Orthodox Perspective on the Immaculate conception of Mary!

[ikonographics]

We are born with fallen human nature that is subject to sin, corruption and death.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

We are born with fallen human nature that is subject to sin, corruption and death.

was Jesus born with fallen nature?

 

[buzuxi02]

The latin dogma of IC along with the concept of doctrinal developmental renders a new meaning to the definition of chalcedon which is not meant. Chalcedon disproves the latin teaching on the IC, but using the latin teaching of doctrinal developmental, the chalcedonian faith in hindsight now seems to imply the IC. The historical understanding of chalcedon dogma is unaware of an IC as evident from the phrase "except sin":

..."the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; "

On the other hand the RC system throws in a new wrinkle in the definitions understanding, belief in doctrinal development and the IC, now includes the Theotokos as being the same as Christ, "without sin":

"the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; "

While the Roman church may claim the definition of chalcedon is evidence for the IC (looking back thru the lens of doctrinal dvelopment), the Orthodox church will always reject the IC using the same definition of chalcedon in its historical understanding. Orthodoxy will always understand the phrase 'like us in all respects" to include the Virgin Mary hence Christ is the only exemption..

 

[ikonographics]

From the moment of His conception, his human nature was deified by his divine nature.

 

[Michael G]

I thought this thread was about the Orthodox perspective on the IC? IF that is the case, why are Roman Catholics being allowed to debate with us in this thread?

 

[Coralie]

If Christ can still be fully human and without sin, why can't Mary?

Because Christ is the God-man. Mary is a human being. To say that there are three "kinds" of people that have lived on earth--1. normal humans like you and me, 2. Mary, and 3. Christ--isn't the Orthodox understanding.

Rather, we see it like this: there are two kinds of people. 1. human beings like you, me, and Mary; and 2. Christ.

Mary is not on an intermediate level between other human beings and Christ (and, of course, the Trinity as a whole). To say that she was conceived without sin is to place her on this intermediate level.

Does that make sense?

 

[Coralie]

I thought this thread was about the Orthodox perspective on the IC? IF that is the case, why are Roman Catholics being allowed to debate with us in this thread?

But she is not debating. (Unless you have a vastly different idea to what I have about what constitutes debate?)

Monica is asking specifically about "the Orthodox perspective on the IC". That's the theme of the thread after all. She is giving us the opportunity to share our perspective by asking questions that are valid to her.

How else should threads like this work? Should one person ask a question, and then only Orthodox can answer, no-one else can ask any other questions or try to clarify anything from thereon out? Should we narrow it down further, and insist that only Orthodox may even post questions?

I am not asking this in a snarky way, forgive me--I am just genuinely interested in hearing what the alternative is.

 

[Bessie]

Monica,

We don't believe that any of us are born with the guilt of original sin. We do believe that we and this world are affected by sin (death, corruption, etc), and we all have to deal with that because of the sin of Adam and Eve, but we aren't guilty of anything until we sin ourselves.

The Roman Catholic position as you well know is that because all moments in time are before God's eyes, he applied the merit of Christ's work on the cross to her retroactively so that she could be pure and conceived without sin. We don't see it that way.

The Orthodox position is that there was nothing to preserve her from. We are all born free of guilt in the first place and only fall subject to any guilt after we committ sin ourselves. Christ saves her just like all the rest of us. She never sinned, but she didn't have to be preserved from sin in the first place because she was not guilty.

Does that make sense?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Because Christ is the God-man. Mary is a human being. To say that there are three "kinds" of people that have lived on earth--1. normal humans like you and me, 2. Mary, and 3. Christ--isn't the Orthodox understanding.

Rather, we see it like this: there are two kinds of people. 1. human beings like you, me, and Mary; and 2. Christ.

Mary is not on an intermediate level between other human beings and Christ (and, of course, the Trinity as a whole). To say that she was conceived without sin is to place her on this intermediate level.

Does that make sense?

I see what you are saying, but wouldn't it just mean that Mary is in the same position as Adam and Eve before the fall? (or in the same position as people in Heaven ). We also believe she was saved by Christ's merits, and by grace.. just at a different time. God forgives our past sins, but He prevented Mary from ever sinning (we believe.. do you think this might be possible in a way, since you also believe she never sinned?)

