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
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
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?
The Orthodox contiune to believe, as they apparently believed all along, that Mary was born as all of us are, without Grace, with a fallen nature inherited from our ancestral parents. Rather than calling it "guilty," we consider our state comparable to grave illness in need of a physician who can cure us.
Just as a real patient must cleave to his physician and follow physician's directives, so too do spiritual patients have to follow Christ's commandments in order to heal spirtually and live. They cannot do it on their own, and disobedience will not only make things worse, but – if it persists – will result in death. Hence the cooperative relationship, where God leads and we follow, but in order for that to happen we must have complete trust in our physician and a will to follow him.
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.
We all say that if we pray and cleave to God we will resist sin more effectively. Well, her devotion to God was just as the Commandments says, with all her heart, soul and mind. In other words, she achieved teosis above and beyond any other saint. Her theosis was the expression of her free will and faith, both of which were stronger than anyone else's that we know of.
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.
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.
Remember that Adam still had a potential to sin, based on his free will, and in fact did sin, whereas Christ, most will tell you, had no such "option." Thus, the Church will will tell you that there was no such possibility in Christ's humanity, which is unique only to Him.
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.
Implying that the "second pair" was able to resists sin, and in fact did, would mean that somehow they were a better and improved model from the prototype. God doesn't have process-improvement strategy.
If Chirst is "second Adam," He would be a creature. For Adam was fully human, but he was not also divine. Adam had one nature and one will, both capable of sin.
If Christ were "second Adam," He would not have died because He did not sin, as "first Adam" would not have died if he had not sinned. We all agree that Jesus died on the Cross not because he had to but becase He willed it.
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.
As you may recall, original sin is not sin per se 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
Yes, first the cross and then the crown is something that has been repeated many times, but God is not the Creator of pain and suffering. God created the Paradise for His creatures to live in harmony and comfort, free of desease and pain and suffering, in other words – in bliss.
We brought pain and suffering upon us by resisting God. God is good and only bestows blessings. What we do with them is another story. And, yes, those who suffered because of Christ are glorified, but the root cause of suffeirng and detah is sin, not God. 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.
as pain in childbirth is specified directly as punishment for sin it seems to be contrary to logic to think Sinless Mary suffered in childbirth. There is nothing contrary to common sense about a Mother experiencing unimaginable suffering watching her son's Passion and Death on the Cross