Questions about the Theotokos

[sinjin smithe]

I have a question on the Theotokos. Does Orthodoxy teach that the Theotokos was sinless? And if so, this is were I am a little confused, I thought that Christ was the only sinless one? I know that many of the saints reached a state of perfection but they sinned before they were saints. If anyone can clarify this I would really appreciate it.

[John Wilson]

I'm not absolutely certain as to the church's position on this but I do know that she was not required to be sinless in order to bear Christ. The Roman Catholic church teaches that we inherit the stain of Adam's sin. The Orthodox church teaches that we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin, his fallen human nature. Because the RC's believed that we somehow inherit the guilt of Adam, they could not reconcile Jesus being born sinless from a mother who was carrying Adam's sin, thus they developed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary so they could say Mary was without sin and thus Jesus could be born sinless.

The truth is that when Jesus was born, He took on our fallen human nature, and thus bridged the chasm that had always existed between the Creator and the created. By his death he put to death our fallen human nature and by rising again he glorified it, restoring it to the purpose for which it had been created. So, since we do not inherit sin from our parents, grandparents etc. Jesus could not inherit any sin which Mary might have had.

However, Mary became the Theotokos, she contained within her womb the uncontainable, God took residence within her body so in effect she herself became the Holy of Holies, that place where only one priest was permitted to enter once a year and only after careful preparation. She became the Ark, which was so fearful due to God's presence that a person touching it died instantly . It is difficult to consider these things and still think of Mary as anything but exceptional, perhaps even sinless, for if there was any corruption in her, surely she would have been consumed by the fire of God's love.

Note that the above is my opinion only. I have not had the opportunity to read what the church says specifically on this issue so I may be in error. Also I may not have stated things terribly clearly above as I do not have a gift for words. Please forgive my poor efforts.

In Christ, John.

[irineu]

Saint Gabriel said that the Grace of the Highest wiil come upon you (Mary)!

I like very much the idea that as laiks, we orthodox belivers should be very carefull when we answer on behalf of the doktrine and teachings of the church, furthermore that the Eastern orthodox church has not been expressed dogmatically on this topic. However, personally, I dont like that much the idea of a complete separation between "stain of the original sin" and "consequenses of the first sin". Each one of them, emphasaised in a separate way, I think it might lead to error, but what we as orthodox should understand, is that sin is not a simple material uncleaness on our genes that will be transmeted on generations. I think the orthodox way is on looking at it as a kind of attitude, nature that brings us far from God. Mary was taken completely from this, whsn she was proclaimed th good news, so that her humanly perfection was complete with the grace of God.

Actually in the bible is said that all human is sinfull, but doesnt say that none can reach rightousness, otherwise Elisabeth ps, wouldnt be called sush, nither the rightoues of th OT.

[Owen Jones]

I think the problem with most theological thinking that is not illuminated properly is that it cannot conceive of human and divine nature as one. While God in His essence is completely or totally beyond our nature and our ability to comprehend nature, in Christ the two natures are perfected in one, and in each one of us there is the potential of that perfect union of the two natures, because we all share in some degree in the divine nature. Incarnation is unique to Christ only in degree, not in kind, or else we would not recognize Jesus as the Christ. His nature would be totally alien to ours. It is not just his human nature that we identify with, as all of the modern heresies claim, but it is His divine nature also that we can identify with, because we share in it.

A typical example of the problem is when Hal Lindsay in a recent column claims that Mary could not be the Mother of God because she gave birth only to Christ's human nature. Then he goes further into this theological torture chamber by claiming that Christ had to be conceived of the HOly Spirit so as not to pass the stain of sin on through the father's seed, as if to say that all womanhood is somehow without sin. It defies the Orthodox teaching on Mary as without sin due to her love of God and perfect obedience to Him, which was there already, and not some magical result of her conception.

This, of course, is a gross heresy, not to mention a complete misunderstanding of our own nature. Which leads to the heretical protestant doctrine which reduces salvation to God treating us as if we were righteous which is fundamentally impossible by our nature. Yes, God treats us as if we were righteous when we are not, in order to give us a new beginning so that we can become righteous, and to perfect our nature.

As for sin, original or whatever, the classical Christian doctrine as I understand it is that disobedience led to sin which corrupted the very fabric of nature -- not just the human body or the human will -- but all nature, animalic, vegetable, mineral, to the apeirontic depths. Therefore the perfect harmony of nature is disrupted and there is enmity, scarcity, disease, death competitiveness, etc. where there should be peace, harmony and unity, perfect bodily functions and immortality. (by the way, the pre-lapsarian state of nature is at the basis of all modern heresies as well -- there is typically a political program to get back to it, and usually it is the Church's fault that we have not gotten there yet).

Everything derives from one's anthropology, really. We do not understand God. We cannot begin with an understanding of God as our starting point. We only begin to understand God's nature when we have an accurate understanding of our own nature. Therefore, it stands to reason that we share in the divine nature and that is what we are to exemplify.

[sinjin smithe]

Are you refering to "Born of a Virgin" column by Lindsay? Anyway, what do you expect from Hal Lindsay..Mr. Rapture...orthodox dogma?

