been saved by being cured of what we’ve contracted through the healing water of baptism.

Your argument is a double-standard one. The EO believe that Mary overcame her pride and the inclination to sin at an early point in her life. Doesn’t this make her the single and sole exception in the human race? If God would intervene with His grace in her young childhood, long before she might die, why is it that He wouldn’t intervene at the first instant of her conception? It would be for the same reason, wouldn’t it, out of fittingness, and not by necessity, on account of whose mother she was predestined to be from all eternity? God knew that Mary shall be the mother of His Only-begotten Son when he created her soul. She was the Mother of God that first instant. So it was fitting that she be entirely pure from that point on. Anything less would fall short of perfection, which God Himself is in His actuality of being.

She overcame them (pride and concupiscence) early in her life...

She couldn’t have unless God remoulded the clay she was made of after she was born. Why would God wait until her young childhood? Care to explain? If it's because she had to contract original sin like everyone else who needed a saviour, then you're mistaken, because the personal sin of Adam isn't imputed to our account. The Immaculate Conception doesn't compromise the Divine justice. God's mercy never negates it.

"She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay."
Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650)

In Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary by saying "Chaire kecharitomene!". As you know, the expression kecharitomene literally means "highly favoured by grace" and can be paraphrased as "full of grace." The verb tense denotes a completed past action of endowment that endures in the present moment. Besides the verb tense, we must also take the case into consideration. Kecharitomene is in the female vocative case. So the expression does not merely describe Mary as having been "completely and perfectly endowed with grace." Rather, Mary is being named after the state of grace she is in. Kecharitomene defines Mary instead of simply describing her. The phrase identifies to us who she is rather than what she is, just as our names identify us to other people as to who we are. And we carry our names with us from the time we are born until the moment we die. The angel called Mary Kecharitomene because she was predestined to be the Mother of God, who infallibly knew her election to the Divine Maternity from all eternity. God infallibly knew when He fashioned Mary's soul that she would pronounce her fiat. Thus He preserved her from inheriting the stain of original sin at that precise instant. God did not look into the future to select the fairest of maidens in all of Judea when He predestined Mary to be the mother of His Only-begotten Son. If God had, then He would have depended on Mary's cooperation to execute His decree. He simply knew that she would want to obey His will with the help of His grace as He planned when He fashioned her soul (scientia media). God certainly didn't put His plan into action years after Mary was born.

“As Paul says: ‘All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’ Because we fall short of the glory of God, we sin.”

The grammar is the reverse of your conclusion - eg The "and" means "and subsequently...

‘For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.’
[Translated from the Latin Vulgate]

In the larger context of Romans, what Paul says is that all are sinners and are subject to original sin; both Jew and Gentile alike are in need of being restored to God’s grace and saved. Not only the Gentiles, and not by works of the civil and ceremonial Mosaic law. This verse does not directly have to do with personal sins.

“Can you show ANY of this from first millennium Christian authors?”

"For death is alike to all, without difference for the poor, without exception for the rich. And so although through the sin of one alone, yet it passed upon all; that we may not refuse to acknowledge Him to be also the Author of death, whom we do not refuse to acknowledge as the Author of our race; and that, as through one death is ours, so should be also the resurrection; and that we should not refuse the misery, that we may attain to the gift. For, as we read, Christ 'is come to save that which was lost,' and 'to be Lord both of the dead and living.' In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam I died; how shall the Lord call me back, except He find me in Adam; guilty as I was in him, so now justified in Christ.If, then, death be the debt of all, we must be able to endure the payment. But this topic must be reserved for later treatment."
St. Ambrose, On the Death of his brother Satyrus, II:6 (A.D. 380)

“Just as in the natural propagation of the species each animal engenders [AL1] like, so man is born from man, a being subject to passions from a being subject to passions, a sinner from a sinner. Thus sin takes its rise in us as we are born; it grows with us and keeps us company till life's term."
St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Beatitudes, 6 (ante A.D. 394)

