Posted on 12/21/2006 3:41:24 AM PST by Titanites
The virgin birth is not a lesson in asceticism nor does it belong directly to the doctrine of Jesus’ Sonship; it is first and last theology of grace, a proclamation of how salvation comes to us: in the simplicity of acceptance, as the voluntary gift of the love that redeems the world."Yes."
thanks for the link
The question isn't about the virgin birth. The question is about original sin. Did Mary have original sin? Did God keep Mary from sinning, negating her "free will"? If God did it for Mary, why doesn't He do it for everyone?
One does not need to feel God prevented Mary from sinning in order to beleive both that Mary never commited personal sins yet still needed saving through Christ.
If Mary, on her own volition, never sinned; why would she still need saving? That is like saying our Lord Jesus needed saving. Wasn't Mary tainted with Original Sin?
Mary felt the consequences from the sin of Adam the same as everyone.
Christ never said that all who manage to not sin are saved, he said that all who are baptised and beleive are saved and those who do not beleive are damned.
My understanding is that Catholics believe that Mary "felt" the stain of original sin but never sinned. This directly contradicts Romans (and other places) where Paul specifically states all have sinned. Original sin isn't what keeps a person out of heaven. IF a person could live a pure life, they would go to heaven. The trouble is no one can by our very nature-including Mary.
I cannot speak for Catholics on the issue. (Nor are my quoted sources intended to properly articulate the Roman Catholic view of Original Sin)...
From OrthodoxWiki
The original (or "first") sin was commited by Adam and Eve (see Book of Genesis Chapter 3). Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is physical death (in this world), only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin (see Book of Ezekiel Chapter 18). Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin. This difference between the two Churches in their understanding of the original sin was one of the doctrinal reasons that led the Catholic Church to devise their dogma of the 'Immaculate Conception' in the 19th century, a dogma that is completely rejected by the Orthodox Church.
The Roman Catholic Church has defined its teaching of original sin in multiple councils. The first of these was a Council of Orange in 529, which expanded upon the teachings of Augustine of Hippo.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_Sin
St. Augustine & Original Sin
Printer Friendly Format
QUESTION:
Is it true, as I have been told, that the Orthodox Church does not celebrate Augustine of Hippo as a Saint and has no doctrine of original sin.
Surely human sufficience is at the root of secularism.
ANSWER:
While the Orthodox Church does accord Augustine of Hippo the title "saint" and recognizes the vast number of theological works he produced, Augustine was not as well known in the Christian East. His works were not translated into Greek until the 14th century; as such, he had little or no influence on mainstream Orthodox thought until 17th century Ukraine and 18th century Russia, primarily through the influence of western clergy and the establishment of theological schools which relied on Latin models with respect to curricula, text books, etc.
With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West may be outlined as follows:
In the Orthodox Faith, the term "original sin" refers to the "first" sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the "consequences" of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word "original" may be seen as synonymous with "first." Hence, the "original sin" refers to the "first sin" in much the same way as "original chair" refers to the "first chair."
In the West, humanity likewise bears the "consequences" of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term "Original Sin" here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.
In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.
One might look at all of this in a completely different light. Imagine, if you will, that one of your close relatives was a mass murderer. He committed many serious crimes for which he was found guilty and perhaps even admitted his guilt publicly. You, as his or her son or brother or cousin, may very well bear the consequences of his action - people may shy away from you or say, "Watch out for him - he comes from a family of mass murderers." Your name may be tainted, or you may face some other forms of discrimination as a consequence of your relative’s sin. You, however, are not personally guilty of his or her sin.
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4&SID=3
Paul is speaking hyperbolically. (Babies haven't sinned.) The point of the passage is the universal need for a savior.
Original sin isn't what keeps a person out of heaven.
We categorically disagree.
IF a person could live a pure life, they would go to heaven
Again, we disagree with this also. Nobody can "earn their way into heaven" by being "good enough". And it doesn't matter how good "good enough" is. Heaven is family fellowship with God. It's Pelagian to assert that God is obligated to grant adoption to someone as a result of them living a virtuous life.
Mary didn't earn her way into heaven by her virtuous life. God granted her grace in abundance to enable her to lead a virtuous life which would be in keeping with the importance of the task to which he called her.
The trouble is no one can by our very nature-including Mary.
No one can lead a life "pure enough" to get into heaven simply by virtue of the fact that heaven is not owed to us no matter how good we are. It's a gift.
Ah, if you're Orthodox that would explain your puzzlement at my statements. In fact I was going to say that you sounded more Orthodox in your view who do not believe in original sin. Consequently it would have been possible for Mary to have lived a perfect life. While I reject this notion as it still runs counter to scripture, I believe the Orthodox view is a cleaner approach than the Catholic's Immaculate Conception dogma, which to me makes no sense at all if one believes in original sin.
It makes perfect sense, but not if you define "original sin" the way Protestants do.
At least us Protestants have a definition. ;O)
You have several.
Where is the evidence for this claim, specifically with regard to the claim about "guilt"?
-A8
Can you please read the first sentance of my post?
Perhaps I am wrong, but I just don't see in Catholic documents (though I'm no expert!) the position on original sin that the Orthodox construe Catholicism as having. I would like to see the Orthodox either provide the hard evidence for their charge, or simply refrain from making the charge.
I don't want any division in Christ's Body, especially any that is based on a misunderstanding or a merely perceived disagreement. I'm sure we agree on that.
-A8
I was posting the article because it contains the OCA's stance within the text on the Sin of Adam. I doubt the OCA question-answerer was ever Latin educated, so I doubt he speaks with authority, certainly he cannot represent the Catholic church'es official stance.
That said there are Orthodox churches (as is also noted here
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=3&SID=3
Which have expressed wrongly stated interpretations of the Orthodox church's position on the Sin of Adam, and this turned up a lot after influence of Uniate, and Latin Educated bishops...
Either way what is clear is that the Orthodox do not feel Mary was pre-saved (we beleive she needed to be saved). Nor do they beleive what the protestants do; that she sinned as does everyone else.
I'm sure the Joint Commisions on Catholic-Orthodox dialog is pondering this, and I will say I think it's possible that both are differently worded versions of the same beleif. Though I am skeptical that one beleif would require the doctrine regarding the Immaculate conception, and one wouldn't.
I was just explaining the "Yes."
We too believe that she needed to be saved.
-A8
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.