[irineu]

Hi!

owen Jones, I hope you dont mind if I correct a expression fo yours: 'In Christ two natures are perfect in one'....It should be said two natures in one (person), otherwise it means monophystism.

all the best!

[Owen Jones]

You are correct, Irineu, thanks.

[Owen Jones]

Sinjin,

I used Hal Lindsay as an example, especially because of his huge popularity. Heaven forbid Orthodox Christianity in America would try to get true theology across to people. Let's all just be real smug about how right we are and let everyone else go to hell.

[sinjin smithe]

Owen please forgive me if I can across too smug and cocky in my last reply. I guess it is easy to be sucked by false doctrines in our times because no one is really out there proclaiming the truth. It would be nice if Orthodoxy had a voice in America proclaiming the truth instead of either trying to 'apologize' for Orthodox beliefs or holding the annual ethnic picnic of which people know all about that but nothing about what the Orthodox church teaches.

[Owen Jones]

Here's the problem, Sinjin, as I see it. Nobody cares about what our church teaches. The only way to proclaim the truth is to live radically different, in such a way that puts the world to shame. That has always been the Christian way. Theology is something that the Church needs to maintain for its own doctrinal purity, but that doctrinal purity has to be linked to how we live. That's the only reason for theology, to guide us in how to live.

Until we Orthodox present a living witness, then it really is a waste of breath to talk about how Orthodoxy represents the truth. And besides, the Patristic definition of truth is really a condition of existence between this world and the next. A deified soul is the truth. Not theological principles.

Of course, I am being critical without a leg to stand on. I'm not very likely to be the one to lead others on a path of piety and asceticism.

[sinjin smithe]

I agree Owen I think that Orthodoxy needs to present a living witness, especially here in the US. Of course, don't look to me as a living witness to Orthodoxy because I fail miserably at it.

[Thorny Grace]

I have some questions about Theotokos and the Orthodox theology of her.

I understand that Orthodox theology is primarily taught in the prayers of the church Fathers. I have a prayer book my Priest gave me. (Not the Jordanville, it is from the "Holy Protection Orthodox Monestary" and was previously published by Light and Life Publishing.)

Here are some prayers to Theotokos. I wanted to
The first two are from the Morning Prayers.

Oh my most holy Lady, Birthgiver of God, banish from me, your lowly and sinful servant, despair, forgetfulness, ignorance, negligence and all impure, evil and blasphemous thoughts from my wretched heart and my darkened mind. Quench the flame of my passions for I am poor and miserable. Keep me from the remembrance of all troublesome thoughts and passions and free me from all evil deeds. For you are blessed by all generations and your all glorious name is extolled unto all ages. Amen.

Another:

Oh my gracious Queen, my hope, Birthgiver of God, who receive the poor and help the travelers; joy of those who sorry, shelter for the oppressed: Behold my affliction and see my needs. Help me as you would one in despair; feed me as you would a stranger. You know all my troubles, absolve them according to your will, for I have no other help but you, no other ready shelter or comfort but you, O Mother of God, to help me and protect me unto ages of ages. Amen

The next are from the evening prayers:

O immaculate and blessed Birthgiver of God, Mary, good mother of the good King, \b {pour forth the mercy of your Son and our God upon my inflamed soul; guide me in virtue by your prayers that I may pass the rest of my life without sin and obtain paradise through you,} O Virgin, God’s Birthgiver who alone are pure and blessed.

Another:

O victorious Leader of triumphant hosts, we your servants delivered from all harm; sing our grateful thanks, O Birthgiver of God. As you possess invincible might, free us from every calamity that we may cry out to you: Rejoice O Bride unwedded.

O ever glorious Virgin, Birthgiver of God, Mary, Mother of Christ our God, accept our prayers and offer them to your Son and our God, that through you He may illumine and save our souls.

All my hope is in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your holy protection.

O Virgin, Birthgiver of God, do not overlook me, a sinner, in need of your help and protection, but have mercy on me for my soul hopes in you.

Another:

All holy Lady, Birthgiver of God, hope of all Christians, I have no other boldness, no other hope but you, and I beseech you, O my Lady, Birthgiver of God, Mother of Christ my God: Have mercy on me, deliver me from all my wicked ways and intercede with your compassionate Son and my God that He may have mercy on my miserable soul and deliver me from eternal torments, making me worthy of His Kingdom.

To summarize my questions:

1. What actions does Theotokos have in our lives? Can she "banish" thoughts?
2. How can she "shelter us" "protect us" and "absolve our troubles"?
3. How does she "guide us"?
4. How does she fit into the theology of salvation? ("obtain paradise through you?)
5. What is her role in heaven?
6. How does she deliver us from our wicked ways?

I don't understand these things, but I do believe that she may have the ability to do these things. It is just that having had 40 years of Protestantism, and growing up in an "anti-catholic" home, I just don't understand. When I say these prayers, I believe them. I just don't understand them. (KWIM?)

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Thorny Grace,

A very interesting, and thought provoking name!

