Stain of sin vs Guilt of sin . . .

[ArmyMatt]

I'm sorry, but that reasoning doesn't make sense to me, unless you mean that in order for Mary to be born in the same state as Eve we're not talking about the state of their souls but also the state of the world they were born into.

I am talking about their souls. the state of Eve prior to the Fall was that had she not sinned, her soul would not depart her body. if Mary’s soul was in the same state, it would not have left her body since she didn’t sin.

 

[narnia59]

I am talking about their souls. the state of Eve prior to the Fall was that had she not sinned, her soul would not depart her body. if Mary’s soul was in the same state, it would not have left her body since she didn’t sin.

So since you believe that Mary died does that mean that you believe she sinned?

That also seems to be in conflict with what you said above that you do not believe that the only thing that can affect a person's physical nature is their spiritual nature.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So since you believe that Mary died does that mean that you believe she sinned?

no, and I disagree that she was in the same state as Eve, so I don’t have that problem.

That also seems to be in conflict with what you said above that you do not believe that the only thing that can affect a person's physical nature is their spiritual nature.

no, because I don’t believe their souls are in the same state. there’s no conflict at all.

 

[narnia59]

no, and I disagree that she was in the same state as Eve, so I don’t have that problem.



no, because I don’t believe their souls are in the same state. there’s no conflict at all.

I don't have a problem because I understand that the reason Mary could die is not because she wasn't created without original sin, but because she, unlike Eve, lived in a fallen world.

Tell me this because I have received different answers from Orthodox about this -- was Jesus conceived in a state of original, or ancestral sin?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Tell me this because I have received different answers from Orthodox about this -- was Jesus conceived in a state of original, or ancestral sin?

He was born according to the unfallen mode of reproduction, with His human nature perfectly deified from the moment of conception, so no He wasn’t.

I don't have a problem because I understand that the reason Mary could die is not because she wasn't created without original sin, but because she, unlike Eve, lived in a fallen world.

you said her soul was in an identical state to Eve before the Fall. if that’s true, than her soul would remain in her body if she didn’t sin because Eve’s would have remained in her body if she didn’t sin.

 

[narnia59]

you said her soul was in an identical state to Eve before the Fall. if that’s true, than her soul would remain in her body if she didn’t sin because Eve’s would have remained in her body if she didn’t sin.

And I also said that the difference between Eve and Mary is that Mary's body was subject to living in a fallen world.

For example, say Eve (prior to their sin) had been walking in the garden one day and she was attacked by a lion. What would have happened? Since she had not sinned would the lion even though he would attack with his claws and teeth not been able to break her skin? Would he have been able to maul her and make her bleed but just not kill her? Were her and Adam's bodies some kind of super human bodies that could not have been damaged by an animal attack, or a flood, or a germ?

Or rather was the fact they wouldn't have died was because due to the perfect harmony of creation the lion would never have attacked, or there were no germs, or floods, or anything else that could have ever caused harm to their bodies?

He was born according to the unfallen mode of reproduction, with His human nature perfectly deified from the moment of conception, so no He wasn’t.

If he wasn't subject to the consequence of ancestral sin (death), then how could he have died? Your point about Mary seems to be that would be the case -- if she wasn't subject to the consequence of original sin her soul would have remained in her body and she would have never died. So how is it Christ died?

And while I'm not sure what the predominant view is in Orthodoxy, there are certainly those who disagree with you and profess that in order to redeem us Jesus had to assume our fallen state. For example, this site says:

However, Orthodox Christians do not accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. On the contrary, Orthodox believe that the Blessed Virgin was born in ancestral sin just like any other person. This is important because if Mary had not been born in ancestral sin, God could not have assumed sinful human nature from her. As St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote, “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed.” If God had not assumed sinful human nature from the Blessed Virgin, He could not have saved sinful human nature through the Incarnation of Christ. Indeed, a prayer addressed to the Virgin Mary from the service of Compline contains the beautiful words, “thy glorious birth-giving has united God the Word to man and joined the fallen nature of our race to heavenly things.”

The Holy Tradition and the Veneration of Mary and other Saints in the Orthodox Church | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

There are other sites that agree with your position. So is it a correct conclusion that the Orthodox do not have a definitive teaching regarding whether or not Christ assumed fallen human nature or not?

