The Paradox of the Immaculate Conception(s)

Started by Livenotonevil, February 01, 2018, 10:17:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Livenotonevil

The idea of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is a dogmatic fact so heavily defended by Roman Catholics - particularly traditional ones - that I've listened to several Traditional Catholic priests give sermons about the blasphemy of American Nativity movies, showing the Virgin Mary with a painful birth (as Xavier well knows, a tradition of the painless birth exists in the Orthodox Church, but not for the theological intentions of Roman Catholics)

Obviously, the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the idea of the Immaculate Conception, primarily because the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the Roman understanding of Original Sin.

From what I can understand, the Roman Catholic Church - with origins from Saint Augustine - believes that the Original Sin is transferred down to every human being "from the loins of Adam." This "Original Sin" includes the totality of both guilt and inherited consequences (depraved human nature, death, inclination to sin, becoming infatuated with the material world, being more inclined to animalistic / flesh instincts).

Of course, there is a distinction to be drawn when we mean "guilt" - by no means does any human being have any "personal guilt", but nonetheless they still inherit the guilt of Adam. It is this "inherited guilt" as a matter of fact is in every single human being and brings condemnation to every human being, only being washed away by Baptism.


The Orthodox Church is different in her understanding of "Original Sin" (we call it "Ancestral Sin" to distinguish the two doctrines), in that we do not believe that guilt can exist and not be "personal guilt", and as such, although Ancestral Sin is inherited and our nature is depraved, with Baptism being for the remission of sins (as stated in the Nicene Creed), Baptism doesn't wash away "the guilt of Adam" - nor is there a need of understanding that the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary) or Jesus Christ was born without "Original Sin."

I've heard many Orthodox apologetics bring up a few paradoxes that arise with Our Salvation when we confess a belief in the "Immaculate Conceptions" (of the Virgin Mary and of Christ, being born without original sin).

1. Why did the Virgin Mary need to be conceived without Original Sin? If it was required that Christ needed a mother without Original Sin in order to remain clean of Original Sin, wouldn't it necessitate that Saint Anna would remain clean of Original Sin for the Theotokos, etc. to Eve? And if God can arbitrarily choose people to be born without Original Sin, why did Christ need to redeem us?

2. How could Christ redeem us? Christ came to redeem us not only from the Original Sin, but also from all our sins. How could Christ redeem our fallen human nature when - if logic follows - Christ Himself did not have our fallen human nature? Wasn't the whole idea of Christ being a "sacrificial lamb" originally from the Jewish idea of "scapegoating" and being a Sacrifice for the forgiveness of Sin? And also suffering and facing death on behalf of the human race, with the punishment of sin being death (when Christ is distinct from human)?

3. There seemed to be a drastic change in Tradition for the Roman church when it comes to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary - in that the tradition of her dying and being resurrected by Christ has been replaced with her not facing a physical death at all (we can see remnants of the former in Santa Maria Maggiore) - the idea of the fact that being Immaculately conceived, she couldn't face a physical death. If this is the case, how could Christ have died at all?

These are paradoxes I have heard in the past, and I've had no clear response other than ad hominem attacks.

Thanks!
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Kaesekopf

Re: 3 - The Church doesn't state whether or not the BVM suffered physical death.  Fr Hunwicke addresses this a bit on his blog (sorry, you'd have to go snooping).  But, both traditions have room for existence.  We just state she was Assumed into Heaven, not ... how her end here on Earth all happened. 
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.

Livenotonevil

#2
Yeah - there seems to be a mutual understanding between both Churches that she has undergone the "Second Resurrection" so to speak, in which she has been resurrected in both soul and body, and is the first among Saints. The main distinction is that the idea of her not facing a physical death is foreign to Eastern Tradition, and as such, we sometimes call the Assumption "the Dormition" (although I've come across several Greek Orthodox Churches named "The Assumption Greek Orthodox Church")
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Livenotonevil

Anyways, back on topic. How does one resolve these paradoxes?
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Xavier