I remember reading in the book about Fr. Arseny and his spiritual children, the story of one lady who was transporting some letters for Fr. Arseny;(after his release from prison camp) and, she was being followed by a female KGB agent. The lady upon noticing she was followed began praying to the Theotokos to "save her." That particular night there was a lot of fog. Upon arriving at an intersection, there appeared another woman dressed identically as the bearer of Fr. Arseny's letters. The woman who prayed went in one direction, and the mysterious double went in another. The female KGB agent followed the mysterious double, and Fr. Arseny's letters were delivered safely!

The Scriptures specifically speak about our Lord Jesus who "...ever liveth to make intercession for us," and the Blesed Holy Spirit who interceeds for us with groanings "...to deep for words." Also the writer of the Hebrew epistle tells us that we are encompassed about with "...a great cloud of witnesses...," i.e,; the saints of which a few have just been named, and among whom is the Theotokos. The saints who form that "cloud of witnesses" are our encouragement, and intercessors. The Theotokos is both subject of, and mother to our Lord. The Scriptures, specifically the Gospel of John, tell us about the relationship, and the love between Jesus and His mother. We beseech her in her role as the Theotokos, and as such to speak to her son on our behalf.

Orthodoxy, and really the entire Christian world, considers Mary as the paragon of human virtue, i.e.; read purity here. Quite often at both my regular and part-time jobs I will ask the Theotokos to, "...interceed for me with her Son, and our God, that He would help me to be pure in heart, mind, body and soul." Through her prayers, as St. James says of the prayers of the righteous men, and elders of the Church, we are delivered from "...forgetfulness, negligence..." You may ask,if she really has that kind of pull, YES! Remember the story of the family trip to Jerusalem, and that of the first miracle in Cana of Galilee. In both instances Jesus listened to His mother.

As to her fit into the role of salvation, although I have an answer, it probably is beyond my ability to explain satisfactorally. Rev. Fr.'s, Matthew correct my ignorant rambling, please.

a sinful and unworthy servant

[M. Rallis]

Here is a link to an English translation of the Vesper and Matins services for the Dormition of the Theotokos:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ephrem/

click on "menaion" then on "august", then on "15august". These hymns are quite educational.



In addition, here is a link to a sermon by Saint Gregory Palamas on the Dormition of the Theotokos:

http://sgpm.goarch.org/Monastery/index.php?p=35

I hope these resources are helpful.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The previous posts about the Most-pure Theotokos are excellent I believe mainly because they indicate that the Theotokos can only be known or understood in as much as we ourselves grow in Christ.

All saints have their own characteristics and charisms within the Body of Christ but there is something so unique about the Theotokos that is very difficult to put into words: thus naturally much that addresses the Theotokos is hymnography.

Listening to the services devoted to her is crucial. As to her role within the Church read & listen to the main Akathist Hymn to her.

Understanding the Theotokos suffers no pride or self-will. Since understanding her is part & parcel of growing in Christ all of this takes time and patience. Even understanding must be delicately balanced so that it does not fall into impatience & sin. In coming to understand within the Church indeed she herself is the mark for us of what & how.

"Wisdom has built her house, she has set up her seven pillars...She has sent out her maids to call from the highest places in the town, 'whoever is simple, let him turn in here.'"(Proverbs 9:1-11 which is read at Great Vespers at many feasts of the Theotokos).

Most holy Theotokos save us!
Fr Raphael

[Andrew]

She can comfort us as only a mother can comfort a child, for she is our mother.

“Because Mary is our mother, she feels our pain. Because she is His mother, the Mother of God, she intercedes for us, bringing our pain into His presence, praying our prayers with love, bringing our needs into the unique relationship of love that a mother shares with her child, so that now our requests are spoken with her voice of love.” (from the link below)


Here is a fantastic link , please read it to understand how she is experienced by the Church.
The Mother of God, Joy of All Who Sorrow
http://www.stnina.org/97s/97s-theodorop-mgjas.htm


(Message edited by andrew on 16 August, 2004)

[Oliver John Strange]

Dear all,

I do not mean to cause trouble with this post, I merely wish to see an orthodox answer to a protestant argument I have heard recently regarding Jesus' own words about his mother:

When in Luke 11, 27 a woman in the crowd following Jesus shouts out that the mother that bore him must truly be blessed, Jesus answers "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it"... He does not say "and blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it" but seems to make a distinction.

He was not averse to calling people highly blessed, as his description of John the Baptist shows in Matthew 11,11: "I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist". So if he truly thought of his Mother as occupying a special place he would have said so...

I do not wish to stir up an argument simply for the sake of polemic, but I would like to see how an Orthodox believer might respond to this argument.

Many thanks

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Oliver,

Is it not hard for me to believe that the ever Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God is blessed as she was "pregnant" with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the second person of the Holy Trinity... Would you not agree that it is a unique position for a woman to carry in her womb and give birth to He whom the universe can not contain?

It is good to know that the Holy Theotokas the most pure Mother of God, "More honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim." hears us and intercedes for us.

Perhaps a perspective from the Minea of St. Dimitry of Rostov regarding the Cherubim and Seraphim would be helpful for a further distinction regarding the place of the Theotokas in Orthodox thought as they stand before the glory of the Lord God Almighty.