Do you think it necessarily means a 3rd type of person?

Monica,

We don't believe that any of us are born with the guilt of original sin. We do believe that we and this world are affected by sin (death, corruption, etc), and we all have to deal with that because of the sin of Adam and Eve, but we aren't guilty of anything until we sin ourselves.

The Roman Catholic position as you well know is that because all moments in time are before God's eyes, he applied the merit of Christ's work on the cross to her retroactively so that she could be pure and conceived without sin. We don't see it that way.

The Orthodox position is that there was nothing to preserve her from. We are all born free of guilt in the first place and only fall subject to any guilt after we committ sin ourselves. Christ saves her just like all the rest of us. She never sinned, but she didn't have to be preserved from sin in the first place because she was not guilty.

Does that make sense?

thanks for clarifying

 

[Gwendolyn]

I thought this thread was about the Orthodox perspective on the IC? IF that is the case, why are Roman Catholics being allowed to debate with us in this thread?

Actually, Monica's questions have been very helpful to me in trying to grasp the Orthodox understanding. This is a good thread.

 

[Macarius]

if we are not born sinful, then what is the problem with Mary being conceived without sin?

That was my point earlier. The issue is original sin.

and if we are born sinful, then how is it a problem for Mary to be conceived without sin if being sinless doesn't not take away from being fully human (as we can see with Christ, who was sinless in any case)?

But you are being imprecise here - if we are born sinful, if sin is part of our nature, then being born sinless means Mary was not born like us. It would mean she does not share our nature, and therefore isn't human the same way we are. She would have to have a different human nature. That's problematic.

 

[Macarius]

was Jesus born with fallen nature?

I disagree even with the question being asked, as it is rather like asking "have you stopped beating your children?"

Jesus was born with a FULL human nature - the same human nature we have now. If that isn't true, then Christ didn't become as we are and we are still separated from God.

Yet if you, like Augustine, imply that our nature has "sin" within it - that we have a sin nature - then you necessarily make it impossible that Christ could take on such a fallen nature (as Christ is without sin).

If you accept the more Cappadocian view (Basil and the Gregories) and Athanasian view that our nature, after the fall, isn't fundamentally different but is, rather, subject to separation from God and thereby to death due to our own sin (and this is the same as the pre-fall nature, as implied by God's warning, except that because no sin had occured these consequences were not occuring), then Christ can have our literal nature - except that Christ doesn't chose to sin.

He became as we are, except without sin.

So yes, Christ had a "fallen" nature - or rather, He had the same nature as we do today (human nature after the fall). To say less is to undermine the Incarnation and destroy the Gospel. By His very goodness He redeemed that nature - but whatever is not assumed is not healed. If He didn't assume our nature, the Gospel is moot. But if He did assume our nature, then God (by His very changelessness) has transformed that state-of-separation into a means of communion. Even in our present nature, because of the Incarnation, we can be with God.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Macarius]

Because Christ is the God-man. Mary is a human being. To say that there are three "kinds" of people that have lived on earth--1. normal humans like you and me, 2. Mary, and 3. Christ--isn't the Orthodox understanding.

Rather, we see it like this: there are two kinds of people. 1. human beings like you, me, and Mary; and 2. Christ.

Mary is not on an intermediate level between other human beings and Christ (and, of course, the Trinity as a whole). To say that she was conceived without sin is to place her on this intermediate level.

Does that make sense?

Please forgive me, but I would hesitate to classify Jesus as distinct from human beings. He is God - which makes Jesus the person unique - but His humanity was full and complete, identical to ours. Unless I'm misunderstanding, in which case forgive me for that as well

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Macarius]

I don't understand,

- so you are saying that Christ is the same as us in His humanity except for sin.. that is true! I agree with Chalcedon.. but why does this relate to Mary? If Christ can still be fully human and without sin, why can't Mary? after all, the Orthodox also believe that Mary didn't sin?

In both cases, the not-sinning was not due to them having a different nature, but due to choice and God's grace. Christ had that grace uniquely because of His divinity, but His humanity had a full human will and He, in His single personhood, chose to submit to the Divine Will. Mary, also a human being, remained all-holy and was united to God through her conception of Christ (even as we are united to God through Christ in the Eucharist, but her on a more profound level even than that).