#4
Hello, Live, Holy Scripture admonishes us to prove every word by the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses. So, let's look at what some ancient patristic authorities say about the Immaculate Virgin before we come to your specific objections. We have (1) St. Proclus of Constantinople, "As He created Her without any stain of Her own, so He came forth from Her contracting no stain" (2) St. Ephraem of Syria (speaking to Jesus) "Thou alone and Thy Mother are in all things fair. There is no flaw in Thee and no stain in Thy Mother"; two ancient Eastern authorities that clearly teach the All-Holy, Stainless (Panagia, Panamomos) Virgin was made All-Holy by the All-Holy Spirit of God, as Byzantine and Syrian liturgical Tradition testifies implicitly to this day; finally, a Latin Doctor, (3) St. Ambrose of Milan: "A Virgin not only undefiled but free of every stain of sin, Whom grace has made Immaculate". It's not an exaggeration to say there are at least 20 to 30 more sources that either explicitly or at least implicitly teach the All-Pure Virgin Mother of God is sinless and stainless, truly a Mother full of grace. Where grace is full, there is no sin; and thus Jesus is also called full of grace. He is the source of every grace and has wished to fill His Mother with His grace, as St. Proclus etc testify. Please see how many Fathers there are who teach Mary, the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant who carried God in Her womb, is sinless below. http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.in/2009/03/immaculate-conception.html?m=1

Now, to the objections/questions.

1. Nothing is absolutely required for God - but it is in conformity with Old Testament types - thus the Fathers say the Ark was made of stainless gold signifying the stainless holiness of the Virgin. So, it was fitting the Woman who carried God be without sin. Moses, who ministered to God before the Ark, needed to be holy, though not without sin. Likewise, the parents of the Theotokos, i.e. St. Joachim and St. Anne, were holy but not sinless. St. John Damascene says "O holy loins of Joachim, from whence came a spotless seed. O holy womb of Anne, in which a most holy fetus grew". It is plain from this itself that Mary was sanctified in the womb. Would God do less for His Mother than He did for His cousin the baptist? Moreover, Mary is to be the New Eve. Originally, Live, God gave to Eve the free gift of grace both for herself and for all her descendants. But, not preserving it, Eve lost it for all of us. But Mary, being in every way like Eve before the fall and holier than her, St. Irenaeus says, became the means for the human race to return to grace. Christ, the New Adam, was born from Her and made Her our Mother at the Cross. She is truly the Mother of every regenerated Christian and preserved grace for all of us. Her holiness and sanctity redounds to the glory of the God Who chose Her for His Mother, hence St. Augustine says "All the just have truly known of sin except only the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning Whom, out of respect for the Lord, there can be no question of sin". God regenerates all of us when He chooses, some in infancy, some in later life, some in the womb, the Bride of His Spirit and Mother of His Son, by a singular privilege, at Conception, all in view of the merits of Christ.

2. The Liturgy has taught us, Christ was made in all things like us, except sin. The Fathers say He took on our nature and all the punishments for our sin, but He assumed our human nature just like Adam had it before the fall, so that - without needing to die - He would die for us, and His death would atone for all sin. Sin is not essential to human nature. Only someone without sin, but truly human by nature, could redeem us. Hence, from the time Adam fell, God explicitly promised the Woman and Her Son would be at war with the serpent and his seed. It is plain the former two will be exempt from what is common to the rest, and will ultimately destroy it. Children are born with original sin, and this has the character not of a personal fault for Adam's sin, St. Thomas says, but rather they are born with a human nature deprived of sanctifying grace. Grace is restored to them, by the merits of Christ, in baptism, and their souls become alive and enter the state of sanctifying grace again.

3. Upon reading the bull of Pope Pius XII dogmatically declaring the Assumption, it will be plain that the opinion that the Blessed Virgin - again, without needing to, but freely choosing to, in order to be more conformed to Her Son - reposed and then was Resurrected and translated to heaven, is a legitimate theologoumenon. Mary of Agreda says Mary slept on Aug 13, 55 A.D. and was raised alive, on Aug 15th, and thereafter assumed bodily into heaven. Both are permissible, since the Pope deliberately only said "at the completion of the course of Her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory". http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Livenotonevil

#5
I find this response confusing on a couple of levels - primarily the first two (we can ignore the third objection for now, it seems - unless we open up for a particular discussion about when and if this change in Tradition changed, and if such a change is legitimate or in accord with Sacred Tradition).

So did the Theotokos take on our fallen, human nature?

It is my understanding that one of the consequences of the Immaculate Conception is that the Virgin Mary had several features of our depraved human nature removed from her - that is, she didn't have pain in childbirth (which is a consequence according to God in the Book of Genesis) and she had absolutely no desire or concupiscence towards sin, and was incapable of sinning even to a minimalist extent (at least, this is what I have gathered from my 12 years of Catholic education). She also was - for some Catholics - incapable of death. As you say, she was like Eve before the Fall (kind of?)