"This grace, however, of Christ, without which neither infants nor adults can be saved, is not rendered for any merits, but is given gratis, on account of which it is also called grace. 'Being justified,' says the apostle, 'freely through His blood.' Whence they, who are not liberated through grace, either because they are not yet able to hear, or because they are unwilling to obey; or again because they did not receive, at the time when they were unable on account of youth to hear, that bath of regeneration, which they might have received and through which they might have been saved, are indeed justly condemned; because they are not without sin, either that which they have derived from their birth, or that which they have added from their own misconduct. 'For all have sinned'--whether in Adam or in themselves--"and come short of the glory of God.'"
St. Augustine, On Nature and Grace, 4 (A.D. 415)

"'Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.'"

Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370)

This does not say WHEN, and can easily be understood to mean that there is no stain because she did not sin, and not because she was never tempted by sin...

Exactly. It isn’t a question of any instant in time. His point is that there is no stain in her – period! No disposition to sin. She was conceived and born without the stain of Adam and Eve’s sin. Likewise, there was no flaw or defect in Jesus because of original sin: no pride, no concupiscence. Satan must have tried to tempt Mary, as he had Jesus, but that doesn't mean they could succumb to temptation because they were inclined to sin. In there innocence, Adam and Eve were simply deceived by the suggestions of the serpent. They weren't influenced by the drives of a corrupt nature. Nor did they corrupt our human nature through their disobedience. They only damaged its goodness.

"A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns."
Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446)

“Truly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.”
Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733)



Justinus Angelus

"I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, and my soul shall be joyful in my God: for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation: and with the robe of justice he hath covered me, as a bridegroom decked with a crown, and as a bride adorned with her jewels."

 

[truefiction1]

We see histrory repeating itself in Christendom today with a part of the Eastern Church being out of communion with Rome (The non-Greek Orthodox churches are a later addition.) Apart on their own, in contravention of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which received the Tome of Leo as a virtual declaration of St. Peter himself through the Pontiff, they've succumbed to the heretical belief that Jesus inherited the ancestral sin of Adam, meaning he was inclined to sin and had to overcome human pride and concupiscence which tarnishes our human nature, though he never committed any actual sins. This is why the EO regard the dogma of the Immaculate Conception to be heretical. It adds that Mary was preserved free from the effects of original sin. By their reasoning, therefore, the dogma elevates Mary above Jesus who is supposed to have been inclined to sin just like any other human being. Their rejection of the IC is the result of their own heresy.



Justinus Angelus

Actually, the Church does not hold that Jesus inherited our fallen nature and will. Also, it should be noted that the Church is not infected with any heresy, in order to keep the record accurate.

 

[Arsenios]

In EO theology, which I’ve come across, our tainted human nature is the result of original sin. All human beings share in the sin of Adam by being like him in nature: inclined to sin. Before Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they existed in a perfect mode of existence; meaning their human will had been directed towards God, and having been so, I would think that their humanity was united with the Divine.

Human nature prior to Adam's Fall was living, but not yet Hypostatically united with God... That is why Christ told Adam NOT to eat the forbidden fruit, because the day he ate of it, he would did. Even though that tree was in the middle of the Garden, even so Adam needed union with God in order to be able to eat of it and not die. The problem AFTER the Fall is that we are DEAD... And in this death, we need to DIE to death that we be reborn to Life in Hypostatic Union with Christ.

Had Adam not sinned, Christ would have incarnated, and we would have been united to Him without needing to die to the death into which we are born as a consequence of Adam's sin, in whom we now ARE born. Because of Adam's Sin, Christ died in our stead, putting the death that is our life to death in His Body, and Resurrecting Human Nature IN HIMSELF to Divine Life that death cannot any longer cause to die...

Such that when we are united to this Body in Baptism into His Death on the Cross, we too CAN partake of His Life, and attain unto the perfection which Christ IS...