The nine orders of the angels are divided into three hierarchies, each of which is divided into three orders: the highest, the intermediate, the lower.

The first hierarch, the highest and closest to the Most Holy Trinity, consists of the SERAPHIM, CHERUBIM, and THRONES.

The God-loving six-winged SERAPHIM stand closer than all before their Creator and Maker, as the prophet Isaiah saw, saying: "And the seraphim stood around Him, each having six wings" (Isaiah 6:2). They are fire-like since they stand before That One of Whom it is written: "For our God is a consuming fire." (Heb. 12:29); "His throne was a flame of fire" (Dan 7:9); "the appearance of the Lord was like a blazing fire" (Ex. 24:17). Standing before such glory, the seraphim are fire-like, as it said: "Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" (Ps. 103:4). They are aflame with love for God and kindle others to such love, as I shown by their very name, for "seraphim" in the Hebrew language means: "flaming".

After the seraphim, before the All-knowing God, Who resides in inaccessible light, stand the many-eyed CHERUBIM in ineffable radiance. More than the other lower orders of angels, they are always radiant with the light of the knowledge of God, with the knowledge of the mysteries of God and the depths of His Wisdom; being themselves enlightened, they enlighten others. Their name "cherubim" in translation from the Hebrew language, means: "great understanding" or "effusion of wisdom", because through the cherubim wisdom is sent down to others and enlightenment of the spiritual eyes is given for the seeing of God and knowledge of God.

Thereafter stand the God-bearing THRONES (as St. Dionysius the Areopagite calls them) before Him Who sits on the high and exulted throne, being named "thrones" since on them, as on intellectual thrones (as writes St Maximus the Confessor) God intellectually resides. They are not called "God bearing" according to essence but according to grace and according to their office, as the flesh of Jesus Christ (as St. Basil the Great writes) is called "God-bearing" according to essence since it was indivisibly united with God the Word Himself. The thrones are then called "God-bearing" not according to essence but according to grace, given for their service, which is mystically and incomprehensible to bear God in themselves. Residing on them in an incomprehensible manner, God makes His righteous judgment, according to the word of David: "Thou hast sat upon a throne, O Thou that judgest righteousness." (Ps 9:4). Therefore through them the justice of God is preeminently manifested; they serve His justice, glorifying it and pour out the power of justice onto the thrones of earthly judges, helping kings and masters to bring forth right judgment.

All sorts of biblical distinctions can be made and translations differ from languages and cultures and non-Orthodox perspectives. Tradition is important in many respects and relative to our understanding of scripture as well.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Oliver,

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me!

There's a doctrine among Protestants known as sola scriptura, which they profess as in regards to salvation. What I'm saying here is that they have as the final authority on matters of faith and practice, Holy Scripture. So, what does the Scriptures have to say about the Theotoko, keeping in mind that They are as St. Peter wrote, the product of men writing who were moved by the Holy Spirit of God.

1. God said to the serpent that the seed of the woman would "...bruise ..." the head of the serpent.

2. You can take your pick of numerous passages from the prophet Isaiah, but the one where God (hmm, Him again) uses the prophet to say that the Messiah would be born of a virgin will suffice.

3. An angel, one of those special beings who stand before God, simply to do His will, who cry ceasely "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty; is sent with a message to a young woman. note here also that with the prophets the "...word of the Lord..." usually came to them through a vision, dream, or a miraculous event, such as a donkey speaking. However; with the Annunciation, one of those who stands closest to God is dispatshed to deliver the word.

3. You mention that Jesus in response to the woman who yelled out " Blessed is the womb which bore you, and the breast at which you nursed," "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and do it." How do you interpret, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to your word.

To me it would appear that as far as Holy Scripture is concerned Mary, the Theotokos is pretty special, without Jesus having to specifically say so!

I think I've shared this before, from my personal experience: When my former priest began the Orthodox Study Group, one of the members was a lady at his former Methodist Church, who had ovarian cancer. Our laison at the time was the V. Rev. Fr. Gordon Walker, who had with him some blessed chrism from a weeping icon. With the chrism Fr. Walker anointed the lady at her home. At my home our priest said the akathist to the Theotokos. When the woman went back to her doctor, no traces of cancer were found!

4. Oh yes, ; lest I forget Scripture - which cannot be broken - from her own mouth Scripture records the Theotokos as saying,"...from henceforth, all generations will call me blessed

a sinful and unworthy servant

[Andrew]

When in Luke 11, 27 a woman in the crowd following Jesus shouts out that the mother that bore him must truly be blessed, Jesus answers "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it"... He does not say "and blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it" but seems to make a distinction. He was not averse to calling people highly blessed, as his description of John the Baptist shows in Matthew 11,11: "I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist". So if he truly thought of his Mother as occupying a special place he would have said so...

This is another example of needing the Tradition of the Church to help us understand the scripture.

I believe that the Church teaches that this passage (read on most feasts of the Theotokos), is trying to say that Mary is blessed because she heard the word of God and obeyed it. Something all of us can do. She accepted God's will. She said, "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word".