Are there certain consequences of sin which result from the inherited guilt of Original Sin and permanently disfigure our nature, while some disfigurations are just consequence of THE Original Sin (for example, death is just something that has permanently altered our nature, while concupiscence comes from the guilt?)

I think it is vitally important to quote the Fifth Canon of the Fifth Session of Trent.

"If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt 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 rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema....But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin."

So, when the Theotokos was - according to your interpretation - "sanctified" (the Orthodox believe in a "Sanctification by the Spirit" but this "Sanctification" occurred not at her conception but rather the Annunciation, which many Catholics seem to quote the Church Fathers - especially Eastern like Palamas - without proper Orthodox context) at her conception, such that she was immaculately conceived - was she simply "baptized" by the Holy Spirit at her conception, with the same effects as the Sacrament of Baptism, except the guilt couldn't corrupt select aspects of our nature?

And how is it possible for Christ to have our fallen human nature if He - intrinsically - was incapable of inclining towards human sins (HE NEVER SINNED - following Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Tome of Leo, it was His Divine Nature which always subdued the fallen human nature)?

From Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Gospel of Saint John Chapter 8 (On Christ in the Garden).

"Now, He says, is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save one from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. See I pray you in these words again how the human nature was easily affected by trouble and easily brought over to fear, whereas on the other hand the Divine and ineffable Power is in all respects inflexible and dauntless and intent on the courage which alone is befitting to It. For the mention of death which had been introduced into the discourse begins to alarm Jesus, but the Power of the Godhead straightway subdues the suffering thus excited and in a moment transforms into incomparable boldness that which had been conquered by fear. For we may suppose that even in the Saviour Jesus Christ Himself the human feelings were aroused by two qualities necessarily present in Him. For it must certainly have been under the influence of these that He shewed Himself a Man born of woman, not in deceptive appearance or mere fancy, but rather by nature and in truth, possessing every human quality, sin only excepted. And fear and alarm, although they are affections natural to us, have escaped being ranked among sins. And yet besides this, profitably were the human feelings troubled in Christ: not that the emotions should prevail and go forward, as in us; but that, having begun, they might be cut short by the power of the Word, nature in Christ first being transelemented into some better and Diviner condition. For in this way and no other was it that the process of the healing passed over |151 even unto us. For in Christ as the firstfruits the nature of man was restored to newness of life, and in Him we have also gained things above our nature. For on this account He is also named in the Divine Scriptures a second Adam. And in the same manner that as Man He felt hunger and weariness, so also He feels the mental trouble that is caused by suffering, as a human characteristic. Yet He is not agitated like we are, but only just so far as to have undergone the sensation of the experience; then again immediately He returns to the courage befitting to Himself. From these things it is evident that He indeed had a rational soul. For as the circumstance of feeling hunger or indeed of experiencing any other such thing is a suffering which is peculiarly that of the flesh, so also the being agitated by the thought of terrible things must be a suffering of the rational soul, by which alone in truth a thought can enter into us through the processes of the mind. For Christ, not having yet been on the Cross actually, suffers the trouble by anticipation, evidently beholding beforehand that which was to happen, and being led by reasoning to the thought of the future events. For the suffering of dread is a feeling that we cannot ascribe to the impassible Grodhead, nor yet to the Flesh; for it is an affection of the cogitations of the soul, and not of the flesh. And although an irrational animal is troubled and agitated, inasmuch as it possesses a soul, yet it does not come to feel dread by a process of thought, nor by a logical anticipation of coming suffering, but whenever it happens to find itself actually involved in any evil plight, then it painfully experiences the sensation of the danger which is present. Here, on the other hand, the Lord is troubled, not by what He sees, but by what He anticipates in thought. Further it is noteworthy that Christ did not say "My flesh is troubled," but "My soul;" thereby dispelling the suggestion of the heretics. And although thou mayest say that in the ancient Scripture God said to the Jews: Your fasts and holiday-keeping and festivals My soul hateth, and other expressions of a similar |152 kind; we shall maintain that He has made use of our habits of speech, especially by reason of His helpful condescension towards us; just as also by a forced use of language He attributes to His Incorporeal Nature a Face and Eyes and other bodily organs. But after the Incarnation, if we were to explain such expressions in the same way, it would follow that He was a mere image or phantom or shadow and not truly a Man, according to the teaching of the ungodly Manes. Therefore the Word of God made one with Himself human nature in its entirety, that so He might save the entire man. For that which has not been taken into His Nature, has not been saved."
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Quaremerepulisti

If you're going to critique Catholic doctrine you really need to get the doctrine right.

