Orthodox Belief

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1213362' date='Mar 13 2007, 11:22 PM']This is a catholic board were others [b]are welcomed.[/b] I am sure Cat will and does agree with that.

Reza it is not good to let strong emotions lead you... I mean absolutely no offense but you are too easily offended when no offense was intended. Cat has apologized and stated in was not his intent to offend you. Why not just let it go... and we all move on[/quote]

1.) I don't let emotions "run me", for anyone that knows me knows that.

2.) Cat didn't appologize, she said "I'm sorry but" and continued in insulting Orthodoxy.

Reza

[theculturewarrior]

One of the reasons Orthodox and Catholics get in arguments like this (and have done so from the beginning) is that for the most part we speak different languages that say essentially the same thing. I think somewhere there is a policy in our Church against proselytizing Orthodox. Also, it should be noted that Reza is Oriental Orthodox, and may have different beliefs than Eastern Orthodox.

Sometimes I think it is better for priests and bishops to have interfaith dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics. The laity should just be having barbacues.

[KnightofChrist]

It would seem some Eastren Orthodox do belief Mary was sinless when the question is asked "correctly"...

SOURCE
[quote]On the point of the purity of the Theotokos in the sense of her sinlessness all Orthodox are agreed that she is consecrated and holy in that God Himself has dwelt in her womb. She is called the Theotokos (bearer or birth-giver of God) and therefore the Panagia ("all-holy one" This follows from the biblical principle that wherever God dwells is holy. The Tabernacle and the later Temple, as well as the Ark of the Covenant, are all examples of this principle. These are all "set apart" from common use in the biblical Tradition by the fact that God graciously dwelt in them. In Scriptural logic whatever God touches or indwells is "set apart" from common use, which is the meaning of the word "holy." To be holy is to be set apart from common use for the indwelling of God Himself. In this sense the Virgin Mary was set apart, "holy," because God Himself dwelt within her womb. This is precisely why the Holy Church insisted on the title of "Theotokos," or "the one who bore God Himself in her womb" against the heretical denial of this title to Mary on the part of the Patriarch Nestorius. Nestorius taught that the person in Mary's womb was not God Himself but rather simply a being who was somehow united to God. Thus for the Nestorians Mary could be called "anthropotokos," or "bearer of a man," or even "christotokos," the "bearer of the Messiah," but not "Theotokos," the "bearer of God." Against Nestorius the Holy Church at the Third Ecumenical Council (AD 431) responded that if God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, did not take our flesh in the womb of the Theotokos then we are still in our sins and cannot be brought into saving union with God through her Son. It follows naturally by biblical logic that the one in whom God Himself dwelt is "holy." [b]If this is what one means by asking whether Orthodox Christians believe in the sinlessness of Mary then we would answer, "Yes!"[/b][/quote]

[RezaMikhaeil]

Again, you're going to have to give me the link to where you found this on the internet so that it can be properly answered. For all I know you just wrote it yourself but in regards to Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, we agree on this issue that she isn't sinless [as our recient dialog between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and even Roman Catholicism have concluded]. If you dont believe this, just go individually to any Eastern Orthodox priest and ask him/her personally.

[quote]Since the Middle Ages, Catholic theologians had argued the question of whether or not Mary had been subject to original sin. In general, the Franciscans argued in favor of her "immaculate conception", the doctrine that she, from the moment of her conception, had been preserved by God from all sin and all tendency to sin; the Dominicans, on the other hand, including most notably Thomas Aquinas, argued that Mary's sinlessness is a grace granted to her at some time after her conception. In 1854, Pope Pius IX effectively ended the debate for Catholics by proclaiming the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception", stating that "the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of her conception was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race." ("Ineffabilis Deus", issued on 8 December 1854). It was subsequently claimed that the Blessed Virgin Mary during her sixteenth appearance in Lourdes on March 25, 1858 announced to Bernadette Soubirous "I am the Immaculate Conception". The term Immaculate Conception is also widely used within Catholicism to refer to the Virgin Mary.[/quote][quote]Orthodox Christians do believe that Mary was without sin for her entire life, but they do not share the Catholic Church's views on original sin. They note that St. Augustine (d. 430), whose works were not well known in Eastern Christianity until after the 17th century, has exerted considerable influence over the theology of sin that has generally taken root through the Holy See, and since Eastern Orthodoxy does not share Rome's (or most Protestants') view of original sin, it considers unnecessary the doctrine that Mary would require purification prior to the Incarnation. Instead, Eastern Orthodox theologians suggest that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state, but to her conduct after birth. Although this is not a dogma in the Orthodox Church, there is the universal belief that there was a pre-sanctification of Mary at the time of her conception, similar to the conception of Saint John the Baptist. However, there was no cleansing of original sin, since Orthodox Christians believe that one cannot inherit original sin, or any sin for that matter; instead, 'original sin' in Orthodoxy refers to the general tendency towards sin and pain in the world, caused by the fall of Adam.[/quote]

