Mary, Immaculate Conception, All Holy, etc.

[MilesVitae]

This is to continue a discussion Matt, Kylissa, and I began in the thread about the differences between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy.

I had said

Not that this is really relevant to the rest of the conversation at this point, but I just wanted to clarify the RCC teaching. The RCC does not teach that the Immaculate Conception was necessary for Christ not to inherit a sinful nature (even if you can sometimes find Catholics making this argument), but only that was it was appropriate to Mary's role in Christ's incarnation.

Matt asked,

Just outta curiosity, why was it appropriate for her role in the incarnation?

Honestly, this question kind of threw me, I think in part because it's always seemed kind of self-evident to me that the Immaculate Conception (as well as the perpetual virginity and Assumption) would be befitting to Mary's role, if God in fact granted them to her as we believe. To clarify my own statement, when I say the IC is appropriate, I do not at all mean that she received this gift because it was strictly necessary in light of her relationship to Christ - only that it was befitting or, at the very least, that it was granted in light of that role as the one who was to be the Mother of God or Theotokos and to play the part she did in God the Son's coming into this world, being incarnated and, following up that, redeeming us. I guess to me it just doesn't seem strange to be taught that God bestowed these special gifts upon her. I'd also add that Mary is also looked on as sort of the type or model of what we are to be, redeemed in Christ and a member of His Body the Church - above all else in her cooperation with God's grace, but also through her complete lack of stain, fullness of grace, and bodily assumption into heaven, pointing towards are own hoped-for purification and the resurrection of the body.

What do y'all believe exactly? You believe she is ever-virgin, all holy, and assumed (her dormition) right? What do those mean, and why are they true of her?

Thanks

 

[GregConstantine]

I was taught that as a Catholic and so were my parents who went to RC school before Vatican II. Nonetheless, the teaching of original sin is still very much a RC teaching and is different from the Orthodox teaching, and it is still problematic. please see the following from the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 266. Why is this sin called original?

A. This sin is called original because it comes down to us from our first parents, and we are brought into the world with its guilt on our soul.



Q. 267. Does this corruption of our nature remain in us after original sin is forgiven?

A. This corruption of our nature and other punishments remain in us after original sin is forgiven.



Q. 268. Was any one ever preserved from original sin?

A. The Blessed Virgin Mary, through the merits of her Divine Son, was preserved free from the guilt of original sin, and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.



Q. 269. Why was the Blessed Virgin preserved from original sin?

A. The Blessed Virgin was preserved from original sin because it would not be consistent with the dignity of the

Son of God to have His Mother, even for an instant, in the power of the devil and an enemy of God.



Q. 270. How could the Blessed Virgin be preserved from sin by her Divine Son, before her Son was born?

A. The Blessed Virgin could be preserved from sin by her Divine Son before He was born as man, for He always

existed as God and foresaw His own future merits and the dignity of His Mother. He therefore by His future merits provided for her privilege of exemption from original sin.



Q. 271. What does the "Immaculate Conception" mean?

A. The Immaculate Conception means the Blessed Virgin's own exclusive privilege of coming into existence,

through the merits of Jesus Christ, without the stain of original sin. It does not mean, therefore, her sinless life,

perpetual virginity or the miraculous conception of Our Divine Lord by the power of the Holy Ghost.

 

[GregConstantine]

"A. The Immaculate Conception means the Blessed Virgin's own exclusive privilege of coming into existence"

that it is "exclusive" and "privileged" is problematic. It is setting her up to be some exception rather than the norm for all human beings.

And it says that she should be an example. But how can she be, if she being given some exception or exclusive grace so to speak that is not given to anyone else?

It would be something like giving an athlete a special steroid that makes him excel at whatever sport he does, and tell everyone else to copy him and be like him, and attain the same level of athletic agility, but withhold the steroid from everyone else.

 

[MilesVitae]

"A. The Immaculate Conception means the Blessed Virgin's own exclusive privilege of coming into existence"

that it is "exclusive" and "privileged" is problematic. It is setting her up to be some exception rather than the norm for all human beings.