We agree that Mary did not sin. But this was not because of some special exception in her nature. It was because of her obedience. She didn't need to be born differently not to sin - just as we don't. We are without excuse. Mary and Christ both shame us, for having the same will as them, we chose to sin and crucify Christ.

 

[Gwendolyn]

I disagree even with the question being asked, as it is rather like asking "have you stopped beating your children?"

Jesus was born with a FULL human nature - the same human nature we have now. If that isn't true, that Christ didn't become as we are and we are still separated from God.

Yet if you, like Augustine, imply that our nature has "sin" within it - that we have a sin nature - then you necessarily make it impossible that Christ could take on such a fallen nature (as Christ is without sin).

If you accept the more Cappadocian view (Basil and the Gregories) and Athanasian view that our nature, after the fall, isn't fundamentally different but is, rather, subject to separation from God and thereby to death do to our own sin (and this is the same as the pre-fall nature, as implied by God's warning, except that because no sin had occured these consequences were not occuring), then Christ can have our literal nature - except that Christ doesn't chose to sin.

He became as we are, except without sin.

So yes, Christ had a "fallen" nature - or rather, He had the same nature as we do today (human nature after the fall). To say less is to undermine the Incarnation and destroy the Gospel. By His very goodness He redeemed that nature - but whatever is not assumed is not healed. If He didn't assume our nature, the Gospel is moot. But if He did assume our nature, then God (by His very changelessness) has transformed that state-of-separation into a means of communion. Even in our present nature, because of the Incarnation, we can be with God.

In Christ,
Macarius

Fascinating. I'm getting excited reading this thread. I think I am finally beginning to wrap my head around the Orthodox view and how it differs from the Catholic view. Such a helpful post.

 

[Rhamiel]

so if she did not have sin
did she need Christ as a Savior?
I am still a little unclear on the EO view of this
if she was born without any sin and never commited a sin, then why would she need Christ as Savior?

 

[Gwendolyn]

so if she did not have sin
did she need Christ as a Savior?
I am still a little unclear on the EO view of this
if she was born without any sin and never commited a sin, then why would she need Christ as Savior?

Would it be because she was still subject to death? Am I on the right track?

 

[Macarius]

so if she did not have sin
did she need Christ as a Savior?
I am still a little unclear on the EO view of this
if she was born without any sin and never commited a sin, then why would she need Christ as Savior?

Because she was still born mortal (subject to death) and separated from God.

Being sinless isn't enough to bring one into communion with God. The Law cannot save. Only Christ's unity to us can save, and Mary experienced this first in her giving birth to God, but even she needed Christ to die in order to fill death with His presence and recapitulate all of the human experience to God. She needed communion - and this takes God's action (in Christ).

 

[Mary of Bethany]

In Orthodoxy, being saved is to be in full communion with Christ, healed and made whole in every way, to be restored to full humanity, purified and illumined.

Even though the Theotokos was sinless, she was not whole in every way until Christ destroyed death and restored all of creation to communion with God.

Mary

 

[Coralie]

Please forgive me, but I would hesitate to classify Jesus as distinct from human beings. He is God - which makes Jesus the person unique - but His humanity was full and complete, identical to ours. Unless I'm misunderstanding, in which case forgive me for that as well

Don't ask my forgiveness Macarius you're the smart one around here!!

I know what I'm saying isn't theologically or semantically perfect because it seems to undermine the "human-ness" of Christ. I know He is/was fully human (like Mary, me, and you) but I'm trying to express that He is/was fully divine too. Unlike Mary, me, and you.

What I'm saying is more about Mary though--i.e. only Christ is the God-man, but Mary isn't a God-woman just like I'm not a God-woman.

That's what I meant by "two types of people"-- 1. a complete human who is also an hypostasis of the Trinity (Christ); 2. other complete humans, who aren't (you, me, Mary).

And to talk about her nature being different from other human--because she was conceived differently, and therefore is inherently different from other humans in group 2 above--seems to invert who she really was. And it seems to place her in a third group, distinct from the two above.

Am I expressing this correctly?? Feel free to catechise me more extensively Or point me to another of your posts.