Another quote from the link I posted above:


Mary was truly able to pray to God, "Your will be done." She was able to so join her will to God's will that they became one. The Most Holy Virgin knew that, although in this life it leads through suffering, nevertheless God's will is the only path that will assuredly end in joy. But we should not say that she simply accepted God's will. This sounds as if she merely agreed passively to her fate. This is not at all an accurate picture of Mary's response. We should say rather that she embraced God's will with eagerness and joy, with open arms and an overflowing heart. By her example Mary teaches us to not merely resign ourselves to God's path in this life. Rather, we should welcome God's will as we welcome the coming of spring after a bitter winter, or as we welcome a loved one who has been gone for a long time. We should cry out with great joy, as Christ Himself taught us, "Your will be done!"

[G.K.]

Concerning the scripture quote "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it"... the greek word is "menounge" which is better translated as indeed NOT rather.

[Theron Mathis]

I teach a Sunday school class at my parish (AOCA), and one of the Ethiopian sisters in the parish sent me the following question via email. Any help with her question would be appreciated. I think she may be referring to something within the Coptic tradition.

"Theron, I have a question for you. If you know anything about Jesus promise to Mary (His Mother) that happened during sometime in June. This happened in a way that she was visiting his tomb or grave everyday and was praying and one day he was revealed to her and gave her all these promises about people who pray through her will be saved and more. Did you see if this is mentioned in any of St James books or if you heard about it? Please let me know. "

[Petros L.]

Also when Jesus said that, he was talking about his mother. I mean who showed more obedience to the Word of God than The Virgin Mary. Alot of Jesus' sayings had more than one meaning. What he meant was, she is blessed because she obeyed the Word of God. Also in the Gospel of John, what was the first miracle performed by Jesus? The wedding at Cana changing of water into wine, right. Who interceded for the host to Jesus, so he could perfrom this miracle? Wasn't it Mary? So if she could intercede for us on earth, why couldn't she in Heaven? We know from revelations that the Saints pray for mankind, how much more so would the Mother of the Church. Remember when Jesus was on the cross, and said "Woman behold your son, and son behold your mother" Trusting her care to John. Well that had more than one meaning too, he entrusted her as the Mother of the Church, and us her children.

[Kosmas Damianides]

Dear Petros, I liked the part where you mention "the miracle of the turning of water into wine". This is a great paradigm of how the mother of God may intercede for us through her Son. I also liked the mention of Revelations where the saints in heaven intercede for us.

As we all know most Protestants have a problem with the mother of Jesus interceding or being a mediator for humankind, since they only accept Jesus Christ as the only mediator (1Tim. 2:5-6). However if we look at the Bible more closely, we have been given many intercessors and mediators for our salvation.

In Job 33:23 we have angels, in Isaiah 43:1 Adam used to be a mediator before the fall, In 1Samuel 2:25-36 God is mediator for those who sin against man, but God may annoint someone (priest/king/prophet) as the necessary mediator between us and God "... if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him?". So we see that with this in mind, anyone who lives a holy life with God's annointing is a mediator since their prayers are heard by Him, how much more would the Mother of God, the Theotokos who was the only woman who lived in the holy sanctuary of the Temple, who was a virgin (aei-parthenos) ever-virgin and the most Holy of all the Saints?

However the intercessory power given to Panagia far surpasses that of the angels or kings or prophets or priests, as the hymn goes, "More honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim." as (Matthew P. pointed out before) and more holy than any Saint or Prophet because she shared the same flesh and blood as the Son of God for 9 months in her womb, she breast fed Jesus Christ the Son of God until he was old enough to eat, she was with Him until he was ready for His heavenly ministry, Mary was truly the Mother of God.

It seems that the Protestants have a narrow understanding of the terms intercession and mediation. Both these words may mean communication and consequently to offer petition or prayer to God. One should take into consideration the sacrifice that all the chosen mediators of God made, Mary made a huge sacrifice, as she chose to be the bond-servant of God, and her Son Christ Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for us. This was done all for us. And we who have the "general priesthood" and those with the heavenly priesthood (from the Apostles) also share the flesh and blood of Christ (as did Mary) and therefore, we too may become mediators by the grace of God if we live holy lives and receive His annointing.

If we who are so unworthy can intercede for the salvation of others, how much more is the Most Holy Theotokos able to save us through her prayers?

[Kosmas Damianides]

Oops, I should have read the links refered to by Michael Rallis. St Palamas is spot on, he says what I tried to say but lots better. Read his sermon, it's excellent.

http://sgpm.goarch.org/Monastery/index.php?p=35

[Paul Cowan]

I have a question on the Theotokos. Does Orthodoxy teach that the Theotokos was sinless? And if so, this is were I am a little confused, I thought that Christ was the only sinless one? I know that many of the saints reached a state of perfection but they sinned before they were saints. If anyone can clarify this I would really appreciate it.

I know this is a very OLD thread, but I also have trouble with this question especially when my protestant family asks it of me.

It has not been answered yet within the thread. I hope after 5years since the original question someone can shed some light for me.