Hence, the humanity of Adam and Eve was united to God in the obedience of immaturity, because they were not yet hypostatically united with Christ-God, and therefore their humanity was not in a perfect mode, except and only insofar as it was, so to speak, "perfectly not yet mature"... eg They were born with some maturing yet to be accomplished, and this they failed to do, in the face of the temptation of the serpent...

So that in that trespass of Adam in which Adam died, we who are now born in dead Adam are ourselves dead to the Life in which God created Adam, and in this death, we are inclined to sin, being in the temptations of death, eg pride and sensations... And the more of these that we commit ourselves to, the more and more enslaved to them we become... We cannot forget that the Fruit of Adam's Transgression is of the Tree of Knowledge of BOTH Good AND evil... So that the most evil of us will still have some little corner of Good hidden in him/her, and the most saintly will still have some buried evil lurking within... And the holier we become, the more sinful we see ourselves to be... Because our eyes can now see our sins which before were hidden from them...

The union of divinity and humanity in the person of Jesus Christ restored that perfect mode of existence which Adam and Eve were in before they disobeyed God.

We say that yes, we do regain the state of Adam, but as well we surpass it, in that we gain Hypostatic Union with Christ, whereby even though normally we are reborn as immature, we now, by means of this Union, have the wherewithal to overcome sin through trials, and become matured in the Body of Christ as Members of that Body, Whose HEAD Christ IS... [eg we do not see our Church Hierarchy as our Head, but Christ Himself...]

Those who are incorporated in Christ may participate in this perfect mode of existence that Christ restored through the cleansing of baptism. What I can infer is that human beings are restored to this perfect mode of existence through the cleansing of baptism. We retrieve, so to speak, what Adam had forfeited by his disobedience: the original justice and holiness.

If this were true, then ALL who have been Baptized into Christ would be miracle working saints... We instead hold that being engrafted into the Vine simply gives us the Connection we need to attain the overcoming of sin in our own souls, because we are baptized into the Death of our Lord, and thus in the hope and expectation of His Resurrection...

Now it is true that upon emerging from the Waters of Regeneration, we are pure and holy and illumined, but then comes our first worldly thought, and it begins to recede from us. In the early Church, a person Baptized was kept in the Church some 10 days in fasting and prayer before being permitted to enter into the world outside the Church, for his or her safety...

Still, I understand that what follows after baptism is the process of theosis, which resembles the Catholic idea of justification and sanctification being an on-going process as we grow in perfection.

Theosis is not a process...

Aquinas encountered it once, briefly, and stopped writing and teaching, explaining: "All I have written is straw."

This was after he had written the Summa...

The fall of Adam recurs again and again in our own lives, as we strive not to sin at all.

That's the Truth!

The less we sin, the more perfect we become in the likeness of Christ.

Repentance is the overcoming of sin, normally one sin at a time, repeated until we die, or until we have overcome it to the stage where God will take it from us... The more we learn to live utterly repentant lives, and especially in fasting, prayer and vigil, the more we attain Christian virtue in gaining the strength to overcome sins, at first in ourselves, and as we mature, even in others for them.

However, we should keep in mind that our covenant with God resembles the one He established with Israel. The relationship between God and His chosen people follows a cyclical restoration-fall-restoration pattern towards final restoration completed in and through Christ. What is to be attained is final restoration in consequence of the original Fall from grace. God's relationship with Israel all began when He separated a group of fallen people from the fallen people of other nations. Unless Adam and Eve had originally existed in a perfect mode of existence, there couldn't reasonably be a fall from grace. Sanctifying grace renders us perfect in God's estimation. It intrinsically cleanses the soul of all stain of sin and heals it, rendering us just in God's sight.

Adam's state of Grace was not yet mature IN Christ...