 

[ArmyMatt]

And I also said that the difference between Eve and Mary is that Mary's body was subject to living in a fallen world.

For example, say Eve (prior to their sin) had been walking in the garden one day and she was attacked by a lion. What would have happened? Since she had not sinned would the lion even though he would attack with his claws and teeth not been able to break her skin? Would he have been able to maul her and make her bleed but just not kill her? Were her and Adam's bodies some kind of super human bodies that could not have been damaged by an animal attack, or a flood, or a germ?

Or rather was the fact they wouldn't have died was because due to the perfect harmony of creation the lion would never have attacked, or there were no germs, or floods, or anything else that could have ever caused harm to their bodies?

well, you might have an argument if Mary died by being mauled or from a flood or germs or whatever. but she didn’t.

but to answer your questions, it’s both that Eve was in perfect harmony with creation and that her body wasn’t subject to corruption. that came in after the Fall.

If he wasn't subject to the consequence of ancestral sin (death), then how could he have died? Your point about Mary seems to be that would be the case -- if she wasn't subject to the consequence of original sin her soul would have remained in her body and she would have never died. So how is it Christ died?

And while I'm not sure what the predominant view is in Orthodoxy, there are certainly those who disagree with you and profess that in order to redeem us Jesus had to assume our fallen state. For example, this site says:

However, Orthodox Christians do not accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. On the contrary, Orthodox believe that the Blessed Virgin was born in ancestral sin just like any other person. This is important because if Mary had not been born in ancestral sin, God could not have assumed sinful human nature from her. As St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote, “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed.” If God had not assumed sinful human nature from the Blessed Virgin, He could not have saved sinful human nature through the Incarnation of Christ. Indeed, a prayer addressed to the Virgin Mary from the service of Compline contains the beautiful words, “thy glorious birth-giving has united God the Word to man and joined the fallen nature of our race to heavenly things.”

The Holy Tradition and the Veneration of Mary and other Saints in the Orthodox Church | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

There are other sites that agree with your position. So is it a correct conclusion that the Orthodox do not have a definitive teaching regarding whether or not Christ assumed fallen human nature or not?

Christ died according to His own will as He says in the Gospels. plus, the patristic quote actually supports my point (especially when read in its context against the Apollinarians), that He deified human nature. we absolutely say He assumed a fallen nature, since Mary was fallen. He instantly deified the fallen nature He assumed.

and that still doesn’t touch what I asked about Mary. granting that she didn’t die by external means (natural disaster, attacked, disease, etc), since she didn’t sin, her soul never should have left her body if she was in the same state as pre-fallen Eve, at least until some external means did separate her soul from her body.

 

[narnia59]

well, you might have an argument if Mary died by being mauled or from a flood or germs or whatever. but she didn’t.

but to answer your questions, it’s both that Eve was in perfect harmony with creation and that her body wasn’t subject to corruption. that came in after the Fall.



Christ died according to His own will as He says in the Gospels. plus, the patristic quote actually supports my point (especially when read in its context against the Apollinarians), that He deified human nature. we absolutely say He assumed a fallen nature, since Mary was fallen. He instantly deified the fallen nature He assumed.

and that still doesn’t touch what I asked about Mary. granting that she didn’t die by external means (natural disaster, attacked, disease, etc), since she didn’t sin, her soul never should have left her body if she was in the same state as pre-fallen Eve, at least until some external means did separate her soul from her body.

Germs, being mauled, etc are just examples of what can happen to people in a fallen world regardless of what state their soul is in. So what then caused Mary's death that was not part of a fallen world? And do we know specifically she didn't die from some disease?

Ok, so you are saying that Christ assumed fallen nature, had it for an instant and then changed it to not being fallen? That would still say to me that it's possible for someone to die even though they do not have a fallen nature.

It is truly not my intention to debate whether or not the Immaculate Conception is true -- I understand that the Orthodox do not believe that. I just think some of the reasoning that is often used to disprove it is problematic. To sum up:

1) The Immaculate Conception in no way implies or should lead to a conclusion that because Mary was conceived without original sin that means it was impossible for her to be tempted or to sin. I have never understood how people can think that, since Adam and Eve were created without original sin and it's quite obvious they could both be tempted and sin.

2) The Immaculate Conception is not based upon a "need" whereby Mary had to be created without sin so that Jesus could be.