If christ is the only sinless one, how can the Theotokos also be sinless? If Christ took on our human fallen nature, he could have sinned but did not. This also means his Divinity did not "take over and protect Him". It means He chose not to sin to give us the example?

The Theotokos also did not sin but only had her humanity to do this? That equates to two that did not sin. Or maybe she only sinned a little sin like got angry at some one once. How do we differentiate Christ the ONLY sinless one with the Theotokos who also did not sin? If she did not sin then she also is the other sinless one? This does not sound right.

Thank you for your thoughts.
Paul

[Kosta]

The Theotokos was sinless as a newborn babe is sinless, another words, Orthodoxy rejects any notion that we inherit guilt of ancestral sin only the fruits which is -DEATH. She is called Panaghia (all-holy) becasue she reached a level of theosis that we cannot. The Virgin Mary was born with the consequences of Ancestral Sin, one consequence of ancestral sin is death. We celebrate her Dormition. Also Orthodoxy does not define at what point in time she became sinless.

Christ on the other hand was free of all sin including Adam's trangression. Jesus died because he VOLUNTARILY went to the cross. No one took the Lord's life away, He had the power to give it and to take it again (see John 10.17-18). Theoretically Jesus was immortal (see John 12.34)

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Kosta

Just for clarification, are you saying that the humanity of Christ was of the nature of Adam before the fall, or was that of our fallen humanity.

Thanks

Peter

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear Peter,


Hi Kosta

Just for clarification, are you saying that the humanity of Christ was of the nature of Adam before the fall, or was that of our fallen humanity.

For my own clarification, are you implying that there is an inherent difference between the pre-fall and post-fall humanity in the first place?

In XC
-Athanasius

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Athanasius

This is the settled position of the Fathers.

What was assumed and healed was our fallen humanity not unfallen humanity.

Peter

[Rebecca Gabl]

I have a similar question:

Did the holy Theotokos have to struggle against sin? Did she experience spiritual warfare? Or was she born inherently holier than other people? One can even generalize the question to: are some people born with a greater inclination to sin than others?

And at what age can we first sin? Two-year-olds can certainly be quite bratty! But before we can conceptualize the difference between right and wrong, and understand the consequences of sin, can our misbehavior really be called sinful? I guess that's why little kids don't go to confession.
At some point, the holy Virgin Mary must have made a conscious decision not to sin.

In short, as I understand it (or would like to understand it), the Virgin Mary was the same as everyone else, only as soon as she was old enough to tell right from wrong, she always chose the "right."

Are there any teachings on how her spiritual state changed after the Annuncication? Was she so consumed by divine grace (having carried God in her womb) that she no longer was even tempted to sin (like an angel, for example)?

Maybe someone here can suggest a good book or article on the subject!

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Hi Peter,

I'm not so sure that it is "the settled position of the Fathers" that there is a substantial and inherent difference between post-fall humanity and pre-fall humanity.

Both humanities were corruptible--mortal, prone to suffering etc. (the only reason Adam and Eve did not experience these in paradise was because of their Communion with God's Grace, not because of the nature of their humanity), and both humanities were naturally good. The fact pre-fall humanity differs not in and of itself to post-fall humanity was a position explicitly advocated by Severus of Antioch against Julian. As Fr. V.C. Samuel notes: “Concerning the argument of Julian that Christ’s manhood was the unfallen manhood of Adam. Severus makes two points. In the first place, he does not draw any radical distinction between the manhood before and after the fall, as Julian does.”

Roberta Chestnut further confirms this point when she discusses Severus' argument regarding the fact sin is not the product of human nature, but of the personal will of man corrupted by the fallen world.

This is why we can declare St. Mary to be sinless in spite of some "immaculate conception". Her nature did not need to be cleansed in order for her to be without sin, because human nature in the fallen world is not inherently infected by sin, nor prone to or compelled by sin. The "tendency" or "inclination" to sin that many speak of, is not something that originates in the human nature, but rather in the fallen world--it invades our nature, though not necessarily. It is the product of our personal experience of separation from God, not the product of an alteration of our human nature.

In XC
Athanasius

[M.C. Steenberg]

Following this thread:


Just for clarification, are you saying that the humanity of Christ was of the nature of Adam before the fall, or was that of our fallen humanity.


For my own clarification, are you implying that there is an inherent difference between the pre-fall and post-fall humanity in the first place?


This is the settled position of the Fathers.

What was assumed and healed was our fallen humanity not unfallen humanity.

Peter, I wonder if you would share some passages / quotations to this effect. I think you're quite right, though some actual texts would help bring this out. (It would also be fruitful to look at just what some of the fathers meant by saying 'our sinful condition', vis-a-vis what I think Athanasius is asking, which is whether there is an ontological distinction between humanity's fallen nature and its original nature.)

INXC, Matthew

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dear M.C. Steenberg,


(It would also be fruitful to look at just what some of the fathers meant by saying 'our sinful condition', vis-a-vis what I think Athanasius is asking, which is whether there is an ontological distinction between humanity's fallen nature and its original nature.)