Quote from: Livenotonevil on February 01, 2018, 10:17:55 PM
From what I can understand, the Roman Catholic Church - with origins from Saint Augustine - believes that the Original Sin is transferred down to every human being "from the loins of Adam." This "Original Sin" includes the totality of both guilt and inherited consequences (depraved human nature, death, inclination to sin, becoming infatuated with the material world, being more inclined to animalistic / flesh instincts).

Of course, there is a distinction to be drawn when we mean "guilt" - by no means does any human being have any "personal guilt", but nonetheless they still inherit the guilt of Adam. It is this "inherited guilt" as a matter of fact is in every single human being and brings condemnation to every human being, only being washed away by Baptism.

There's no official Church teaching on this one way or the other, but from at least the Middle Ages onwards original sin has been generally understood to mean nothing more or less than the absence of sanctifying grace.

QuoteI've heard many Orthodox apologetics bring up a few paradoxes that arise with Our Salvation when we confess a belief in the "Immaculate Conceptions" (of the Virgin Mary and of Christ, being born without original sin).

These aren't paradoxes.  Either Catholic doctrine has been misstated or misrepresented, or there is an obvious logic fail.  Either way, the apologetics are intellectually dishonest.  Now, I ask, if you truly want to livenotonevil, are you OK with that?

Quote1. Why did the Virgin Mary need to be conceived without Original Sin? If it was required that Christ needed a mother without Original Sin in order to remain clean of Original Sin, wouldn't it necessitate that Saint Anna would remain clean of Original Sin for the Theotokos, etc. to Eve?

The answer is, she didn't need to be conceived without original sin, and nowhere in Catholic doctrine does it say this, only that she was.  It was fitting, but not necessary.

QuoteAnd if God can arbitrarily choose people to be born without Original Sin, why did Christ need to redeem us?

The Redemption could have been accomplished by another means than Christ, but given that it was accomplished by Him, anyone born without original sin has already been redeemed by Him - the Redemption is what makes such a thing possible.  But the word "arbitrarily" is a weasel word inserted to beg the question.

Quote2. How could Christ redeem us? Christ came to redeem us not only from the Original Sin, but also from all our sins. How could Christ redeem our fallen human nature when - if logic follows - Christ Himself did not have our fallen human nature? Wasn't the whole idea of Christ being a "sacrificial lamb" originally from the Jewish idea of "scapegoating" and being a Sacrifice for the forgiveness of Sin? And also suffering and facing death on behalf of the human race, with the punishment of sin being death (when Christ is distinct from human)?

This is just a semantic trick and nothing more.  It takes the modifier "fallen" which is meant as an accidental modifier of "nature" (which everyone should know) and instead makes it the modifier of "human".  So, instead of us having essentially a human nature, which is accidentally fallen or damaged in us (just like an apple can be rotten but still an apple), we now supposedly have a nature which is essentially "fallen human" - and so if Christ isn't fallen, how can he be human.  Christ of course essentially had our human nature, just not one which was defective.  Anyone with even a freshman-level knowledge of theology would know this and so this is just pathetic.

Quote3. There seemed to be a drastic change in Tradition for the Roman church when it comes to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary - in that the tradition of her dying and being resurrected by Christ has been replaced with her not facing a physical death at all (we can see remnants of the former in Santa Maria Maggiore) - the idea of the fact that being Immaculately conceived, she couldn't face a physical death. If this is the case, how could Christ have died at all?

There is no official teaching on whether Mary actually died or not, and certainly no teaching that she couldn't have died.  The more probable opinion is that she did.

QuoteThese are paradoxes I have heard in the past, and I've had no clear response other than ad hominem attacks.

There paradoxes are in fact shown to be quite intellectually dishonest arguments.  They have been quite clearly refuted.  We will see if you have the intellectual honesty to admit as much and whether you truly desire to livenotonevil.

Livenotonevil

#7
I guess we have the question of what does it mean to be human?

I like that analogy - but certainly Christ is different than Adam.

Was Adam human? Did we not become human until after the fall?

