Replies

Ahh, but in acknowledging the sinlessness of Jesus (which we all, of course, affirm), you have allowed that there can be exception to the "proof text" that you cited. Of course we are all (Mary included) in need of a Savior. Mary, due to her singular role in salvation history as the Mother of God, was simply saved in a different manner from the rest of us. While we are saved out of our sins, (after the fact), she was saved from sin (before the fact).

Of course your argument that "we know from Scripture that Jesus did not sin" implies that Scripture is the singular rule of faith, a belief that is rather new in Christian history. But, cooperating with your insistence on adhering to Sola Scriptura (an unbiblical doctrine in and of itself, I might add), I would draw your attention to St. Luke's use of the Greek term kecharitomene as a description of Mary (Luke 1:28). Luke uses the word, which means roughly "filled to the brim with grace" is as a perfect passive participle nominative, used as a substantive. In other words, the archangel Gabriel's acknowledgment of Mary's state of being filled with grace was made in reference to a past event (the filling with grace) whose effects were still present at the time of his greeting. Secondly, he uses the description in a nominative fashion, in essence calling the young Virgin not Mary, but by the name "Full of Grace." In the cosmology of the time, one's name was intimately tied to their identity: to who they truly were and to the role that they played in life. That is why we are commanded throughout the New Testament to do things in the "name of Jesus," because in so doing, we do them in and through the Person of Jesus. If one is "full of grace," God's divine life, that person has no room, as it were, for sin. One cannot be completely filled with grace without being completely void of sin. And, since identities do not change, Mary's identification as "Full of Grace" at the very least implies that she was "Full of Grace" at all times.

So, there is biblical precedent for the historic Church's (East and West) shared belief in Mary's sinlessness.

(For perspective the Orthodox understanding of original sin, the sinlessness of Mary, and why we dont profess the immaculate conception )

Sinlessness of Mary

QUESTION:

How exactly does the Orthodox Church view the sinlessness of Mary? In the Liturgy it is said, "One is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the Glory of God the Father" and in other places that Jesus is the only sinless one. Also, in reference to 1 John 1:8 where it says, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." How can these be reconciled? Is the Theotokos all-pure, all-holy, all-blameless because of her deification through her Son, so that she is those things because her Son is, as we are holy, pure, etc. through our union to Christ?

Also, how is it that she is referred to as the only refuge for sinners, and various phrases like this? Isn't Christ our only refuge and the salvation of sinners?

This is the main stumbling block I have with Orthodoxy right now. There seems to be varying beliefs within the Orthodoxy on the Theotokos. Didn't St John Chrysostom teach that Mary had sinned at least once? When I read the earliest Church Fathers there seems to be little focus on Mary apart from the Christological issue of whether she was the Mother of God, or only of Christ. Doesn't the teaching that Mary was sinless from birth state the same general concept, that Mary is more than the rest of humanity, as the Immaculate Conception (apart from the idea of original sin) except that it moves the moment of the supernatural grace of God to birth from conception?

I am not trying to answer my own questions, but am simply not understanding how these contradictions, at least seemingly, can be resolved.

ANSWER:

While I would love to be able to fully answer your question, it is far beyond the scope of an e-mail, especially because full understanding of the Orthodox position, based on the tenor of your question, on the Virgin Mary requires a thorough explanation of some of the secondary issues to which you refer, such as original sin, the Immaculate Conception, supernatural grace, etc. As such, I would highly recommend that you meet in person with the parish priest at the Orthodox Church you have been visiting -- he will no doubt be glad to answer the question at some depth.

I can say, in short, that the Orthodox Church believes that Mary, as a human being, could indeed have sinned, but chose not to. In the Roman Catholic understanding, it seems that Mary, who according to Roman doctrine had been exempted from the guilt of original sin [the Orthodox do not accept that humans share the guilt of the first sin but, rather, only the consequences] before all eternity, and thus could not have sinned. This is where the complexity comes in on a number of levels and which puts your question beyond the scope of an e-mail.

Jesus Christ is Mary's Savior, as well as ours, as testified in her own statement in St Luke -- the Magnificat -- where she says, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." If Mary had been "sin-proofed," so to speak, from all eternity, the Orthodox would argue as to why she would need a Savior.

Mary is the "new Eve" who said "yes" to God where the first Eve said "no." She did have a choice, and you may wish to ask your local parish priest to share with you the text of the Kanon from Matins for the Great Feast of the Annunciation, in which you will see a beautiful dialogue between Mary and the Archangel Gabriel in which she debates whether or not to accept the archangel's news, only in the end accepting that which he announced.

While much that the Orthodox say of Mary "sounds" similar to that which is taught by Roman Catholicism, there are serious differences on many levels. You are correct in saying, however, that the Orthodox Church does not seem to have such a highly developed mariological tradition as the Christian West; it is, at least in my experience, only in recent times, with the growing interest in Orthodoxy especially among many evangelicals, that we have had to delve so deeply -- and sometimes deeper than we should -- into the role of Mary. Sometimes our answers seem somewhat lame, but in reality there is only so much one can say before one must acknowledge that, while there are certain things we simply cannot fully understand about this, reasoned faith, as defined in St James, becomes the only recourse.

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=116&SID=3