These were both taken from Wikipedia, since I dont have the time to do the searches right now at "Official Orthodox" sites.

Reza

Edited March 15, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1214168' date='Mar 15 2007, 04:43 PM']Again, you're going to have to give me the link to where you found this on the internet so that it can be properly answered. For all I know you just wrote it yourself but in regards to Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, we agree on this issue that she isn't sinless [as our recient dialog between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and even Roman Catholicism have concluded]. If you dont believe this, just go individually to any Eastern Orthodox priest and ask him/her personally.

Reza[/quote]
No. the Catholic Church has not concluded Mary sinned. Simply not true.

[N/A Gone]

I confirm for Reza.

But Reza, I asked you before. Doesnt the Orthodox agree that Rome has the primacy, the issue is in what manner and form that primacy is to be demonstrated? Also the extent to which ROme can act without full consent of the bishops and in what situaton?

Also, could the argument be made that Greek Marian theology is underdeveloped since nothing for certain can be determined without the full council? In reading ecumenical theology the position on the marian issues seems to be more of a developmental issue rather than a difference in theology.

Thank you Reza.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]No. the Catholic Church has not concluded Mary sinned. Simply not true.[/quote]I never said that the Roman Catholic Church did, what I did say is that during the unity talks among churches, the Roman Patriarch acknowledged that the Orthodox Position is that Orthodox don't support the Immaculate Conception like Romans.

[quote]But Reza, I asked you before. Doesnt the Orthodox agree that Rome has the primacy, the issue is in what manner and form that primacy is to be demonstrated? Also the extent to which ROme can act without full consent of the bishops and in what situaton?[/quote] The Orthodox position is that Rome isn't primacy, that St. Peter was the "head dude" but that didn't make him infallible either [as St. Paul actually corrected St. Peter, when St. Peter was wrong]. We also hold that we should keep the traditions formost. If St. Peter preached something that was contradictory to the original traditions, then St. Mark [for example] wasn't held to his authority to follow him. This is just a nutshell, really this is one that could [and probably should] be discussed more indepth to get the full concept of the Roman and Orthodox position.

Reza

PS: I edited my last post, so please check that out, I added some quotes that may help in explaining the Orthodox position.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1214188' date='Mar 15 2007, 04:54 PM']We also hold that we should keep the traditions formost. If St. Peter preached something that was contradictory to the original traditions, then St. Mark [for example] wasn't held to his authority to follow him. This is just a nutshell, really this is one that could [and probably should] be discussed more indepth to get the full concept of the Roman and Orthodox position.[/quote]


St Peter was made head of the Church, and his authority was final. Agreeing to disagree and everyone doing their own thing is exactly why the Anglican Communion/Church of England is falling apart. In the end, someone has to be the boss with final authority AND responsibility.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1214168' date='Mar 15 2007, 02:43 PM']Again, you're going to have to give me the link to where you found this on the internet so that it can be properly answered. For all I know you just wrote it yourself but in regards to Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, we agree on this issue that she isn't sinless [as our recient dialog between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and even Roman Catholicism have concluded]. If you dont believe this, just go individually to any Eastern Orthodox priest and ask him/her personally.
These were both taken from Wikipedia, since I dont have the time to do the searches right now at "Official Orthodox" sites.