And it says that she should be an example. But how can she be, if she being given some exception or exclusive grace so to speak that is not given to anyone else?

It would be something like giving an athlete a special steroid that makes him excel at whatever sport he does, and tell everyone else to copy him and be like him, and attain the same level of athletic agility, but withhold the steroid from everyone else.

I understand these objections, particularly the first one. None the less, I'm skeptical that the first really gives sufficient reason to reject the belief, and I don't think the second is problematic at all.
Yes, it makes Mary an exception, because she is the Theotokos, the Mother of God - she is also an exception in regards to her perpetual virginity and assumption/dormition.
As for her being an example, you're right that she cannot be an example of someone who has battled with their own sin. But, she remains an example of what it is to have pure love for and obedience to God - this is true of Christ Himself, after all, who is an example of what we must strive to become.

 

[truefiction1]

This is to continue a discussion Matt, Kylissa, and I began in the thread about the differences between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy.

I had said

Matt asked,

Honestly, this question kind of threw me, I think in part because it's always seemed kind of self-evident to me that the Immaculate Conception (as well as the perpetual virginity and Assumption) would be befitting to Mary's role, if God in fact granted them to her as we believe. To clarify my own statement, when I say the IC is appropriate, I do not at all mean that she received this gift because it was strictly necessary in light of her relationship to Christ - only that it was befitting or, at the very least, that it was granted in light of that role as the one who was to be the Mother of God or Theotokos and to play the part she did in God the Son's coming into this world, being incarnated and, following up that, redeeming us. I guess to me it just doesn't seem strange to be taught that God bestowed these special gifts upon her. I'd also add that Mary is also looked on as sort of the type or model of what we are to be, redeemed in Christ and a member of His Body the Church - above all else in her cooperation with God's grace, but also through her complete lack of stain, fullness of grace, and bodily assumption into heaven, pointing towards are own hoped-for purification and the resurrection of the body.

What do y'all believe exactly? You believe she is ever-virgin, all holy, and assumed (her dormition) right? What do those mean, and why are they true of her?

Thanks

The Theotokos can't be the Church if she herself was exempt from original sin and in no need herself therefore of redemption. She is the Church (figuratively speaking) because her salvation is through the death of her Son, as it is for all. She died, was bodily resurrected by Christ and sits at His right hand in Heaven. Her immediate deification is complete on account of who she is, relative to God and the Church. In her is realized the future of all the saints, who are bodily resurrected and glorified in the final judgment at the end of the ages. If Mary were free of original sin then she would have been immortal by nature, as Christ is. Christ died by will, not out of natural necessity. Mary died as was natural to all born under the curse of human mortality.

 

[~Anastasia~]

"A. The Immaculate Conception means the Blessed Virgin's own exclusive privilege of coming into existence"

that it is "exclusive" and "privileged" is problematic. It is setting her up to be some exception rather than the norm for all human beings.

And it says that she should be an example. But how can she be, if she being given some exception or exclusive grace so to speak that is not given to anyone else?

It would be something like giving an athlete a special steroid that makes him excel at whatever sport he does, and tell everyone else to copy him and be like him, and attain the same level of athletic agility, but withhold the steroid from everyone else.

This is one of the first questions I'd ask as well. What's so special about her saying yes to God if she was perfect in grace before she was ever born? How can she be someone to emulate, or even someone who might have compassion on us and want to pray for us, if she was so completely removed from even the possibility of sin?

And I'm still a little stuck on the theological point - if Christ took flesh from her, but her flesh was not like our flesh - then Christ has not assumed our nature/flesh. And St. Athanasius (was it?) said that what is not assumed cannot be healed.

It would seem to crumble the foundations of how salvation is accomplished, carried fully into the implications.

