Your are so wrong on this. First, the "born without sin" is a bone of contention between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies. The Orthodox hold and have always held that Mary was an ordinary human being from birth until her death. The only extraordinary thing about her, which is what makes her the saint of saints, is her complete devotion and unwavering love for God.
It was through her devotion and love that she chose not to sin and remained pure in her heart all her life. We do not subscribe to the Immaculate Conception because we do not subscribe to the idea of the "original sin" as the West does, which necessitates the dogma of Immaculate Conception.
In other words, in addition of her awesome task of having been chosen to care for our Savior, Mary is also revered as a saint, not goddess, ads an example and hope for all of us to follow by loving God more than anything, first and foremost.
Frankly, the Protestant portrayal even of Christ appears frighteningly humanized, with the impression that the only thing "holy" about God is His awesome power, and our "devotion" to Him is an opportunistic rather than a loving approach, bordering on duty, along with " retirement benefits." It doesn't come from the heart, but from fear and selfishness. That's just my opinion.
If Mary is born with a sin nature according to the Orthodox, then my discussion is not with them.
The point remains for those who do accept that she was born without sin and that she did not sin.
Since Jesus, the Lamb of God, paid for the sins of the entire world, then there was nothing preventing Mary from being assumed into heaven. The assumption is Catholic teaching, therefore, it is consistent. They had to have her assumed since they had her entirely sin free.
The only reason Jesus died was because He took upon himself the sin of the entire. That task being accomplished, there was no reason for Mary to die which is the penalty for sin. (The wages of sin is death...)
It was through her devotion and love that she chose not to sin and remained pure in her heart all her life. We do not subscribe to the Immaculate Conception because we do not subscribe to the idea of the "original sin" as the West does, which necessitates the dogma of Immaculate Conception.
Kosta,
Hello. Hope all is well with you. Been busy on some other forums that are more heavily populated with Protestants.
Rather than argue, I would like to point out a catholic Tradition that preceded the Schism, one that you may, as an Orthodox Christian, recall as a teaching of the entire Church - that Mary was the New Eve. This ancient teaching, at LEAST as early as Justin the Martyr (150 AD) explains that Mary is pure, just as Adam, Eve, and Jesus were born pure. God untied the knot of disobedience in the same manner as it was tied. Thus, we (Latins) continue to believe that Mary AND Eve were born pure and without sin. I had presumed that Orthodox ALSO believed this ancient teaching. This idea came about before Original sin was more fully defined by Latins. Is this not correct?
As you may recall, original sin is not sin per sec by our definition, but a lack of God's grace in man. This life within us is awakened upon our being born again (John 3:5)in Baptism. This definition I believe you will find more agreeable with theosis.
As to Annalex's previous question regarding Mary and a painless birth, that is theological opinion, just like whether Mary died or not. Frankly, I don't see why God would prevent Mary from enduring such suffering, because it is through suffering that we are closest to Christ - and it is through suffering that we will be glorified (Rom 8:17). That is my personal opinion. If Mary suffered at the foot of the cross, why not at child-birth of Jesus? I think some theologians may be trying too hard to secure Jesus' divinity through such a painless birth. Recall, Jesus willfully was born in squalor - as my tagline points to the reason. With this in mind, I do not believe that Mary (nor Jesus) was spared this pain, considering their surroundings.
Brother in Christ