3) The idea that Mary could not have died if she was conceived without original sin fails to take into account that she was born into a fallen world. The reason Adam and Eve would not have died if they had not sinned is connected to the reality that creation was not fallen so was thereby no threat to them.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Germs, being mauled, etc are just examples of what can happen to people in a fallen world regardless of what state their soul is in. So what then caused Mary's death that was not part of a fallen world? And do we know specifically she didn't die from some disease?

well, again, that’s not the issue. pre-Fallen Eve had an unfallen soul. Eve’s unfallen soul would have stayed in her body because only the Fall caused that separation. I am saying Mary’s soul was not the same as Eve’s before the Fall.

and we know it wasn’t disease because of records of her life, such as the Protoevangelium.

Ok, so you are saying that Christ assumed fallen nature, had it for an instant and then changed it to not being fallen? That would still say to me that it's possible for someone to die even though they do not have a fallen nature.

well it could and did, but only by His will because He is God. but for the rest of us, death is only for the fallen. Genesis makes that clear.

1) The Immaculate Conception in no way implies or should lead to a conclusion that because Mary was conceived without original sin that means it was impossible for her to be tempted or to sin. I have never understood how people can think that, since Adam and Eve were created without original sin and it's quite obvious they could both be tempted and sin.

I am not making that argument, but what does the council that affirmed it say?

2) The Immaculate Conception is not based upon a "need" whereby Mary had to be created without sin so that Jesus could be.

agreed, not asking that.

3) The idea that Mary could not have died if she was conceived without original sin fails to take into account that she was born into a fallen world. The reason Adam and Eve would not have died if they had not sinned is connected to the reality that creation was not fallen so was thereby no threat to them.

while true, there is more to it than that.

 

[Light of the East]

Or rather was the fact they wouldn't have died was because due to the perfect harmony of creation the lion would never have attacked, or there were no germs, or floods, or anything else that could have ever caused harm to their bodies?

This . . . as I understand it.

I think it is hard to make a comparison between the unfallen world, of which we know nothing nor cannot imagine, and the fallen world, which we know all too well.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="narnia59

1) The Immaculate Conception in no way implies or should lead to a conclusion that because Mary was conceived without original sin that means it was impossible for her to be tempted or to sin. I have never understood how people can think that, since Adam and Eve were created without original sin and it's quite obvious they could both be tempted and sin.

That is what makes Her so glorious and worthy of all honor, because She, being human just like us, was indeed able to be tempted. Remember, temptation comes from without, so I am sure that the devil, once he realized who She was and had perhaps a glimpse of what was coming, was on Her like a tick on a dog with vile thoughts, doubts, etc. But She never acted on them, and I would imagine (that is all I can do, is imagine because I don't know) that She never gave even a micro second thought to the temptations.

2) The Immaculate Conception is not based upon a "need" whereby Mary had to be created without sin so that Jesus could be.

Not what I have read from several Roman Catholic sources, it most certainly is presented as a "need" because of the guilt of Original Sin, and/or the "stain of sin." The question of the stain of sin is what started this whole thread. In pondering it, I think I have a handle on it. The "stain of sin" in Roman Catholic understanding is something that would have affected Her and made Her impure and unable to be a fitting vessel to bear the Christ. For us, as Fr. Matt said earlier, the concept of the "stain of sin" is that She is subject to death, which is the consequence of all mankind. One does not have to be a sinner at all to be subject to this - little babies who die are the clear sign of this reality. They are not sinners in the sense of choosing sin with a will and clear understanding of what evil they are choosing (the Roman Catholic requirements for sin), but they die nonethelss because as part of humanity, they are under the consequence of Adam's fall.

3) The idea that Mary could not have died if she was conceived without original sin fails to take into account that she was born into a fallen world. The reason Adam and Eve would not have died if they had not sinned is connected to the reality that creation was not fallen so was thereby no threat to them.

I've never heard this argument until now.

 

[narnia59]

well, again, that’s not the issue. pre-Fallen Eve had an unfallen soul. Eve’s unfallen soul would have stayed in her body because only the Fall caused that separation. I am saying Mary’s soul was not the same as Eve’s before the Fall.

and we know it wasn’t disease because of records of her life, such as the Protoevangelium.

I am not aware of anything about her death recorded in the Protoevangelium. Can you be more specific where we see records that speak to her death?

well it could and did, but only by His will because He is God. but for the rest of us, death is only for the fallen. Genesis makes that clear.