Reza[/quote]

[url="http://htaoc.com/pastor/ask/sinless.html"]http://htaoc.com/pastor/ask/sinless.html[/url]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote] [u][b][url="http://www.st-ilija.org/mambo/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=2"]DEVOTION TO MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD[/url][/b][/u]

There is an ancient legend that runs thus: St. Andrew, the Apostle hurried to heaven, released by his crucifixion from earthly toil and anguish. Admitted to the gates of heaven, St. Andrew began searching for his beautiful heavenly Queen. “Where is she?” he asked his guide. “She is not here”, replied the angel. “She is in the suffering word, drying the tears of her weeping children”. Drying their tears, healing their hurts, folding the hands of her suffering children, loving them, teaching them, reminding them, praying with them – these are the ways in which the Mother of God cooperates with the will of her Son.

[b] The Virgin Mary was born about two thousand years ago, of pious Jewish parents Joachim and Ana. She belonged to the house of David, like Joseph. By the grace of God, [u]Mary was sinless from the moment of her conception, and remained so her whole life.[/u] Because she was the Mother of Jesus Christ, Person Who is both God and man, Mary is called, and is in fact, the Mother of God – Bogorodica. She is also Mother of the human family, always ready to intercede for us with God and help us, just as she did at the wedding in Cana, Galilee.
[/b]
Mary occupies a very important place in the devotional life of a Christians. Perhaps the most typical aspect of the devotion to the Mother of God, is the child-like love for and trust in her constant protection and intercession. She is glorified in heaven through her Dormition/Assumption – Uspenie (feast day August 28), yet the individual finds her presence close throughout each day and often echoes the angel Gabriel’s words from the Gospel: “Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women”, and the words of the Christian Community “and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus, Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners”.

In Tradition the two most important sources for this tender devotion toward Mary are their sacred icons and liturgical text. Thus, for example, for the Feast of Mary’s Nativity (September 21), the Tropar proclaims: “Your birth o Virgin Mother of God heralded joy to the universe; for from you rose the Sun of Justice, Christ our God. By annulling the curse, He bestowed a blessing, By destroying death, He has granted us eternal life”. Similar sentiments are expressed on other Marian feasts.

Among the most striking hymns ever composed in honor of Mary, is one that sung as a part of the Divine Liturgy: “It is truly fitting and proper to sing your praises, Mother of God, ever blessed and completely sinless Mother who has born our God. Higher in honor than the Cherubim! And beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim! Who, a Virgin, gave birth to the Word of Gad; you are truly the mother of God and we praise you!.”

Sacred icons seek to turn our thoughts toward heaven. An icons appeals to the soul, not the eye. Thus it is not beautiful in the conventional terms of natural realism; it is designed to depict a spiritual expression of serene sublimity and to bring out the soul not the body of the figure. The purpose of art is not to represent the perfection of the body but to reproduce the spiritual essence and to be our window on heaven. Examples of notable Marian icons: Our Lady of Vladimir, Our Lady of Precista etc.

Devotion to Mary is also reflected in the thousands of churches and monasteries around the word, dedicated to her, such as in Matka, Berovo, Kicevo, Columbus, Detroit, Los Angeles.

The reason for all of these devotions to Mary, is to enable us to say with her: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word,” and thereby fulfill the purpose of our existence – eternal life with God.[/quote]

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b]RezaLemmyng (Thursday, March 15, 2007 at 02:43 PM) Post #24[/b]
[b][u][color="#FF0000"]Orthodox Christians do believe that Mary was without sin for her entire life[/color][/u][/b], [u]but they do not share the Catholic Church's views on original sin[/u]. They note that St. Augustine (d. 430), whose works were not well known in Eastern Christianity until after the 17th century, has exerted considerable influence over the theology of sin that has generally taken root through the Holy See, and since Eastern Orthodoxy does not share Rome's (or most Protestants') view of original sin, [u]it considers unnecessary the doctrine that Mary would require purification prior to the Incarnation[/u]. [b][color="#FF8C00"]Instead, Eastern Orthodox theologians suggest that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state, but to her conduct after birth[/color][/b]. [b]Although this is not a dogma in the Orthodox Church, [u]there [color="#0000FF"]is the universal belief that there was a pre-sanctification of Mary at the time of her conception[/color][/u][/b], similar to the conception of Saint John the Baptist. However, there was no cleansing of original sin, [u]since Orthodox Christians believe that one cannot inherit original sin[/u], or any sin for that matter; instead, 'original sin' in Orthodoxy refers to the general tendency towards sin and pain in the world, caused by the fall of Adam.
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65507&view=findpost&p=1214168"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1214168[/url][/quote]I do not understand how this supports this user's case... This is much like the quotes I proposed and asked about when I started this topic...[quote][b]Galatians 2:11-14[/b]
"But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/55002.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/55002.htm[/url][/quote]Non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to diminish Peter's evident authority over the Church. This is misguided. In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter's teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile's salvation in [b]Acts 10 & 11[/b]. With this rebuke, Paul is really saying "Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!" The verse really underscores, and not diminishes, the importance of Peter's leadership in the Church. For why would Saint Paul be considered about the personal conduct of Saint Peter unless he was the leader of the Church?