Jesus did not enjoin us to be 'perfected,' but to “be perfect” (Matthew 5:48). We read in Job 1:1: ‘There was a man in the land of Hus, whose name was Job, and that man was simple and upright, and fearing God, and avoiding evil.’ [DRB]. ‘In the land of Uz there was a blameless and upright man named Job, who feared God and avoided evil.’ [NAB]. ‘There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil’ [KJB]. The Hebrew word for “perfect” in this verse is tōm, which has a number of different usages. It can mean “integrity of mind”, “simplicity of mind as opposed to mischief and ill design” and “innocence”. Thus Job isn’t being described as being a totally sinless and morally perfect man, but rather as a man who diligently tried to keep God’s commandments to the best of his ability.[/quote]

The Greek means both perfect and mature... Maturity in perfection means the gaining of maturity from immaturity, and the gaining of perfection from imperfection... Hence it is progressive, and is a Gift from God, which in this ekonomia of Salvation, is given by God to the repentant sinner, according to his or her repentance...

What Jesus means by being perfect, then, is that we obey God’s commands and try to be sinless, albeit our fallen state. Though not absolutely, we do reach a state of perfection each time we resist temptation and avoid committing a sin. God’s sanctifying grace renders us perfect in His estimation. Mortal sin deprives us of sanctifying grace. Our imperfection lies in how we fail to align our will with God’s will. As long as we do God’s will, we are perfect. Our growth in spiritual perfection is measured by how consistently we do the will of God for the sake of His love and goodness.

We are saying much the same things... Attaining the doing of God's will is a VERY complex matter, however simply it may be effected by God in us... We do it out of Love for God, given by God to us, for first God loved us...

In this way, God created Adam and Eve perfect. Before the fall, their will was directed towards God and they were in a state of sanctifying grace – a perfect mode of existence. They were created perfect by having been given a will that was made to be directed towards God, and they remained so as long as they freely chose not to disobey.

We see this differently, yes?

Man (Adam) was not created sinful by nature. As the result of God’s creative work, Adam and Eve were entirely sinless (blameless) and holy. ‘Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness… God saw all that he had made, and it was very good’ (Genesis 1: 26, 31). Our sinful condition is the result of the historical consequence of our abuse of free will. The fall of Adam and Eve was not the result of some defect in God’s creative work. They couldn’t have been made in God’s image and be sinful by nature at the same time. Nor could they have been for the most part holy and sinless, since this notion does an injustice to the true freedom and consequences of free will. Free will presupposes that although Adam and Eve were completely sinless and originally in a state of grace, they were still capable of choosing to be sinful.

They were not yet mature, and I have explained what that means, and God knew they would fall, but that the fall foreknown was fore-provided, in that Christ would incarnate at the time for Adam's maturation, so as to be ABLE to eat the Forbidden Fruit, and that in providing for the maturation/perfection of Adam, He would first cleanse fallen human nature in His Own Flesh, and Fallen Adam would find restoration in the New Eve's Son, God OUR Father, Jesus Christ, in Whom we now THROUGH Baptism, are members of His Holy Body, the Church...

From the Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church, by Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D.D.

Q. Are we responsible for the original sin?

A. Personally none; because we did not personally commit the sin of our First

Parents; but we are charged with it by inheritance because we were in Adam

and Eve when they sinned, and for this reason the Apostle Paul writes:

"..all have sinned." ...Book of Romans, Chapter 5, Verse 12.

Q. What is required for Baptism, and is it necessary for infants?

A. Faith in Christ. Baptism is necessary for infants also, because while they

do not have personal sins, nevertheless they do have original sin of which

they need to be cleansed.

Catechism is for beginners...

And the Ecumenical Patriarch has some Scholastic doctrinal tainting...

This catechism is not widely accepted or used in the EOC...

If we weren’t even guilty by association, then how is it we could ever be “charged” with the sin of Adam and Eve by ancestral inheritance? That's quite a strong verb to apply to the totally innocent. And why the need for all of us, including infants who haven’t yet committed any personal sins, to be “cleansed” through the water of baptism, if we are born in a state of spiritual cleanliness and innocence? The truth is that we all are conceived and born spiritually dead and unclean.

'There shall not enter into it [Heaven] any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb' (Rev. 21:27).