That is indeed what I am trying to ask. Surely the way humans experience their nature subsequent to the fall is vastly different to how Adam and Eve did prior to the fall. It is this experience, marked by ignorance and deception, which defines the "sinful condition", not any ontological trait of post-fall humanity. Even Severus of Antioch (whom I have appealed to upon the basis that he is the only Father I am aware of who has explicitly addressed this issue, for he was compelled to do so during the days of the Julian controversy) refers to the Lord Christ as having assumed "our sinful human nature", but it is clear within the context of his wider anthropology that by "our sinful human nature" he means "the human nature that we experience as sinful by virtue of the marred cognisance of our spiritual intellect, and the corruption of our personal wills (which I believe is akin to the 'gnomic will' of Maximus the Confessor's anthropology).

If you would rather we pursue this discussion in a new thread, I would be more than happy to do so--though it is somewhat related to the issue of the sinlessness of the Theotokos, and the heresy of the 'Immaculate Conception'.

In XC
-Athanasius

[Paul Cowan]

Forgive me but we are still getting off topic.
How does the Church incorporate Romans 3:23 with the Theotokos?

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Was she without ANY sin or did she choose not to sin or was the possibility to not sin even an option for her? It seems any answer to any of these questions nullifies Romans 3:23.

Still seeking
Paul

[Kosta]

Jesus Christ was every way human as we are, except sin.

Adam before his fall was without sin as well, but he also lived in Paradise.

Christ without sin was born into a corrupt world. Its unlikely that in Eden Adam would be threatened with physical violence, as was Jesus. Adam did not need to be indestructable to be immortal only incorrputible.

When i said Jesus was "theoretically" immortal i did not mean that bullets could bounce off him as if he were Superman. In the gospel Jesus escaped stoning thru miraculous means and when the time came was finally crucified.

The incarnate Lord was incorruptible not indestructible. Only the humanity of the Ressurected Lord is indestructable. But before his ressurection he was Incorruptible, meaning that the natural law of death did not have dominion over Jesus. As it did not have dominion over Adam before his fall. Old Age leading to decrepit and death could not occur.

Jesus Christ is called the unblemished lamb and the new Adam, but i cant say that Jesus was in the same state as Adam was before the fall.

Most Church Fathers teach that Adam in the garden had a "naive innocence" and this seems to be verified in scripture as well (Gen 3.7). This is not how the Lord is.

To sum it up, i will quote ST Athanasius the great: "...The death of men under ordinary circumstances is the result of their natural weakness. They are essentially impermanent, so after a time they fall ill and when worn out they die. But the Lord is not like that. He is not weak, He is the Power of God and the Word of God and very life itself. If He had died quietly in his bed like other men, it would have looked as if He did so in accordance with his nature and as though He was indeed no more than other men......Here again you may say ,Why did he not prevent death as he prevented sickness? Because it was precisely in order to be able to die that He had taken a body and to prevent that death would impede the ressurection.... You may say, did He not hunger? Yes, He hungered because this was the property of his body, but he did not die of hunger, because He whose body hungered was the Lord. Similarly he died to ransom all. He did not see corruption. His body rose in perfect soundness, for it was the body of none other than the Life himself." (On the Incarnation)

[Kosta]

Forgive me but we are still getting off topic.
How does the Church incorporate Romans 3:23 with the Theotokos?

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Was she without ANY sin or did she choose not to sin or was the possibility to not sin even an option for her? It seems any answer to any of these questions nullifies Romans 3:23.

Still seeking
Paul

Dear Paul,
Good question, first off Orthodoxy does not define "when" the Theotokos became sinless.

Some theologians believe she remained sinless since birth others believe it was at the Annunciation when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her and purified her. Perhaps some may theorize it occured at pentecost when she recieved the Holy Spirit in fire for a second time. All these opinions are just that; opinions. Thus none are exclusively Orthodox but not neccesarily heretical neither , they are simply opinions, speculation and possibly pious traditions.


Then theres the role Theosis played in the life of the Theotokos. This is central in understanding her sinless and spotless nature. The Theotokos inherited the fruit of ancestral sin as all did, she passed away but her body remained incorrupt. But not like her Son. Jesus voluntarily died while Mary succumbed to the natural law of death of old age. Her incorrupt body is in the same state as other deified saints, whose remains are fragrant and incorrupt. This is from Theosis not being spared from original sin.

I cant find the quote but i read that Origen was the first to call the Virgin Mary as Panaghia (all-holy) and this attribute he explained as belonging to Mary alone because She reached a pinnacle of theosis like no other and is rightly called Panaghia. (if anyone can come across this verse i would appreciate posting the verse.)

What i would like to know is whether Theosis could take place 'before' the Crucifixion of our Lord. It was this that tore the veil of seperation between us and God.

[Father David Moser]

Forgive me but we are still getting off topic.
How does the Church incorporate Romans 3:23 with the Theotokos?

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Was she without ANY sin or did she choose not to sin or was the possibility to not sin even an option for her? It seems any answer to any of these questions nullifies Romans 3:23.



I don't have the quotes at hand, however the most common point of view is that the Mother of God never willfully sinned. Because she was human and had a fallen human nature, sin was inevitable.