There are always exceptions it seems. Death did not come to Elijah or Enoch, even though I know that none would profess they were not fallen.

I am not making that argument, but what does the council that affirmed it say?

You will need to be more specific -- the council that affirmed what specifically?

agreed, not asking that.

Yeah that was up above in the thread from someone else but is a very common thing to hear.

while true, there is more to it than that.

Then can you elaborate? You seem to believe that an unfallen person could survive in a fallen world and never die?

 

[narnia59]

This . . . as I understand it.

I think it is hard to make a comparison between the unfallen world, of which we know nothing nor cannot imagine, and the fallen world, which we know all too well.

We do know that all was in complete harmony between humanity and the natural world, true? No earthquakes, poisonous vipers, germs?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am not aware of anything about her death recorded in the Protoevangelium. Can you be more specific where we see records that speak to her death?

read the traditional hymns and prayers that concern her death or dormition.

There are always exceptions it seems. Death did not come to Elijah or Enoch, even though I know that none would profess they were not fallen.

that’s why many Fathers see them as the witnesses in Revelation, who will die. so they aren’t the exceptions.

You will need to be more specific -- the council that affirmed what specifically?

you’re the Catholic, you probably shouldn’t be asking me this.

Then can you elaborate? You seem to believe that an unfallen person could survive in a fallen world and never die?

well, I don’t know. we only know of one unfallen Human and He did die, but by His own will as He says.

 

[narnia59]

1) The Immaculate Conception in no way implies or should lead to a conclusion that because Mary was conceived without original sin that means it was impossible for her to be tempted or to sin. I have never understood how people can think that, since Adam and Eve were created without original sin and it's quite obvious they could both be tempted and sin.

That is what makes Her so glorious and worthy of all honor, because She, being human just like us, was indeed able to be tempted. Remember, temptation comes from without, so I am sure that the devil, once he realized who She was and had perhaps a glimpse of what was coming, was on Her like a tick on a dog with vile thoughts, doubts, etc. But She never acted on them, and I would imagine (that is all I can do, is imagine because I don't know) that She never gave even a micro second thought to the temptations.

I don't disagree with any of what you say about Mary. I just disagree with the premise that those things would not be true if the Immaculate Conception is true. If you read the papal document proclaiming the Immaculate Conception as dogma the Pope speaks of her triumph over Satan. She still had to fight the battle just as Eve did.

2) The Immaculate Conception is not based upon a "need" whereby Mary had to be created without sin so that Jesus could be.

Not what I have read from several Roman Catholic sources, it most certainly is presented as a "need" because of the guilt of Original Sin, and/or the "stain of sin." The question of the stain of sin is what started this whole thread. In pondering it, I think I have a handle on it. The "stain of sin" in Roman Catholic understanding is something that would have affected Her and made Her impure and unable to be a fitting vessel to bear the Christ. For us, as Fr. Matt said earlier, the concept of the "stain of sin" is that She is subject to death, which is the consequence of all mankind. One does not have to be a sinner at all to be subject to this - little babies who die are the clear sign of this reality. They are not sinners in the sense of choosing sin with a will and clear understanding of what evil they are choosing (the Roman Catholic requirements for sin), but they die nonethelss because as part of humanity, they are under the consequence of Adam's fall.

There are some Catholics who present the view that Mary needed to be free from sin so that Christ could be, but that is not something I've ever found in an official source of Catholic teaching.

The language I would use is that it made her a more fitting vessel to bear the Christ. I think Catholics and Orthodox would agree that Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant. When we read Exodus the sanctuary had to be sanctified before God's presence would dwell there. How much more so before God made flesh would dwell within Mary?

I think Catholics would tend more to understand that original sin has more of a consequence than death however. It weakens our nature and gives us a natural inclination to certain sins (that can vary). For example, we now know that alcoholism has a genetic correlation. That defect is not the fault of the individual but the tendency towards that sin is there, and that would be another result of the fall.

3) The idea that Mary could not have died if she was conceived without original sin fails to take into account that she was born into a fallen world. The reason Adam and Eve would not have died if they had not sinned is connected to the reality that creation was not fallen so was thereby no threat to them.

I've never heard this argument until now.

It's not a new perspective but perhaps not as well known as some.