I came across an article on an EO website whose author claims that the Catholic Church teaches “original guilt” rather than “original sin”. But this is not true. He also states that Catholics believe Mary was preserved free from contracting the stain of original sin by necessity; in other words, if Mary hadn’t received this singular privilege from God, Jesus would have been conceived and born in the state of original sin. However, the dogma states that Mary was conceived immaculately because it was fitting she be on account of her Divine Maternity. Not unlike the first Marian dogma, this third one is in principle Christo-centric. She had to be entirely holy and pure because her Son was from the moment he was conceived and incarnated (Luke 1:35). Jesus came into the world mentally and spiritually perfect. There was not the slightest flaw in his human constitution - no pride and not the least inclination to sin, just like Adam when he was originally created in God's image. For Jesus, it wasn't a matter of attaining perfection, but rather not falling from it. Jesus came into the world to restore it to God's grace and reverse the Fall. As the new Eve, Mary was intimately associated with her Son in his work of redemption. " "He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to thy word.'" (St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100). "And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith" (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22). Not unlike her Divine offspring Jesus, Mary had to be entirely holy and sinless throughout her entire life in order to loose the knot of Eve's disobedience. The doctrine of the New Eve is totally senseless if Mary had been created short of perfection by being inclined to sin. Irenaeus equates Mary's spiritual purity and sinlessness with her virginity. She was as pure and spotless throughout her entire existence as Eve was before the Fall. And by being so, Mary restored in her person the state the woman had forfeited by her disobedience through her obedience. Concupiscence of the eyes and of the flesh transpired upon the Fall and were not causative of it. "The former [Eve] was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve" (A.H. V.19.1).

‘If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the reatum of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only razed, or not imputed; let him be anathema.’
The General Council of Trent, Session V.

Anyway, some English translations of the original Latin text inaccurately read “the guilt of original sin is remitted.” Perhaps the author of that article was confused by a copy with this poor translation, though he doesn’t cite the Canon. Reatus refers to the state that accrues from a culpa (an actual wrong doing). Reatus culpa is guilt associated with the sentence (culpability). Reatus poena is the penalty of the sentence. Adam and Eve incurred the personal guilt (reatus culpa) of original sin and also the penalty (reatus poena). All their descendants at the moment they are conceived receive only the penalty of original sin (reatus poena). This penalty includes, for instance, being deprived of the original grace of justice and sanctity, the loss of integrity, ignorance, suffering, and death. All of us have been banned from paradise and are capable of committing sins once we have reached the age of reason. There is no human being who has never sinned besides Mary. Babies are born deprived of sanctifying grace; they suffer and die, even soon after they are born, since they all do in fact grow without exception only to commit personal sins of their own. So although babies and very young children aren’t personally guilty of having committed any sins (reatus culpa), they still incur the penalty of original sin (reatus poena), because they are capable of sinning once they are old enough. Many of them do in fact suffer and die while still too young. No descendant of Adam and Eve is culpable of eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, but they still receive the penalty of original sin. A just God would not exact this penalty unless all human beings were guilty in some sense. Culpa contracta is the special phrase the Catholic Church uses to distinguish personal guilt (reatus culpa) from contracted guilt by association, which equals reatus poena. Hence, the Catholic Church does not teach original guilt. The personal sin of Adam is not imputed to us. If it were, God would certainly be unjust. But as Adam's descendants, we do receive the same penalty for his wrongdoing, since we all do sin once we are mature enough.

The simple fact is that we are reborn into Life in Christ, yet still walking the earth in bodies of death that will die...

We were born dead, and are reborn to Life...

Those Baptized into Christ CAN overcome their sins, and DO so IF they run the race set before them (Paul)...

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

Romans 5, 12[/quote]

The Greek text does no say "IN WHOM" but "THROUGH WHICH" [DEATH]...

I do not understand my own actions.

For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.

Romans 7, 15-19

Here he is writing AS one knowing the Law TO those knowing the Law...

