I am not sure of the tradition of that, esp. considering the New Eve concept. If one plays it out, it naturally leads to Mary being created without sin, as the original Adam and Eve were. St. Augustine, the one whom the Orthodox continually blame for the idea of original sin (which goes further back, to even Tertullian) HIMSELF stated that he excluded Mary from such consideration when he discussed that ALL men were under this original cloud...
Catholic theology doesn't consider us "guilty" of anything in regards to original sin. I agree with your definition - we are LACKING something, and this is a result of original sin. Sin is a lacking of God's presence - so we can define this "original sin" as sin. But it is not personal sin per sec.
In that sense, Mary was no different than any one of us. She stands out from the rest of us because she – more than anyone else – known to us chose to trust God and put Him first in everything.
Adam and Eve were ALSO born "differently" than us, but they ALSO chose to sin. Being born without original sin doesn't mean one cannot fall into sin, as our first parents have shown. Thus, Mary IS no different than us in that sense.
By seeing her as no different than any of one us, she gives us hope that we too can follow in her steps, even imperfectly. Immaculate Conception takes away that hope, as none of us are filled with Grace at the moment of our conception. Immaculate Conception makes Eve a strager to humanity, rather than our role model; it makes her someone endowed with the strength and purity to resits evil that makind lost with the from grace.
Again, you'll have to explain that leap of logic, because Adam and Eve were ALSO born in a state of union with God - and they sinned... It doesn't follow that being born pure will mean one will remain pure. The doctrine also includes that Mary REMAINED pure - but we both agree that she didn't sin. The area of concern is whether she was BORN pure.
I never did like comparing Christ Jesus to "second Adam" and Mary to "second Eve," as the comparison is somewhat troubling to me, but – as you point out – that's the comparison the Church Fathers used.
The obvious objection is based on the fact that Adam and Eve were husband and wife and not Son and Mother. The second one is that Adam was not divne and human.
Ah, brother. But Mary IS the Church, spiritually speaking! And what does Scripture call the Church? The Bride of Christ! And doesn't the Fathers also refer to the birth of this Church as coming from the side of the Second Adam at the crucifixion? The flow of blood and water from His "sleeping" side formed our Lady, the Church, just as the woman Eve was formed from the sleeping side of the first Adam, as St. Ambrose said (I paraphrase!)
Thus, we see in the Song of Songs a reference not only to the Church (as the Bride), but also to Mary. In Revelation 12, we see both Mary and the Church. The woman of Genesis 3:15 is Mary and the Church. It is quite clear that Mary and the Church are interrelated. Not only is she our pioneer, leading the way into heaven and pointing out our own destiny, but she, like the Church, is our spiritual mother. She is our spiritual mother when Christ gave her to the "beloved disciple". And in the same way, the Church gives birth to us - through baptism - and continues to nurture us - through the Word and Sacraments. Mary and the Church are inextricably linked and there is no reason to NOT continue the idea that Mary is the New Eve.
If Mary's flesh was no different than Eve's pre-fall flesh, Christ's human nature would still be capable of sinning, for the pre-fall Eve also had a potential to sin and in fact did sin.
No analogy is perfect. The question is often placed "could Christ have sinned"? The devil certainly thought He could, otherwise, He wouldn't have tempted Him. I am not so sure if it was impossible. It depends on the "linkage" between the human and divine will. Now, we do know that Mary, Adam, and Eve did not have a divine will to oversee the human will. Thus, the point cannot be made that "because Jesus could not sin, then Mary could not sin." If this was indeed true, it would be for different reasons. And as such, this must be the case, because Christ did NOT require a savior, while the Church proclaims that Mary DID. Thus, the analogy cannot be perfectly maintained throughout. However, the Church has taught from the beginning that Mary is the New Eve because of her relationship with Eve and Christ.
That in itself is somewhat torubling, Jo, because self-willed death is what the Church abhorrs. Now we can all argue that Christ "had" to die, whether He willed it or not, because it was necessary for the fulfilment of God's plan, etc. I wll leave that for another thread.
I don't see Christ's death as suicide.
I don't see why Mary would have to suffer in her childbirth, especially if she was, as you believe, a pre-fall Eve, and therefore free form the curse of painful childbearing.
Then you believe that Mary did not die?
Regards
My point is that the original Eve would not have died had she not sinned. Correct? If Mary was in every way as Eve was, except -- unlike Eve -- she did not sin, then she should not have died. Correct?