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.
Has Eastern Orthodoxy always opposed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos, the Mother of God? She is praised in the Megalynarion hymn in the Divine Liturgy and in Vespers and Matins showing the pre-eminence of Mary among the saints:
It is truly right to bless you, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cheribum, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without defilement you gave birth to God the Word: True Theotokos, we magnify you.How is the Theotokos "most pure"? Most Orthodox would say that she was without sin at the Annunciation, but would disagree that the Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate by St. Anne. Fr. Peter E. Gillquist comments in Becoming Orthodox:
However, the Immaculate Conception of Mary is a doctrine unknown in the ancient Church and unique to the modern Roman Church.He later refers to
the Roman Church with its questionable late dogmatic additions concerning Mary. (pp. 119, 122)Fr. Casimir Kucharek in his magnus opus The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (1971; Alleluia Press, pp. 355-357) marshals the evidence that the early Eastern Church did believe in and commemorate the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos:
Also, from end to end of the Byzantine world, both Catholic and Orthodox greet the Mother of God as archrantos, "the immaculate, spotless one," no less than eight times in the Divine Liturgy alone. But especially on the feast of her conception (December 9 in the Byzantine Church) is her immaculateness stressed: "This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary..."; "She is conceived...the only immaculate one"; "or "Having conceived the most pure dove, Anne filled...." [References: From the Office of Matins, the Third Ode of the Canon for the feast; From the Office of Matins, the Stanzas during the Seating, for the same feast; From the Office of Matins, the Sixth Ode of the Canon for the same feast.]Fr. Kucharek continues:
No sin, no fault, not even the slightest, ever marred the perfect sanctity of this masterpiece of God's creation. For hundred of years, the Byzantine Church has believed this, prayed and honored Mary in this way. Centuries of sacred tradition stand behind this title. [The very vastness of available testimony precludes listing. Two excellent surveys may be consulted: A. Ballerini, Sylloge monumentorum ad mysterium conceptionis immaculatae virginis deiparae spectantium (Rome, 1854-1855), and C. Passaglia, De immaculato deiparae semper virginis conceptu commentarius (Rome, 1854 -1855).] Even during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when some Western theologians doubted or denied the truth of her immaculate conception, Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox theologians unanimously taught it.In support of this statement, Fr. Kucharek cites these references in a footnote on pp. 355-356:
Among the better known ninth to thirteenth century Byzantine theologians: Patriarch Photius in his homilies De Annuntiatione and De Nativitate Deiparae (S. Aristarchis, Photiou logoi kai homiliai, Vol. II [Constantinople, 1900], pp. 230-245, 368-380); George of Nicomedia in his homilies (PG 100, 1336-1504), especially Conceptione deipara and Praesentatione Mariae virginis; Michael Psellos in the recently discovered and edited homily De Annuntiatione (PO 16, pp. 517-525); John Phurnensis, Oratione de Dormitione (G. Palamas, Theophanous tou kerameos homiliai, [Jerusalem, 1860], append., pp. 271-276); Michael Glykas, Annales, III (PG 158, 439-442); Germanus II, Patriarch of Constantinople, In annuntiationem (edit. Ballerini, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 283-382); Theognostos the Monk, In dormitionem (PO 16, pp. 457-562); Nicetas David, In nativitatem B.M.V. (PG 105, 16-28); Leo the Wise, In dormitionem and In praesentationeum (PG 107, 12-21); Patriarch Euthymius of Constantinople, In Conceptionem Annae (PO 16, pp. 499-505); Bishop Peter Argorum, In conceptionem B. Annae(PG 104, 1352-1365); John Mauropos, In dormitionem (PG 120, 1075-1114); James the Monk, In nativitatem et in praesentationem B.M.V. (PO 16, pp. 528-538). Cf. Jugie, L'immaculee Conception dans l'Ecriture Sainte et dans la tradition orientale [Rome, 1952], pp. 164-307, for others.Fr. Kucharek notes that Eastern theologians took St. Thomas Aquinas to task on this issue. (Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception):
Two of Thomas Aquinas' most ardent disciples among the Greeks disagreed with him on one point only, his failure to admit the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. Demetrios Kydonios (fourteenth century) translated some of Aquinas' works into Greek, but vehemently opposed Thomas' views on the immaculate conception. [Demetrios Kydonios, Hom. in annuntiationem deiparae, contained in Cod. Paris gr., 1213 (cf. Jugie, op cit., pp. 276-279.] No less did the other great Thomist, Georgios Scholarios (fifteenth century), in his synopsis of the immaculate conception. [Georgios Scholarios, In dormitionem (PO 16, p. 577); cf. Petit-Siderides-Jugie; Oeuvres completes de Georges Scholarios, Vol. 1 [Paris, 1928], pp. 202-203; also Petit-Sisderides-Jugie, op. cit., I, p. 501; also Jugie, Georges Scholarios et l'Immaculee Conception, Echos d'Orient (Paris-Istanbul, 17 [1915], pp. 527-530.]How did Orthodoxy come to reject the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos? Fr. Kucharek concludes:
The Greek Orthodox Church's belief in the immaculate conception continued unanimously until the fifteenth century, then many Greek theologians began to adopt the idea that Mary had been made immaculate at the moment of the Annunciation. [Nicholas Callixtus, however, expressed doubt during the fourteenth century (cf. Jugie L'Immaculee Conception dans l'Ecriture Sainte et dans la tradition orientale, p. 2130, but the great Cabasilas' (1371) teaching on the immaculate conception (In nativitatem [PO 19, pp. 468-482]; In dormitionem [PO 19, pp. 498-504]) still had great influence in the subsequent centuries. Perhaps even more influential was Patriarch Gregory Palamas (1446-1452) whose homilies on the Mother of God are second to none even today (De hypapante; De annuntiatione; De dormitione [PG 151]; also In Christi genealogiam and In praesentationem [edit. K. Sophocles, Tou en hagiois patros emon Gregoriou tou Palama homiliai, Athens, 1861]). Among the Eastern Slavs, belief in the immaculate conception went undisturbed until the seventeenth century, when the Skrizhal (Book of Laws) appeared in Russia, and proposed what the Slavs considered the "novel" doctrine of the Greeks. The views proposed in the Skrizhal were branded as blasphemous, especially among the Staroviery (Old Believers), who maintained the ancient customs and beliefs, however small or inconsequential. [Cf. N. Subbotin, Materialy dlja istorii Roskola, Vol. IV (Moscow, 1878), pp. 39-50, 229, and Vol. 1 (Moscow, 1874), p. 457.] This reaction confirms the ancient Byzantine and Slav tradition of the immaculate conception. Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians. The Orthodox Church, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII's letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.--Dave Brown
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