The Immaculate Mother of God: ALL-HOLY, PERFECT IN SANCTITY, PURE
I think the article either missed the point or “overdo” it. Since the discussion to-be involves an “orthodox” the above article might miss the point of the question. It’s my opinion that those given answers are effective only against a Protestant objector.
If I may, one possible counter for that “orthodox” objection (which I think is a weak one: and it sounds more Protestant than “orthodox”, in a sense) is the analogous case of Eve. As far as I know, Eve HAD been immaculate before the fall – yet she was given a free will, and obviously has the tendency to sin, which, as what had happened, all now knows.
VERY GOOD BRO. BORING. YOU GOT IT RIGHT.
BOTH ADAM AND EVE WERE CREATED WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIN. THEY WERE IMMACULATE BUT LATER THEY SINNED.
MAMA MARY WAS ANNOUNCED BY GOD THE FATHER IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN AS RECORDED IN GEN 3:15. SHE IS CHOSEN AND PREDESTINED BY GOD THE FATHER TO BE THE MOTHER OF THE MESSIAH [THEOTOKOS] AND TO BE IN ENMITY WITH SATAN [PANAGIA OR ALL HOLY, IN OUR TERMINOLOGY 'IMMACULATE']. SO MARY WAS NOT TAINTED BY SATAN AND BY THE SIN OF EVE BECAUSE SHE IS GIVEN THE SPECIAL GRACE.
SO MARY WAS IMMACULATE FROM THEN ON BY SPECIAL GRACE AND PREDILECTION BUT GOD HAD GIVEN HER STILL A FREE WILL SO THAT BY HER OWN VOLITION SHE REFUSED TO COMMIT SIN AND REMAINED FAITHFUL. SO SHE IS IMMACULATE BY GRACE AND BY HER OWN CHOICE. THUS, PETRUS IS WRONG TO CLAIM THAT MARY WAS PREVIOIUSLY CONTAMINATED BY ORIGINAL SIN AND SHE BECAME IMMACULATE ONLY BY HER WORKS LATER ON.
MY QUESTION TO PETRUS ALEUTIAN: IF MARY HAD ORIGINAL SIN BEFORE WHEN DID SHE BECAME CLEAN FROM THAT SIN?
If I may, Padre, let me clarify some things. This, I’ll do hoping not to ignite endless debate nor to invite hostility towards Catholics here. May the Lord have mercy on me, the sinner.
The Orthodox Church has a belief about “original sin” but is not same with the Roman Catholic Church. It was even refered as Ancestral Sin to provide contradistinction and avoid confusion of connotation vis a vis the Roman’s “original sin.”
So, for an Orthodox, to say that the Theotokos had “original sin” is not equivalent to downgrading her though it may sound like that for a Roman Catholic’s ear, because for an Orthodox, inheriting the original sin from the ancient does not entails inherited guilt. The point of departure here is in the differences in “Original Sin”.
[which , may I be excuse, to not to explain much; for I fear that in trying so hard I might woo on me error in presentation, for this sinner is not very gifted in understanding deep things of "theology"; ]
Also, I submit that the Orthodox honor Saint Mary the Theotokos, and believes in Her Immaculateness – though not necessarily in the “Immaculate Conception” – and calls Her “Panagia”, which may mean, “All Holy” or “All-Pure”. Though called “Panagia” which does not imply in effect the negation of the so called “stain” of sin for as I have said, the “stain” of sin which entails inheriting guilt concept is somewhat generally foreign to the Orthodox understanding of inheriting Original/Ancestral Sin.
Let me quote at least a part of an e-book copy that is with me, “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Protoprebyster Michael Pomazansky (1888-1988), page 88:
“… The Orthodox Church does not accept the Latin system of arguments concerning original sin. In particular, the Orthodox Church, confessing the perfect personal immaculateness and perfect sanctity of the Mother of God, whom the Lord Jesus Christ by His birth from her made to be more honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim – has not seen and does not see any grounds for the establishments of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the sense of the Roman Catholic interpretation, although it does venerate the conception of the Mother of God, as it does also the conception of the holy Prophet and Forerunner John.”
On regard to the question at the last part addressed to Mr. Petrus the catechumen [haha... now he has now a 'title'], I would be looking forward how he’ll answer that though I think that kind of subject is not normally given in a Catechesis, as far as my experience could tell.
In peace,
(^_^)
THANK YOU FOR THIS EXPLANATION.