The Orthodox Church certainly teaches the ever-virginity of the Theotokos, and her Assumption (bodily, after her death and entombment). As far as all-holy, I've gotten slightly differing answers from priests on this. As far as I can tell, we dogmatically believe that she was blameless. (But that word is also used for other highly honored people.) However, complete and utter sinlessness doesn't seem to be there. I gather one might be allowed to believe such a thing and it won't get you kicked out of Church, but it doesn't seem to be the actual teaching. We do of course teach that she is highly honorable and favored, and blessed, and has a unique relationship with Christ.

Of course, I'm hoping someone will correct this if I've gotten it wrong, but I've asked a number of priests.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, it makes Mary an exception, because she is the Theotokos, the Mother of God - she is also an exception in regards to her perpetual virginity and assumption/dormition.

and we would say that she is NOT the exception in any way, but as Greg pointed out, the example. we are all called to bear Christ within us as she did, we are called to be a spiritually pure and virginal as she is, and we are all called to die in peace as she did. what is exceptional about her is that she never squandered who God called her to be.

As for her being an example, you're right that she cannot be an example of someone who has battled with their own sin. But, she remains an example of what it is to have pure love for and obedience to God - this is true of Christ Himself, after all, who is an example of what we must strive to become.

and this begs the question, if Christ could apply the merits to her to remove the stain of original sin, why not for the rest of us?

and if Christ assumed a humanity free from the stain of original sin, and all of our humanity is still tainted, how did he deify the rest of us? cause my humanity still has the taint of original sin, but that humanity is not Resurrected. only Mary's humanity is at the right hand of the Father.

 

[dzheremi]

I note that the Catholic explanation makes a point of what they feel is most fitting, but not what it is actually necessary. An important distinction, I would say, as the difference I have found between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic is not one of dignity, honor, or praise given to the Theotokos, but of what is appropriate and necessary in giving that dignity, honor, and praise to her. St. Ambrose, in his commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, states: "When the Lord wanted to redeem the world, He began His work with Mary, that she, through whom salvation was prepared for all, should be the first to draw the fruit of salvation from the Son." In terms of the chronology attached to the incarnation, I am much more comfortable with this than anything that says that God granted some special privilege first to her parents Joachim and Anna, because then a reasonable person might find it prudent to ask well, why stop there? Why not her parents' parents, and then their parents, and so forth? And in that case, as Matt has written above, then why not everyone?

Whereas if you believe, as I'm convinced both EO and OO do, that St. Mary was holy from her childhood (I'll refrain from saying "sinless", as I know there are some fathers who do not teach that, such as St. Irenaeus, though there are likewise plenty who do) out of her great love for and obedience to God, then the IC seems at best unnecessary (and at worst separating her from the human race, thereby calling into question the nature of the incarnation itself).

 

[GregConstantine]

MilesVitae, please answer the question. How can someone be an example to us if she received something the rest of us have not received?

 

[buzuxi02]

Then there is the whole excess "merits of Christ" being bestowed upon her. Not an Orthodox concept.

Also both the EO, OO (and even byzantine rite catholics) teach she was purified further by the Holy Spirit prior to the incarnation when she accepted her role upon hearing Gabriel's message at the Anunciation.

 

[GregConstantine]

the immaculate conception is directly tied into the RC teaching on original sin (please see quotations above from the Baltimore catechism) which many modern RC's try to deny that their Church teaches. Sorry folks, yes, RC' do teach and believe we inherit guilt from Adam.

 

[MilesVitae]

The Theotokos can't be the Church if she herself was exempt from original sin and in no need herself therefore of redemption. She is the Church (figuratively speaking) because her salvation is through the death of her Son, as it is for all. She died, was bodily resurrected by Christ and sits at His right hand in Heaven. Her immediate deification is complete on account of who she is, relative to God and the Church. In her is realized the future of all the saints, who are bodily resurrected and glorified in the final judgment at the end of the ages. If Mary were free of original sin then she would have been immortal by nature, as Christ is. Christ died by will, not out of natural necessity. Mary died as was natural to all born under the curse of human mortality.