The bottom line question I think is how tied is fallen creation to the consequence of death? It seems to me that calamaties and diseases and all sorts of other things that lead to death are built in to a fallen creation. I don't think Adam and Eve were some kind of "superhumans" who could resist these things; I just think those things that could have caused their death weren't present in a pre-fallen world so hence they would never have died. But that is just an opinion.

 

[narnia59]

read the traditional hymns and prayers that concern her death or dormition.

I would be quite happy to if you could provide a link.

that’s why many Fathers see them as the witnesses in Revelation, who will die. so they aren’t the exceptions.

Many do, but that has never been an official teaching of the Church that I'm aware of. Others I think believed they were Moses and Elijah.

It also doesn't consider that there will be an entire group of fallen people at the end of time who will not experience death. Exceptions.

you’re the Catholic, you probably shouldn’t be asking me this.

I simply need the question rephrased in a way that is more clear and then I would be happy to answer it.

well, I don’t know. we only know of one unfallen Human and He did die, but by His own will as He says.

Yes, he was an exception.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would be quite happy to if you could provide a link.

as a Catholic with access to your own history, you should not need links from me.

Many do, but that has never been an official teaching of the Church that I'm aware of. Others I think believed they were Moses and Elijah.

It also doesn't consider that there will be an entire group of fallen people at the end of time who will not experience death. Exceptions.

well, more that I have read say Enoch and Elijah. so, I am pretty sure that’s more the consensus.

as for the people in the End, earth is changing from a fallen state to one beyond even the Eden. so, it’s not the same thing. plus, it could be that the righteous do all die in the End. so no, not exceptions.

I simply need the question rephrased in a way that is more clear and then I would be happy to answer it.

the council that affirmed the IC.

 

[narnia59]

as a Catholic with access to your own history, you should not need links from me.

Do you not have one or do you not wish to share?

I do not have a link to all the liturgical prayers prior to the ones in our current liturgy so that would have been helpful since you referred me to them.

well, more that I have read say Enoch and Elijah. so, I am pretty sure that’s more the consensus.


as for the people in the End, earth is changing from a fallen state to one beyond even the Eden. so, it’s not the same thing. plus, it could be that the righteous do all die in the End. so no, not exceptions.

I think St. Paul is quite clear when he says that not all will die but at the last trumpet will be changed. So yes, exceptions to the rule that fallen people have to die.

the council that affirmed the IC.

I am most certain that you know that the Immaculate Conception was pronounced a dogma by papal decree, not a council. So not sure why you would phrase the question in that way.

In terms of the papal degree, Pope Piux IX says nothing that could lead one to conclude that means Mary could not be tempted. In fact, he speaks to her victory over Satan which would not be applicable if she could not be tempted.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Do you not have one or do you not wish to share?

I do not have a link to all the liturgical prayers prior to the ones in our current liturgy so that would have been helpful since you referred me to them.

I do, but you should have them as well.

I think St. Paul is quite clear when he says that not all will die but at the last trumpet will be changed. So yes, exceptions to the rule that fallen people have to die.

I will concede that point, but again, that’s people living into an unfallen state. that’s not the same as someone who only lived in a fallen state. so, it’s not the kind of exception that defends your point.

I am most certain that you know that the Immaculate Conception was pronounced a dogma by papal decree, not a council. So not sure why you would phrase the question in that way.

I sit corrected again, although I thought it was affirmed subsequently. so, apologies for the error.

In terms of the papal degree, Pope Piux IX says nothing that could lead one to conclude that means Mary could not be tempted. In fact, he speaks to her victory over Satan which would not be applicable if she could not be tempted.

that’s not what I am arguing.

 

[narnia59]

and we know it wasn’t disease because of records of her life, such as the Protoevangelium.

I am not aware of anything about her death recorded in the Protoevangelium. Can you be more specific where we see records that speak to her death?

read the traditional hymns and prayers that concern her death or dormition.

I would be quite happy to if you could provide a link.

as a Catholic with access to your own history, you should not need links from me.

Do you not have one or do you not wish to share?

I do not have a link to all the liturgical prayers prior to the ones in our current liturgy so that would have been helpful since you referred me to them.

I do, but you should have them as well.

All in all, a perfect example of the hospitality and the run-around often displayed on this forum. I should have known better to engage. And I often wonder if that's not the point. In fact I quite suspect it is.