After all, Adam was in a state of total union with God without irrational desires, without having to work the fields, being able to grow but live eternally without death, and even having a fraternal friendship with all of creation in a similar way that we have it with domesticated dogs.

Christ is distinguishable in the sense that He had to work, suffered, and died in the most painful way.

The Orthodox Church believes that to be human as we know it is to be fallen - and Christ Himself took on our fallen human nature in order that we may be Co-Heirs with Christ and become unified with God.
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

An aspiring Thomist

QuoteThe Orthodox Church believes that to be human as we know it is to be fallen - and Christ Himself took on our fallen human nature in order that we may be Co-Heirs with Christ and become unified with God.

I have a very hard time believing this is main stream Orthodoxy rather than just polemical amo to undermine Catholic doctrine.  Are you really saying Christ had "natural" inclinations to sin, that He had temptations from the flesh? Where in scripture or tradition is that mentioned? As Quare noted, does Adam pre fall have the same nature as in essence as post fall? If so, Christ would not need the accidental quality of fallenness to be human. If not, Christ redeemed a different species than that of pre fall Adam. Is that really what you believe?

Gardener

Your questions all sort of go into each other, so despite your ordered presentation I feel it necessary to myself jump around a bit. As Marty McFly said once, "...blues riff in B, watch me for the changes and try to keep up."

St. John Chrysostom on the sin of Adam, as imputed to all mankind:

Quote
Rom. V. 12

" Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon (??????? 6 manuscripts ??? ...) all men, for that all have sinned."

As the best physicians always take great pains to discover the source of diseases, and go to the very fountain of the mischief, so does the blessed Paul also. Hence after having said that we were justified, and having shown it from the Patriarch, and from the Spirit, and from the dying of Christ (for He would not have died unless He intended to justify), he next confirms from other sources also what he had at such length demonstrated. And he confirms his proposition from things opposite, that is, from death and sin. How, and in what way? He enquires whence death came in, and how it prevailed. How then did death come in and prevail? "Through the sin of one." But what means, "for that all have sinned?" This; he having once fallen, even they that had not eaten of the tree did from him, all of them, become mortal.

...

How did it reign? "After the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come." Now this is why Adam is a type of Christ. How a type? It will be said. Why in that, as the former became to those who were sprung from him, although they had not eaten of the tree, the cause of that death which by his eating was introduced; thus also did Christ become to those sprung from Him, even though they had not wrought righteousness, the Provider of that righteousness which through His Cross He graciously bestowed on us all. For this reason, at every turn he keeps to the "one," and is continually bringing it before us, when he says, "As by one man sin entered into the world" — and, "If through the offense of one many be dead:" and, "Not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift;" and, "The judgment was by one to condemnation:" and again, "If by one (or, the one) man's offense death reigned by one;" and "Therefore as by the offense of one." And again, "As by one man's disobedience many (or, the many) were made sinners." And so he lets not go of the one, that when the Jew says to you, How came it, that by the well-doing of this one Person, Christ, the world was saved? You might be able to say to him, How by the disobedience of this one person, Adam, came it to be condemned? And yet sin and grace are not equivalents, death and life are not equivalents, the Devil and God are not equivalents, but there is a boundless space between them. When then as well from the nature of the thing as from the power of Him that transacts it, and from the very suitableness thereof (for it suits much better with God to save than to punish), the preëminence and victory is upon this side, what one word have you to say for unbelief, tell me? However, that what had been done was reasonable, he shows in the following words.

Ver. 15. "But not as the offense, so is also the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded unto the many."

For what he says is somewhat of this kind. If sin had so extensive effects, and the sin of one man too; how can grace, and that the grace of God, not the Father only, but also the Son, do otherwise than be the more abundant of the two? For the latter is far the more reasonable supposition. For that one man should be punished on account of another does not seem to be much in accordance with reason. But for one to be saved on account of another is at once more suitable and more reasonable. If then the former took place, much more may the latter. Hence he has shown from these grounds the likelihood and reasonableness of it. For when the former had been made good, this would then be readily admitted. But that it is even necessarily so, he makes good from what follows. How then does he make it good?

Ver. 16. "And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift. For the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210210.htm

It is clear from the above passage that the essence of Augustine's argument is also found in the teaching of St. John Chrysostom. Mankind corporately fell in Adam, who was the representative of all humanity, being the natural father of all humanity. It was not Eve who caused the fall, but Adam, for Scripture does not impute that guilt to Eve (take that, Feminists and your canards! ;) ). He was no longer able to pass along the inheritance of supernatural life, of grace, but only the death that comes with its lacking. From this action, all humanity was fallen from sanctifying grace in the view of God (Who is outside time).