Edited March 15, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]Orthodox Christians do believe that Mary was without sin for her entire life, but they do not share the Catholic Church's views on original sin. They note that St. Augustine (d. 430), whose works were not well known in Eastern Christianity until after the 17th century, has exerted considerable influence over the theology of sin that has generally taken root through the Holy See, and since Eastern Orthodoxy does not share Rome's (or most Protestants') view of original sin, it considers unnecessary the doctrine that Mary would require purification prior to the Incarnation. Instead, Eastern Orthodox theologians suggest that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state, but to her conduct after birth. Although this is not a dogma in the Orthodox Church, there is the universal belief that there was a pre-sanctification of Mary at the time of her conception, similar to the conception of Saint John the Baptist. However, there was no cleansing of original sin, since Orthodox Christians believe that one cannot inherit original sin, or any sin for that matter; instead, 'original sin' in Orthodoxy refers to the general tendency towards sin and pain in the world, caused by the fall of Adam.[/quote]I think that this opens up the explaination conciderably but you have to look within the context. As this mentions, there's a clear distinction between the Roman View and the Orthodox view. "Sinless" between the two churches is defined completely differently.

Thank you knightofChrist for giving me the link, now let me quote the whole thing:

[quote]All Orthodox are agreed that Mary was born with the same fallen human nature that we all share in Adam's fallen condition. By this confession we Orthodox Christians reject the Roman dogma of the "Immaculate Conception." This Roman teaching, dogmatized at the First Vatican Council (presided over by Pope Pius IX, in 1854), holds that Mary was conceived in the womb of her parents, Joachim & Anna, in a miraculous way such that she was kept from the stain of "original sin and guilt." The Roman Church (and all the Protestant churches that sprang from her in the sixteenth and following centuries) all hold that all human beings are born with the stain of Adam's guilt. We are born personally guilty for Adam's original transgression. This was the teaching of Augustine of Hippo (died AD 430) who would prove to be enormously influential in all of Western Christendom, whether Roman or Reformed. This teaching about "original sin/guilt" posed a problem for Roman theology in that it was Mary who gave humanity to our Lord Jesus Christ, thus our Lord would have been born with this "original sin/guilt." If this were the case He could not be the sinless lamb of God who could offer Himself up on our behalf. Thus the Roman Church escaped this dilemma by teaching that Mary was not born with the same fallen and guilty humanity with which we are born. She was proleptically kept from the stain of "original sin/guilt" by the grace of her Son. The Orthodox Fathers and the Orthodox Church as a whole have always taught that we are all born with a fallen, weakened, "death-bound" mortal nature inherited from Adam but that we are not born with Adam's personal guilt. Thus Mary was born with the same fallen, mortal nature that we all share and it was precisely this fallen humanity that she gave to God the Son! If this were not so He could not have healed our fallen condition. As the Holy Fathers repeatedly stated, "That which God the Son did not assume in His Incarnation is not healed." By assuming our fallen nature and uniting it to His divine nature God has healed our fallen condition and set us free from sin and death! Thus the Orthodox Church has rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception since it is not the consensus of the Tradition and since it is not logically necessary. None of us are born with Adam's personal guilt, including Mary. Therefore there is simply no need for an immaculate conception of the Theotokos. If this is what one means when asking whether Orthodox Christians believe in the sinlessness of Mary then we must answer, "no."