IT IS VERY INTERESTING, ESPECIALLY THIS STATEMENT FROM PRESBYTER PORNAZANSKY:
“In particular, the Orthodox Church, confessing the perfect personal immaculateness and perfect sanctity of the Mother of God, whom the Lord Jesus Christ by His birth from her made to be more honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim”
SO IN MARY THERE IS:
* PERFECT PERSONAL IMMACULATENESS
* PERFECT SANCTITY OF THE MOTHER OF GOD
* THE THEOTOKOS IS MORE HONORABLE THAN THE CHERUBIMS AND MORE GLORIOUS THAN THE SERAPHIMS
IF MARY HAS GUILT SHE IS THEN LOWER THAN THE FAITHFUL CHERUBIMS AND SERAPHIMS. IS ST. MICHAEL OR ST. GABRIEL GOT ANY GUILT?
IS THERE A GUILT AMONG THE HOLY ANGELS: CHERUBIMS AND SERAPHIMS IN HEAVEN?
HOW CAN THE ONE WITH A PERFECT SANCTITY BE HAVING GUILT OR SIN, REGARDLESS OF YOUR DEFINITION OF ANCESTRAL AND/OR ORIGINAL SIN?
I FIND IT STRANGE. IT SEEMS THAT YOUR HONOR AND PRAISES OF THE THEOTOKOS DOES NOT CONFORM TO YOUR THEOLOGY OF SIN.
I AM NOT DEBATING YOU… HE HE HE IM ONLY ANALYZING YOUR PRESENTATION AND TRYING TO DECIPHER YOUR ORTHODOX THEOLOGY.
WHEN YOU SAY MARY IS PERFECT IN SANCTITY FOR US IT MEANS SHE IS PERFECT IN SANCTITY, MEANING NO STAIN OF SIN AT ALL. NO MORE NO LESS. IF MARY HAS STAIN ANCESTRAL OR ORIGINAL, GUILT OR ACTUAL… THEN SHE IS NO LONGER PERFECT IN SANCTITY. DON’T TELL ME THAT YOU HAVE ANOTHER DEFINITION FOR ‘PERFECT’ AND FOR ‘SANCTITY”?
Yes, this is not a debate, Padre.
I had that feeling too, when I was still a manalonian studying Roman Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. I was first more familiar with Roman Catholic doctrines…
[my friend and ex-classmate who is now an RC Priest gave me a copy of CoCC, his name is Fr. Nathaniel Brazil; I think, in our last conversation, it seems that he knows you Padre, just don't know up to what extent.]
…then, before I endeavor to look at the True Church of the TRUE EAST. …
(Moffat couldn’t have done better!..hahaha…goodbye to the FAKE “church of the east” “daw”)
… It seems that I had been infected by the “East” syndrome back then due to my manalonian background. hahaha…
How could the “Most Holy”, “Most Pure”, “Panagia”, “the Sinless One”, “the Immaculate” [those terms can be seen in the Divine Liturgy text] be not Immaculately conceived (Immaculate Conception). And when I turn to study, the differences lies in the doctrine of Original Sin and/or Ancestral Sin.
[q]
SO IN MARY THERE IS:
* PERFECT PERSONAL IMMACULATENESS
* PERFECT SANCTITY OF THE MOTHER OF GOD
* THE THEOTOKOS IS MORE HONORABLE THAN THE CHERUBIMS AND MORE GLORIOUS THAN THE SERAPHIMS
[/q]
Yes, indeed. One of my favorite prayer-hymn goes like this:
“It is truly right to bless thee, O Theotokos, thou the ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God.
Thou the more honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim,
who without corruption gavest birth to God the Word,
thou the true Theotokos, we magnify thee.”
[(Axion Estin)translation may vary]
It is said that parts of that hymn was revealed by Arch Angel Gabriel to a monk in Holy Mount Athos.
[q]
IF MARY HAS GUILT SHE IS THEN LOWER THAN THE FAITHFUL CHERUBIMS AND SERAPHIMS. IS ST. MICHAEL OR ST. GABRIEL GOT ANY GUILT?
IS THERE A GUILT AMONG THE HOLY ANGELS: CHERUBIMS AND SERAPHIMS IN HEAVEN?
[/q]
Indeed, She would have to be “lower” than the faithful cherubims and seraphims if She has guilt. But St. Mary the Theotokos is guiltless of Adam and Eve’s sin according to our Orthodox understanding. At least that’s what Ive learned, from studying personally.