The Catholic understanding is that Mary's immaculate conception was part of her redemption, but whereas our redemption involves being lifted from "original sin" and actual sin that we are already, hers involved being preserved from it entirely. Furthermore, this was only accomplished through Christ (though "applied" prior in time): "The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin." (Pope Pius IX's definition, as quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 491).

I don't know much about the question of Mary's death (except that it is not addressed by Catholic dogma). As far as opinions among Catholics are concerned, I've heard some people theorize that she did not die (for the reasons you state), and others have theorized that she underwent death, though it would not have naturally befallen her, as a participation in Christ's death.

 

[MilesVitae]

This is one of the first questions I'd ask as well. What's so special about her saying yes to God if she was perfect in grace before she was ever born? How can she be someone to emulate, or even someone who might have compassion on us and want to pray for us, if she was so completely removed from even the possibility of sin?

I think I understand what you're saying, but consider Adam and Eve - since they did not have the fallen natures we do when they were created, we could ask of them "What would have been so special about them choosing to love God if they had perfect grace to begin with?"
As for her being someone to emulate, I agree the fact that she was completely pure means we can't look to her as someone who battled their own sin, but we can look to her as an example of pure virtue, of what we ought to be battling our sin in an attempt to strive for. Like I said to Greg, Christ Himself was completely without sin and even incapable of sin, and yet we wouldn't see He is not an example or someone to emulate - He's the perfect example.

And I'm still a little stuck on the theological point - if Christ took flesh from her, but her flesh was not like our flesh - then Christ has not assumed our nature/flesh. And St. Athanasius (was it?) said that what is not assumed cannot be healed.

Hmmm - I see your point. But, wouldn't it then follow that Christ's own human nature must have itself been fallen/tainted by original sin for Him to redeem us? That doesn't seem acceptable - I've always understood Christ to have shared our nature, but unfallen in His case. In the same way, even if Mary was preserved from original sin, she still shared the same nature as us.

As far as all-holy, I've gotten slightly differing answers from priests on this. As far as I can tell, we dogmatically believe that she was blameless. (But that word is also used for other highly honored people.) However, complete and utter sinlessness doesn't seem to be there. I gather one might be allowed to believe such a thing and it won't get you kicked out of Church, but it doesn't seem to be the actual teaching. We do of course teach that she is highly honorable and favored, and blessed, and has a unique relationship with Christ.

Thank you - I don't think I understand what is meant by "blameless" as distinct from "sinless."

 

[MilesVitae]

and we would say that she is NOT the exception in any way, but as Greg pointed out, the example. we are all called to bear Christ within us as she did, we are called to be a spiritually pure and virginal as she is, and we are all called to die in peace as she did. what is exceptional about her is that she never squandered who God called her to be.

It seems to me like this discussion could easily end up in a semantic mess concerning the word "exception", even though it sounds like we basically agree.
Mary is an example or type of what we are meant to be as you say, which is precisely why she was caused to be both mother and perpetual virgin, experiences already the bodily resurrection we will experience someday (and, according to Catholicism, was preserved from original sin from the first moment of her existence.)

and this begs the question, if Christ could apply the merits to her to remove the stain of original sin, why not for the rest of us?

Million dollar question - I don't know the answer. The only thought I can really offer is why didn't Christ remove the stain of original sin from all of us rather than none of us? If he would redeem us anyway, why didn't He without waiting for centuries to become incarnate and die. Personally, I don't have much of an answer (though I'd be more than willing to be led to greater understanding) to the question of our fallenness in general, so I don't know much I can really question the teaching of the IC on that basis.

and if Christ assumed a humanity free from the stain of original sin, and all of our humanity is still tainted, how did he deify the rest of us? cause my humanity still has the taint of original sin, but that humanity is not Resurrected. only Mary's humanity is at the right hand of the Father.

Maybe I'm confused about what y'all believe, because I seem to be getting mixed messages. Do you believe Christ's human nature was fallen and tainted?