St. John goes on to expound more on this later in the homily, for those interested.

So we have established the following, at least:

* Mankind's sin entered by one (Adam)
* This extends to all humans
* The Redemption/Justification of mankind entered by One (Christ)
* This extends to all humans

Now that we have established the principles of the Fall and the Redemption, we can swing back around to Mary.

Apologist Trent Horn does a succinct and good job with this:
Quote
Full Question
If Mary was conceived without sin so that Jesus would be without sin, wouldn't that mean Mary's mother would have been conceived without sin as well?
Answer

No, because the Immaculate Conception was not necessary for the Incarnation to take place, but it was fitting. The all-powerful God could have become a man in any number of ways, including being born of a sinful woman, since through his omnipotence he could still keep himself free from sin.

However, it was fitting that the Mother of God would be preserved from sin just like her Son. In a like manner, a king could walk among his subjects like them but, given his royal stature, it is fitting that he has a royal procession.

So to summarize, Mary's immaculate conception was a fitting, gracious gift, and the all-powerful God protected her from sin even though she was conceived in the womb of her mother, Anne, who was a sinner like all other human beings.


https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-st-anne-immaculately-conceived

Let's springboard off of Trent's answer into some typology, starting with Christ that we may understand Mary:

Christ is the fulfillment of the following types, as contained in the Ark:

* The Law (10 commandments/Christ fulfilled the Law perfectly -- such as seen in the Presentation/Purification of Mary/Hypapante)
* The Priesthood (Aaron's Rod, the symbol of his authority)
* The Manna (Christ is the Manna come down from Heaven -- John 6)

Mary, then, is logically the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant. For in her was contained the fulfillment of the Law, Priesthood, and Eucharist.

It should be noted on the Hypapante/Purification that Mary had no practical need of purification for she was not ritually unclean due to the virgin birth (for it would be blasphemy to intimate that an action of Christ rendered anyone anything but more pure -- looking at you, modern Jesuits, Dominicans, Protestants (did I just repeat myself?), etc.) Rather, a perfect fulfillment of the law happened because

1) to do otherwise would cause scandal
2) the Holy Spirit promised St. Simeon he would see the Christ
3) there was a combined, mystical natural/spiritual element in that the Law called for a lamb to be offered or two turtle doves/pigeons if poor. Similarly, the Liturgy experiences this because it combines natural and supernatural elements. Naturally speaking, the Holy Family was poor and it was fitting that Christ should be naturally presented as lowly. However, not only a lamb, but the Agnus Dei was presented and thus while naturally poor(er), spiritually they were rich beyond the wishes and desires of all the prophets: Emmanuel, God with us, was her son. One could meditate on just the Hypapante for life and never arrive at its beneficial end.

While this little video goes beyond the scope of your questions, it shows the continuity and fulfillment of Scripture as pertains to these typological understandings, particularly Mary as the fulfillment of the Ark:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA[/yt]

Ok, so Mary is the Ark's fulfillment.

The Ark was to be constructed of things which were pure (stay with me here, as typology is always delving into the analogical, and analogy can never fully encompass the thing which it seeks to expound lest it be the thing and not an analogy). Now, yeah... the tablets of the Law, the rod of Aaron, and the Manna could have been carried in a wrapped up goatskin for all which is practically pertinent. But it was fitting that they be in the Ark. Thus, it was also fitting that Christ be in a pure Ark in Mary for His Incarnation and period of natural gestation. It's not necessary that the wood for the ark be from a pure forest, nor the gold from a pure mine. The tree and the gold which would become the Ark were as natural as could be. Rather, the essential substance, the Form, of the wood and gold should be pure -- thus, when we speak of the Immaculate Conception, it is not necessary that Our Lady's parents also be immaculate, for the operative aspect of the IC is in fact Mary's soul -- and that creation falls entirely on God.

Going back to Christ and the hypostatic union:

It is not necessary that Christ have the fallenness of human nature, but just human nature itself. That would exclude the Redemption, actually. Human nature is not totally depraved as you alluded to. That would be a Calvinist idea, and Calvin got this idea from a misreading of Augustine (who actually had about 3 theories on this depending on when in his body of work one is reading) and Scripture.