But that is not the end of the story! On the point of the purity of the Theotokos in the sense of her sinlessness all Orthodox are agreed that she is consecrated and holy in that God Himself has dwelt in her womb. She is called the Theotokos (bearer or birth-giver of God) and therefore the Panagia ("all-holy one" This follows from the biblical principle that wherever God dwells is holy. The Tabernacle and the later Temple, as well as the Ark of the Covenant, are all examples of this principle. These are all "set apart" from common use in the biblical Tradition by the fact that God graciously dwelt in them. In Scriptural logic whatever God touches or indwells is "set apart" from common use, which is the meaning of the word "holy." To be holy is to be set apart from common use for the indwelling of God Himself. In this sense the Virgin Mary was set apart, "holy," because God Himself dwelt within her womb. This is precisely why the Holy Church insisted on the title of "Theotokos," or "the one who bore God Himself in her womb" against the heretical denial of this title to Mary on the part of the Patriarch Nestorius. Nestorius taught that the person in Mary's womb was not God Himself but rather simply a being who was somehow united to God. Thus for the Nestorians Mary could be called "anthropotokos," or "bearer of a man," or even "christotokos," the "bearer of the Messiah," but not "Theotokos," the "bearer of God." Against Nestorius the Holy Church at the Third Ecumenical Council (AD 431) responded that if God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, did not take our flesh in the womb of the Theotokos then we are still in our sins and cannot be brought into saving union with God through her Son. It follows naturally by biblical logic that the one in whom God Himself dwelt is "holy." If this is what one means by asking whether Orthodox Christians believe in the sinlessness of Mary then we would answer, "Yes!"[/quote]

Notice the distinction.

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

[quote]All Orthodox are agreed that Mary was born with the same fallen human nature that we all share in Adam's fallen condition.[/quote][quote]By the grace of God, Mary was sinless from the moment of her conception, and remained so her whole life.[/quote]

It would seem not all orthodox are agreed. If one Orthodox Church believes Mary was sinless from "the moment of her conception", and another Orthodox Church believes "she was born with the same fallen nature" of Adam, that would seem to be a conflict.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1214265' date='Mar 15 2007, 04:47 PM']It would seem not all orthodox are agreed. If one Orthodox Church believes Mary was sinless from "the moment of her conception", and another Orthodox Church believes "she was born with the same fallen nature" of Adam, that would seem to be a conflict.[/quote]

Read it inside of the right context, all orthodox agree. You can't just quote selective sentences [as you did with the article below when you just quoted the second paragraph but not the first], you have to put it inside of the right context.

[quote]All Orthodox are agreed that Mary was born with the same fallen human nature that we all share in Adam's fallen condition. By this confession we Orthodox Christians reject the Roman dogma of the "Immaculate Conception." This Roman teaching, dogmatized at the First Vatican Council (presided over by Pope Pius IX, in 1854), holds that Mary was conceived in the womb of her parents, Joachim & Anna, in a miraculous way such that she was kept from the stain of "original sin and guilt." The Roman Church (and all the Protestant churches that sprang from her in the sixteenth and following centuries) all hold that all human beings are born with the stain of Adam's guilt. We are born personally guilty for Adam's original transgression. This was the teaching of Augustine of Hippo (died AD 430) who would prove to be enormously influential in all of Western Christendom, whether Roman or Reformed. This teaching about "original sin/guilt" posed a problem for Roman theology in that it was Mary who gave humanity to our Lord Jesus Christ, thus our Lord would have been born with this "original sin/guilt." If this were the case He could not be the sinless lamb of God who could offer Himself up on our behalf. Thus the Roman Church escaped this dilemma by teaching that Mary was not born with the same fallen and guilty humanity with which we are born. She was proleptically kept from the stain of "original sin/guilt" by the grace of her Son. The Orthodox Fathers and the Orthodox Church as a whole have always taught that we are all born with a fallen, weakened, "death-bound" mortal nature inherited from Adam but that we are not born with Adam's personal guilt. Thus Mary was born with the same fallen, mortal nature that we all share and it was precisely this fallen humanity that she gave to God the Son! If this were not so He could not have healed our fallen condition. As the Holy Fathers repeatedly stated, "That which God the Son did not assume in His Incarnation is not healed." By assuming our fallen nature and uniting it to His divine nature God has healed our fallen condition and set us free from sin and death! Thus the Orthodox Church has rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception since it is not the consensus of the Tradition and since it is not logically necessary. None of us are born with Adam's personal guilt, including Mary. Therefore there is simply no need for an immaculate conception of the Theotokos. If this is what one means when asking whether Orthodox Christians believe in the sinlessness of Mary then we must answer, "no."