Indeed, he is referring to himself historically prior to Christ...

Vice: Not doing what we want (that which is natural), but doing the very thing we hate (that which is unnatural).

I would say in our fallen condition of living death, we "naturally" desire death -

Which Christ graciously gives to us...

The old wine seems good, until we taste the New...

Have you burned yourself lately?

Sudden jerk back from the burn, yes?

Followed by cold water or ice?

Old wine...

It appears Paul defines virtue as not doing what one hates and thus doing what one doesn’t want to do, albeit the passions. We lost complete mastery over the passions as a result of Adam’s sin. Adam had complete mastery before his fall from grace, since he wasn't created proud and lustful. God had created Adam to be naturally good and inclined to be good. Human nature is still good despite the Fall, however wounded it may be. The natural ability to direct the will towards the good was a divine gift that God bestowed on Adam (man) on condition that he remain faithful. As a result of his sin, we cannot master our passions completely, but we don't have a "sin nature" as Protestants believe. By nature, because of God's sufficient grace, we are still inclined to be good and to do what is righteous. But because human nature is wounded, we often fall in our weakness. Since we are God's creative work, which is good, our obedience to Him is natural; what is unnatural is the sin that we commit. Neither Jesus nor Mary were deprived of this preternatural gift of having complete mastery over the passions, which is an effect of original sin. That's because pride and concupiscence (effects of original sin) weren't part of their nature.

"Natural" is a totally ambiguous term...

The Orthodox like a tripartite understanding of human conditions;

Subhuman [sociopatic etc]
Human [honor, family etc]
Supra-human [Saints]

To be continued.

Can you do so in smaller segments?

 

[Arsenios]

We see histrory repeating itself in Christendom today with a part of the Eastern Church being out of communion with Rome... succumbed to the heretical belief that Jesus inherited the ancestral sin of Adam, meaning he was inclined to sin and had to overcome human pride and concupiscence which tarnishes our human nature, though he never committed any actual sins.

He overcame all human temptations without sinning...

And He overcame death by His Death on the Cross...

Do you not believe He did so?

Or that you, in Him, cannot do so?

Do you think that He was not given every temptation?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I think because of the limitless power of God it really doesn't matter what condition her blood was in. Heck, God says he can make children from rocks:

And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. Matthew 3:9

Christ was not born of the Blessed Virgin for HIS sake...

But for OURS...

BECAUSE...

WE are the ones NEEDING purification from sins
IN ORDER THAT
Christ be Born IN US in Baptism...

"All who have been Baptized into Christ...
Have put on Christ..."

Arsenios

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Christ was not born of the Blessed Virgin for HIS sake...

But for OURS...

BECAUSE...

WE are the ones NEEDING purification from sins
IN ORDER THAT
Christ be Born IN US in Baptism...

"All who have been Baptized into Christ...
Have put on Christ..."

Arsenios

I agree with your statement. However the point that I was trying to make is this. There is absolutely no biblical necessity for Mary to be sinless. The Immaculate Conception is not necessary. Jesus is just as capable of being sinless without the Immaculate Conception.

 

[justinangel]

Actually, the Church does not hold that Jesus inherited our fallen nature and will. Also, it should be noted that the Church is not infected with any heresy, in order to keep the record accurate.

Take it up with Arsenios. He's Eastern Orthodox.



Justinius Angelus

 

[Arsenios]

I agree with your statement.

I don't think so...

But hey!

What do I know?

However the point that I was trying to make is this. There is absolutely no biblical necessity for Mary to be sinless.

Well, you did agree that her sinless purity was for our sake, and not for Christ's sake...

Much less, the sake of the Bible...

God came through Her body into His Creation...

God is without sin...

WE are DEAD in our sins...

God comes without sin, you see...

Hence purity from sin in Her...

THROUGH WHOM He came...

And through Whom He comes to us...

The Immaculate Conception is not necessary.
Jesus is just as capable of being sinless without the Immaculate Conception.