You can read more here:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/depravity-yes-total-depravity-no

As for the Incarnation, there are two theories:

1) That Christ was predestined specifically for the Redemption. This is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and comes from Augustine and others
2) That Christ was predestined, but His Incarnation (the summum opus Dei -- greatest work of God) was not occassioned by sin. Rather, He willingly took on that mission of Redemption despite His predestination to the Incarnation. This is the theory of John Duns Scotus, defender of the Immaculate Conception. It's also the theory to which I hold, as it opens up the Sacred Heart's love of man and shows forth the tenderness of the Father.

You can read more about #2 here: http://absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/scotus-writings/

As for the Assumption:

Sleep: fine. Certainly fits with the argument of no Original Sin = no death. This brings difficulties when it comes to the death of Christ, though.
Death: fine. Fits with the idea that Our Lady would be united to Christ in all things, despite not having necessity towards such a thing.

The Catholic Church allows for both. I wouldn't sweat this.

I probably raised 13 more questions than I answered, if I answered any.
"If anyone does not wish to have Mary Immaculate for his Mother, he will not have Christ for his Brother." - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Livenotonevil

#10
Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on February 02, 2018, 09:51:04 PM
QuoteThe Orthodox Church believes that to be human as we know it is to be fallen - and Christ Himself took on our fallen human nature in order that we may be Co-Heirs with Christ and become unified with God.

I have a very hard time believing this is main stream Orthodoxy rather than just polemical amo to undermine Catholic doctrine.  Are you really saying Christ had "natural" inclinations to sin, that He had temptations from the flesh? Where in scripture or tradition is that mentioned? As Quare noted, does Adam pre fall have the same nature as in essence as post fall? If so, Christ would not need the accidental quality of fallenness to be human. If not, Christ redeemed a different species than that of pre fall Adam. Is that really what you believe?

No - and I apologize for my error, and lack of clarity, it is due to my own misunderstanding (it wasn't an attempt to blaspheme for the sake of polemics, but my own legitimate misunderstanding - Lord have mercy for my arrogance and not knowing you, as well as the arrogance of my youth!) - Christ had no gnomic will so to speak, according to Saint Maximos. The gnomic will is a process of deliberation we go through when we are tempted, that can be seen as a result of external forces influencing our fallen nature, but considering that Christ is all-knowing and the Second Person of the Trinity, having a fullness of Divine Nature, as well as the fact that the natural human will is subdued by the Divine Will (He had two different wills, human and Divine - but the Divine always subdued the human if there was any conflict), it would be impossible for Christ to fall to temptation. However, Christ was human in all things except for sinful inclinations, including our human nature.

The Orthodox reject the idea that Christ had a human nature of the pre-fallen Adam before the Resurrection, which seems to be the suggestion of the Catholic idea of "Christ had no Original Sin" and the reason WHY Christ had no gnomic will. And yes, we believe funamentally (from listening to lectures of Seraphim Rose and listening to debates) that the human nature of Adam was disfigured and changed post-fall, and Christ took on this disfigured nature. We need to make it clear that when I say "fallen" I mean he took on a human nature inherited of the consequences of the fall except for sin and sinful inclinations. The fact that we are hungry, we are tired, we work, we thirst, we face pain and death are consequences of the fall - if Christ had a human nature of Adam before the Fall, He wouldn't ever face such consequences.
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Livenotonevil

#11
Also, the Ark is a typological representation of the Theotokos.

I personally love the typologies of the Virgin Mary.

The burning bush is also symbolic of the Virgin Mary - in much the same way that the bush didn't combust from the fire of God, the Virgin Mary was able to contain the entirety of God in her womb.

Another interesting typology is the fact that the Virgin Mary herself is a typology of the Church.

In a lot of Orthodox Churches, you will find this icon in near the Sanctuary of the Church.




For example,





And that is because the Virgin Mary is the "Bride of God", much like how the Church is the Bride of Christ - and similarly to how the Virgin Mary contained the fullness of Christ in her womb, the Church contains the fullness of Christ in her womb in the form of the Eucharist.

It's why Revelation 12, while being clearly a story of the Virgin Mary, represents the Church.
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Xavier

Right. And do recall also the Church is called Stainless, bride without spot or wrinkle, or Immaculate in the sacred writings. It is of His Immaculate Bride, the Virgin Mary, that the Holy Ghost, in the Song of Solomon says, She is a Lily among Thorns, is fair as the morning rising, like the moon in beauty, as an army against evil; that She is all pure and entirely without stain or spot. "Thou art all fair, O my Love, and there is not a spot in Thee." (Canticle 4:7). This can be proved from patristic commentaries.