 

[MilesVitae]

MilesVitae, please answer the question. How can someone be an example to us if she received something the rest of us have not received?

I answered that in my reply to you - also in my recent response to Kylissa. She is an example of what we are to strive for, even if she can't be an example of someone who struggled with their own sin. If Mary could not be an example in the case of the IC, then how could Christ Himself be an example, since He himself is perfectly holy?

 

[MilesVitae]

Then there is the whole excess "merits of Christ" being bestowed upon her. Not an Orthodox concept.

I'm not sure that any notion of "excess merits" is relevant to the question of the Immaculate Conception (I only know of statements speaking of Christ's merits in regard to the IC - and maybe the language of "merits" is poor and even heterodox, but the main point is that it was by virtue of Christ's salvific work that Mary was preserved) - "excess merits" sounds like something that would be talked about in relationship to indulgences and the like. Granted, though, I question some of that.

Also both the EO, OO (and even byzantine rite catholics) teach she was purified further by the Holy Spirit prior to the incarnation when she accepted her role upon hearing Gabriel's message at the Anunciation.

Interesting - I'm just a westerner not really familiar with the eastern ideas concerning this...though I do recall hearing that somewhere, now that I think about it.

the immaculate conception is directly tied into the RC teaching on original sin (please see quotations above from the Baltimore catechism) which many modern RC's try to deny that their Church teaches. Sorry folks, yes, RC' do teach and believe we inherit guilt from Adam.

Perhaps they do - that's a point on which I'm personally confused at this point, but I haven't spent as much time looking into it. I hesitate to ask what y'all believe "ancestral sin" (is that what you call it?) is, since I'm sure it's been hashed out plenty of times here...

 

[truefiction1]

The Catholic understanding is that Mary's immaculate conception was part of her redemption, but whereas our redemption involves being lifted from "original sin" and actual sin that we are already, hers involved being preserved from it entirely. Furthermore, this was only accomplished through Christ (though "applied" prior in time): "The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin." (Pope Pius IX's definition, as quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 491).

Such dogmatic proclamations about the Theotokos have Anselmnian redemption dogma at their root. The Church rejects Anselmnian dogmatic definitions of the great mystery of our redemption: a mystery that defies rational definition. The Church has no notion of "merits" or any "stain of original sin".

 

[jckstraw72]

Christ's humanity was not fallen, because He was born virginally. Unfallen mode of reproductin -- unfallen nature. But He did voluntarily take on the blameless passions of fallenness such as hunger, tiredness, etc. But, He assumed unfallen nature -- it's actually a difference of mode, not nature, so whether one is fallen, according to nature, or above nature as is Christ -- it's all the same nature.

 

[MilesVitae]

Christ's humanity was not fallen, because He was born virginally. Unfallen mode of reproductin -- unfallen nature.

I don't understand this idea.

But He did voluntarily take on the blameless passions of fallenness such as hunger, tiredness, etc. But, He assumed unfallen nature -- it's actually a difference of mode, not nature, so whether one is fallen, according to nature, or above nature as is Christ -- it's all the same nature.

Okay, so if Christ's nature does need to be fallen like ours for redemption to occur, then it would seem to follow that his mother's (hypothetically) would not need to be either, since it is still the same human nature?

 

[MilesVitae]

Such dogmatic proclamations about the Theotokos have Anselmnian redemption dogma at their root. The Church rejects Anselmnian dogmatic definitions of the great mystery of our redemption: a mystery that defies rational definition. The Church has no notion of "merits" or any "stain of original sin".

I don't remember that much about the place of merit and stain of original sin in Anselm's thinking - it's been a while since I've read him directly. Could you explain more precisely?

In any case, to the extent that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is connected to idea of original sin, you may very well be right (as I pointed out in another post, the whole "merits" thing is more secondary - one could just say the salvific work of Christ, AFAIK). I'd still like to understand more clearly what the Orthodox Church understands about "original sin" or "ancestral sin" or the condition we are in as a result...