As far as I know, that’s part of the reason why in Roman Catholic, St. Mary is “Immaculately Conceived” because their understanding of Original Sin entails inhering guilt. Since it is morally unthinkable for the God the Logos to be born in a body suffering from the guilt of original sin. Though there are other factors/side issues in understanding the IC than the inheritance of guilt alone.
[Though my understanding is still shallow. I am trying to simplify, at the best of my ability. As far as I know there exist an issue regarding culpa and reatus which are related to understanding of "guilt"[additional headache...grrr...]; there are some who said that the Roman Catholic did not teach that the “guilt” of original sin pass to humanity;
Though there existed, at least, in Baltimore Cathecism this definition “that comes down to us from our first parents, and we are brought into the world with its guilt on our soul” (Q. 266)
While in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (416)it used such words as loss of “original holiness”, “human nature wounded by [Adam's]first sin”, “weakened” by ignorance, suffering and death, and “inclined to sin” which no Orthodox might strongly object.]
Orthodox’s Original/Ancestral Sin does not teach that “guilt” was passed to fallen humanity. What was passed is the condition – a fallen one – the fallen nature of man which includes death. Though acquiring fallen nature the Theotokos, the Orthodox Church teaches that She, through synergestic cooperation with God’s Grace plus Her free will, achieved “theosis” [another side topic which according to some has an important factor in Soteriology. (My head aches; wish it'll not bleed T_T)] in an exceptional and unrepeatable way [in which where we could somehow connect the context of such title as "All-Holy", "Pure", "Panagia", "Sinless One", "More honorable..than...cherubim...seraphim..." but not in the context of Roman's IC].
[q]
HOW CAN THE ONE WITH A PERFECT SANCTITY BE HAVING GUILT OR SIN, REGARDLESS OF YOUR DEFINITION OF ANCESTRAL AND/OR ORIGINAL SIN?
[/q]
As I’ve said, there;s no guilt passed involve in Orthodox understanding of Ancestral Sin, thus I can’t “disregad” ["...regardless of your definition of..."]
Maybe I could ask for help to Airam, on the purpose of a better skilled explanation of this subject. [That's how I think she is OR MAYBE this is your chance Petrus the catechumen!]
in peace, in IC XC;
(T_T)bleeding
HA HA HA… BLEEDING? DON’T TELL ME THAT YOU GOT A MONTHLY CYCLE. HA HA HA… FOR ALL I KNOW YOU CAN BE A WOMAN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPLANATION. HA HA HA…
ONE THING IS CLEAR. THE CATHOLICS AND THE ORTHODOX EXPLAIN THINGS DIFFERENTLY WITH EVEN DIFFERENT THEOLOGICAL TERMINOLOGIES. ON THE OTHER HAND BOTH TEACHES THAT MARY IS SINLESS, ALL HOLY, PURE AND HIGHER THAN THE CHERUBIMS AND SERAPHIMS. HA HA HA…
NO MATTER HOW I SEE IT THE TWO DOCTRINES ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. YOU ARE JUST REJECTING THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION NOT ON THE MERIT OF THE DOCTRINE ITSELF BUT BECAUSE WE EXPLAINED IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOURS.
OUR TEACHING THAT MARY IS IMMACULATE CAN ONLY BE DEFEATED IF YOU WILL TEACH THAT MARY EVER SINNED. EVEN JUST ONE OCCASION OR INSTANCE IS ENOUGH TO REFUTE IT. AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEN WE ARE CORRECT. NO THEOLOGICAL GOBBLEDY GOOK CAN CHANGE THAT FACT: ALL HOLY, PURE, HIGHER THAN THE SERAPHIMS… O GOSH, BY JOLLY ITS THE SAME. ONE IS CALLED IMMACULATE WHILE THE OTHER ALL HOLY. BOTH ARE SAYING MARY IS PURE. HE HE HE… DIOS MIO… ANO BA YAN? PINAG-IIBA ANG ISANG BAGAY NA PAREHO NAMAN. PERFECT IN SANCTITY MEANS SHE IS ABSOLUTELY HOLY AS A CREATURE OF GOD AND BY GOD’S GRACE. NO MORE NO LESS.
WHAT I SEE IN THE EXPLANATION ABOVE IS SIMPLY DIFFERENCES IN TERMINOLOGIES AND THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES. DO YOU SEE ANY REFUTATION OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION THERE?