Dear Live, in the sacred science of theology, we must give pride of place to the testimony of authoritative and saintly souls. So would you like to explain these many texts of the Fathers, and the types they point out? After that, we will get back to your objections (1) From St. Jerome of Strido: "Behold the Lord cometh into the Egypt of this world on a light cloud, which is the Virgin. "And He conducted them with a cloud by day." He said beautifully "by day," for that cloud was never in darkness, but always in light." In other words, Mary's soul was always full of the light of grace, and never enclouded with the darkness of sin (2) St. Augustine of Hippo: "The Church, like Mary, has perpetual integrity and incorrupt fruitfulness ... We do not transfer Mary to the devil by the condition of her birth, for this reason, that that condition is dissolved by the grace of her new birth." If, as some do, you say these are "western" and therefore inadmissible witnesses, although we reject such a dichotomy (i.e. we will not distinguish Western and Eastern too much, because we are a universal Church), nevertheless we shall prove it from Eastern Fathers also (3) St. Andrew of Crete: "The shame of sin had cast a shadow upon the splendor and charm of human nature; but when the Mother of Him Who is Beauty itself is born, this nature recovers in her person its ancient privileges, and is fashioned according to a perfect model, truly worthy of God. And this fashioning is a perfect restoration; this restoration is a divinization, and this divinization is an assimilation to the primitive state... In a word, the reformation of our nature begins today; the world, which had grown old, undergoes a transformation which is wholly divine, and receives the first fruits of its second creation." and (4) St. Sophronius of Jerusalem: "Many saints appeared before thee, but none was as filled with grace as thou... No one has been purified in advance as thou hast been... Thou dost surpass all that is most excellent in man, as well as all the gifts which have been bestowed by God upon all others." Kindly tell us how you would read these texts. We have already seen the testimonies of St. Proclus of Constantinople, St. Ephraim of Syria and St. John of Damascus among several others.

Do you know, Live, the Russian Church at one time, as a whole, accepted the Immaculate Conception? So did Greek Patriarch Cyril Lukaris. "Every Russian theological student knows that St Dmitri, metropolitan of Rostov (17th century), supported the Latin "theory of the epiklesis" (10); but young Russians are inclined to consider the case of Dmitri as a regrettable exception, an anomaly. If they knew the history of Russian theology a little better they would know that from the middle ages to the seventeenth century the Russian Church has, as a whole, accepted belief in the Immaculate Conception. (11)

The Academy of Kiev, with Peter Moghila, Stephen Gavorsky and many others, taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology. A confraternity of the Immaculate Conception was established at Polotsk in 1651. The Orthodox members of the confraternity promised to honour the Immaculate Conception of Mary all the days of their life. The Council of Moscow of 1666 approved Simeon Polotsky's book called The Rod of Direction, in which he said: "Mary was exempt from original sin from the moment of her conception". (12) https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church/

Rest subsequently. Grace be with you.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Kreuzritter

First, apropos "guilt", from the very outset you've established that we are using two different meanings of the word. The claim that all guilt must be personal is apparently a matter of semantics rather than one of fact, namely, what do you even mean by it? Obviously this has its origins in differences in Greek and Latin and the respective concepts which served as the basis for formulating theological truths which became confused in translation, and here we are in English arguing over fallacies of equivocation. We carry with us Adam's guilt, that is, we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin in it depriving us of sanctifying grace and corrupting our nature, and therewith separating us from God, and God doesn't look down and say, oh, you weren't personally culpable for Adam's sin so I'm just going to ignore the state you're in and let you into Heaven: THESE are facts. Their denial, on the other hand, would constitute a real "paradox", that is, would make the Incarnation and work of Christ redundant.

Heinrich

Quote from: Livenotonevil on February 01, 2018, 10:17:55 PM
Obviously, the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the idea of the Immaculate Conception

Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church can kiss my ass
Schaff Recht mir Gott und führe meine Sache gegen ein unheiliges Volk . . .   .                          
Lex Orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
"Die Welt sucht nach Ehre, Ansehen, Reichtum, Vergnügen; die Heiligen aber suchen Demütigung, Verachtung, Armut, Abtötung und Buße." --Ausschnitt von der Geschichte des Lebens St. Bennos.