But that is not the end of the story! On the point of the purity of the Theotokos in the sense of her sinlessness all Orthodox are agreed that she is consecrated and holy in that God Himself has dwelt in her womb. She is called the Theotokos (bearer or birth-giver of God) and therefore the Panagia ("all-holy one" This follows from the biblical principle that wherever God dwells is holy. The Tabernacle and the later Temple, as well as the Ark of the Covenant, are all examples of this principle. These are all "set apart" from common use in the biblical Tradition by the fact that God graciously dwelt in them. In Scriptural logic whatever God touches or indwells is "set apart" from common use, which is the meaning of the word "holy." To be holy is to be set apart from common use for the indwelling of God Himself. In this sense the Virgin Mary was set apart, "holy," because God Himself dwelt within her womb. This is precisely why the Holy Church insisted on the title of "Theotokos," or "the one who bore God Himself in her womb" against the heretical denial of this title to Mary on the part of the Patriarch Nestorius. Nestorius taught that the person in Mary's womb was not God Himself but rather simply a being who was somehow united to God. Thus for the Nestorians Mary could be called "anthropotokos," or "bearer of a man," or even "christotokos," the "bearer of the Messiah," but not "Theotokos," the "bearer of God." Against Nestorius the Holy Church at the Third Ecumenical Council (AD 431) responded that if God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, did not take our flesh in the womb of the Theotokos then we are still in our sins and cannot be brought into saving union with God through her Son. It follows naturally by biblical logic that the one in whom God Himself dwelt is "holy." If this is what one means by asking whether Orthodox Christians believe in the sinlessness of Mary then we would answer, "Yes!"[/quote]

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1214223' date='Mar 15 2007, 03:58 PM']I think that this opens up the explaination conciderably but you have to look within the context. As this mentions, there's a clear distinction between the Roman View and the Orthodox view. "Sinless" between the two churches is defined completely differently.

Thank you knightofChrist for giving me the link, now let me quote the whole thing:
Notice the distinction.

Reza[/quote]


Forgot this last part...


[quote]Going further, it is the belief among Orthodox Christians (reflected in the liturgical texts of the Church) that the [b]Theotokos lived without willful sin[/b], at least after the point of the Incarnation of God the Son in her womb. This is an important emphasis since it underlines the fact that fallen humans like Mary and every last one of us can indeed live without sin if we will but receive and cooperate with God's amazing grace! But this teaching has never been considered a point of "dogma," necessary for membership in the Holy Church. [color="#800080"]Indeed, St. John Chrysostom, a very prominent Father and Teacher of the Orthodox Church, believed that the Theotokos sinned in a minor way when she apparently "pushed" our Lord into His first miracle at Cana.[/color] So if an Orthodox believer has trouble accepting the teaching of the complete absence of willful sin on the part of the Theotokos he will find himself in good company! But that she lives an exceptionally holy life is beyond any question.

I believe that the reason many have trouble with the idea of the [b]lack of willful sin[/b] on the part of the Theotokos is the Western Christian assumption of the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin (referred to above) [b]which wrongly asserts that all humans are born not only with Adam's fallen[/b], mortal, weakened nature but that they are also born guilty of Adam's personal guilt. Once again, the belief in [b]the lack of willful sin on the part of the Theotokos[/b] is important precisely because it emphasizes the reality that we fallen humans can live without willful sin by God's grace if we will allow God to so mold us through His grace received through the mysteries of the Body of Christ, the Church and by a life of ascetic effort -- a very difficult task, but not impossible. Many Protestants reject this possibility because of the idea of the Total Depravity of fallen human nature that is rooted in the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin/Guilt.