Jesus IS sinless...

Period.

The Church has taught from the beginnings that Mary was sinless...

And was NOT given any special Grace at her conception...

THAT is HOW exceptional SHE IS...

Arsenios

 

[truefiction1]

I agree with your statement. However the point that I was trying to make is this. There is absolutely no biblical necessity for Mary to be sinless. The Immaculate Conception is not necessary. Jesus is just as capable of being sinless without the Immaculate Conception.

In the way that we read the Bible, Jesus is a human in addition to being the Word of God. One cannot develop into a healthy human person without good mothering. One cannot develop into a perfect human person without perfect mothering. This is an ontological necessity, and thus a Biblical necessity. So we understand that Theotokos is a sinless person, but conceived normally and mortal, as one belonging to the race of fallen mankind even as we all are, except Christ.

 

[Arsenios]

Take it up with Arsenios. He's Eastern Orthodox.

Justinius Angelus

He was subject to death, and overcame death, by entering death voluntarily on the Cross.

eg He was born with a mortal human soul...

That is why He fled to Egypt as an infant, to escape Herod...

He was born into the death of Adam...
AND...
Overcame that death...
Picking up where Adam left off...
And going beyond...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Take it up with Arsenios. He's Eastern Orthodox.



Justinius Angelus

Ya know, pitting one EO against another is...
Well...
I mean...
I guess I DID do that with Mommy and Daddy...
So I can't get all atwist...
But even so...



Arsenios

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The Church has taught from the beginnings that Mary was sinless...

That is completely false! Where in the bible does it say Mary was sinless? The answer is simply it dosent.

The problem with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it is not taught in the Bible. The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary was undoubtedly a godly woman (Luke 1:28). Mary was surely a wonderful wife and mother. Jesus definitely loved and cherished His mother (John 19:27). The Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. In fact, the Bible gives us every reason to believe that Jesus Christ is the only Person who was not “infected” by sin and never committed a sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5).

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception originated out of confusion over how Jesus Christ could be born sinless if He was conceived inside of a sinful human female. The thought was that Jesus would have inherited a sinful nature from Mary had she been a sinner. In contrast to the Immaculate Conception, the biblical solution to this problem is that Jesus Himself was miraculously protected from being polluted by sin while He was inside Mary's womb. If God was capable of protecting Mary from sin, would He not be able to protect Jesus from sin? Therefore, Mary being sinless is neither necessary nor biblical.

The Roman Catholic Church argues that the Immaculate Conception is necessary because without it, Jesus would have been the object of His own grace. The thought goes like this – for Jesus to have been miraculously preserved from sin, which itself would be an act of grace, would mean God essentially “graced Himself.” The word grace means “unmerited favor.” Grace is giving someone something he or she does not deserve. God performing a miracle in preserving Jesus from sin is not “grace.” In no sense could Jesus possibly be infected with sin. He was perfect and sinless humanity joined with sinless divinity. God cannot be infected or affected by sin, as He is perfectly holy. This same truth applies to Jesus. It did not take “grace” to protect Jesus from sin. Being God incarnate, Jesus was in His essence “immune” from sin.

So, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is neither biblical nor necessary. Jesus was miraculously conceived inside Mary, who was a virgin at the time. That is the biblical concept of the virgin birth. The Bible does not even hint that there was anything significant about Mary’s conception. If we examine this concept logically, Mary’s mother would have to be immaculately conceived as well. How could Mary be conceived without sin if her mother was sinful? The same would have to be said of Mary’s grandmother, great-grandmother, and so on. So, in conclusion, the Immaculate Conception is not a biblical teaching. The Bible teaches the miraculous virgin conception of Jesus Christ, not the immaculate conception of Mary.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

One cannot develop into a healthy human person without good mothering. One cannot develop into a perfect human person without perfect mothering.

So what about Mary’s mother? Was she sinless? If not, how could Mary possibly develop into a perfect and sinless person if her own mother was sinful?