As we Orthodox Christians pray repeatedly, "Let us commend ourselves, each other, and all our life to Christ our God," and in so doing let us follow in the footsteps of the Holy Theotokos as we walk with her in the amazing grace of her Son!

Fr. Bill Caldaroni, Pastor, Holy Transfiguration Orthodox Church[/quote]

Forgive me, but I see somewhat of a conficlt within the Orthodox Churches, she was sinless, but she was not sinless. Even Fr. Caldaroni seems to address this somewhat... Could there just be a hesitation to agree with the Catholic Church on the matter of the sinlessness of the Theotokos?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1214270' date='Mar 15 2007, 04:54 PM']Forgot this last part...


Forgive me, but I see somewhat of a conficlt within the Orthodox Churches, she was sinless, but she was not sinless. Even Fr. Caldaroni seems to address this somewhat... Could there just be a hesitation to agree with the Catholic Church on the matter of the sinlessness of the Theotokos?[/quote]

No what Fr. Caldaroni addresses is that some Early Church Fathers disagreed with the church's mainstream position, which isn't uncommon, alot of Early Church Fathers said things that the church as a whole might not have agreed with, even Roman Saints.

[quote]Since the Middle Ages, Catholic theologians had argued the question of whether or not Mary had been subject to original sin. In general, the Franciscans argued in favor of her "immaculate conception", the doctrine that she, from the moment of her conception, had been preserved by God from all sin and all tendency to sin; the Dominicans, on the other hand, including most notably Thomas Aquinas, argued that Mary's sinlessness is a grace granted to her at some time after her conception. In 1854, Pope Pius IX effectively ended the debate for Catholics by proclaiming the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception", stating that "the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of her conception was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race." ("Ineffabilis Deus", issued on 8 December 1854).[/quote]Eastern Catholics even take a different position on this issue then the western Romans.

[quote]Amongst Eastern Catholics, the Orthodox belief is also held (technically in violation of its requirement as a dogmatic article of faith and not merely a theological opinion).[/quote]

Note: I didn't forget about that last part, rather everyone else had the link but the point was that if you select individual sentences, it's very easy to interpret orthodoxy as you'd like, rather then what is... and what is is that it's universal in Orthodoxy, that the Roman Position isn't taken.

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

And it would also seem that Orthodox Churches are not agreed that the Theotokos did not sin. Some say she never willfully sinned others say she did. Some are at least close to the Catholic understanding of the sinlessness of the Theotokos, while others are far from that understanding.

[Mr.Cat]

The problem with the Orthodox believers is that there is no central leadership like the Catholic Church has with the Pope and the Holy See. Moreover, many doctrines are not “dogmatic” in their belief and not very clearly defined, leading to doctrinal dissent and disagreement. But the Orthodox does have a strong commonality of belief which for most cases is sufficient but there is much disagreement on many theological issues.

Because of this one Orthodox can reject that the Blessed Virgin is sinless, another can claim this happened at the coming of the Angel, another can claim it happened at the conception of our Blessed Lord, and still another can claim she was always sinless. But a fundamental problem exists in the Orthodox acceptance of the “Immaculate Conception” is that they believe that one is not born with any sin, so in their view everyone is immaculate after being conceived it is simply they suffer from original sin. This is not Catholic belief concerning Original Sin so the definition makes sense to us for we do profess, as the Holy Council of Trent defined, that original sin is more than just a suffering under and that it is transmitted like a sin.

So Orthodox objection is moreover around the declaring it a dogma (they fell it is unnecessary) and further to use the phrase “immaculate conception” is redundant. But generally speaking the theologies both propose she was without sin.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1214274' date='Mar 15 2007, 05:03 PM']And it would also seem that Orthodox Churches are not agreed that the Theotokos did not sin. Some say she never willfully sinned others say she did. Some are at least close to the Catholic understanding of the sinlessness of the Theotokos, while others are far from that understanding.[/quote]

Well the church as a whole does take a position, and you should research that, as I posted above... Roman Theologians also have taken different positions but that doesn't mean that the church never took a position, just that some Saints have a different opinion or perspective.

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

Let me understand your stand. Did the Theotokos ever willfully sin or not? "Original Sin" aside.