BTW, also note that the statement you quoted is not a cause and effect statement (sinning causes us to fall short of the glory of God), but rather a statement of equivalence. To sin is to fall short of the glory of God and to fall short of the glory of God, whether willingly or unwillingly, whether in knowledge or in ignorance, is to sin.

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

A child's question (like the one, 'did Adam have a belly button?') - if Jesus Christ was incorruptible, and He wouldn't have died naturally, at what point would He have stopped growing old? He was 'not yet 50', but is thought to have been about 33 when he was crucified.

[Antonios]

A child's question (like the one, 'did Adam have a belly button?') - if Jesus Christ was incorruptible, and He wouldn't have died naturally, at what point would He have stopped growing old? He was 'not yet 50', but is thought to have been about 33 when he was crucified.


Hi Andreas,

Medical research has shown that around the age of 30 (give or take 1 or 2 or 3! years), the human body reaches its zenith in terms of health and conditioning. It is soon after this that the the body begins to take the slow downward descent in terms of health and physiology. (pretty depressing for many of us, I know!)

This, of course, may mean absolutely nothing theologically speaking (and it doesn't answer your question), but it is something interesting to think about...

[Herman Blaydoe]

A child's question (like the one, 'did Adam have a belly button?') - if Jesus Christ was incorruptible, and He wouldn't have died naturally, at what point would He have stopped growing old? He was 'not yet 50', but is thought to have been about 33 when he was crucified.
If the Incarnation was inevitable, I would believe His Ascension into Heaven would have happened when it did regardless.

[Peter Farrington]

Hey!

I'm 43 and I haven't reached my peak yet!

Peter

[Nina]

Excerpts from St. John Maximovich's "The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Mother of God." pp.57-60

1. The teaching of the complete sinlessness of the Mother of God does not correspond to Sacred Scripture, where there is repeatedly mentioned the sinlessness of the: "One Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ" (I Tim. 2:5); "and in Him is no sin"(I John 3:5); "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth" (I Peter 2:22); "One that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15); "Him Who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our behalf" (II Cor. 5:21). But concerning the rest of men it is said, "Who is pure of defilament? No one who has lived a single day of his life on earth (Job 14:4). "God commandeth His own love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us...If, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life" (Rom. 5:8-10).

2. This teaching contradicts also Sacred Tradition, which is contained in numerous Patristic writings, where there is mentioned the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary from Her very birth, as well as her cleansing by the Holy Spirit at Her own conception by Anna. "There is none without stain before Thee, even though his life be but a day, save Thee alone, Jesus Christ our God, Who didst appear on earth without sin, and through Whom we all trust to obtain mercy and the remission of sins" (St. Basil the Great, Third Prayer of Vespers of Pentecost). "But when Christ came through a pure, virginal, unwedded, God-fearing, undefiled Mother without wedlock and without father, and inasmuch as it befitted Him to be born, He purified the female nature, rejected the bitter Eve and overthrew the laws of the flesh" (St. Gregory the Theologian, "In Praise of Virginity"). However, even then as Sts. Basil the Great and John Chrysostom speak of this, She was not placed in the state of being unable to sin, but continued to take care for Her salvation and overcame all temptations (St. John Chrysostome, Commentary on John, Homily 85; St. Basil the Great, Epistle 160).

3. The teaching that the Mother of God was purified before Her birth, so that from Her might be born the Pure Christ, is meaningless; because if the Pure Christ could be born only if the Virgin might be born pure, it would be necessary that Her parents also should be pure of original sin, and they again would have to be born of purified parents, and going further in this way, one would have to come to the conclusion that Christ could not have become incarnate unless all His ancestors in the flesh, right up to Adam inclusive, had been purified beforehand of original sin. But then there would not have been any need for the very Incarnation of Christ, since Christ came down to earth in order to annihilate sin.

4. The teaching that the Mother of God was preserved from original sin, as likewise the teaching that She was preserved by God's grace from personal sin, makes God unmerciful and unjust; because if God could preserve Mary from sin and purify Her before Her birth, then why does He not purify other men before their birth, but rather leaves them in sin? It follows likewise that God saves men apart from their will, prederming certain ones before their birth to salvation.

5. This teaching, which seemingly has the aim of exalting the Mother of God, in reality completely denies all Her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Her mother, when She could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God's grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit consists? If She could have been placed in the state of being unable to sin, then for what did God glorify Her? If She, without any effort, and without having any kind of impulses to sin, remained pure, then why is She crowned more than everyone else? There is no victory without an adversary.

The righteousness and sanctity of the Virgin Mary were manifested in the fact that She, being "human with passions like us" so loved God and gave Herself over to Him, that by Her purity She was exalted high above the rest of the human race. For this, having been foreknown and forechosen, She was vouchsafed to be purified by the Holy Spirit Who came upon Her, and to concive of Him the very Savior of the world. The teaching of the grace-given sinlessness of the Virgin Mary denies Her victory over temptations; from a victor who is worthy to be crowned with crown of glory, this makes Her a blind instrument of God's Providence.

But we can say with the words of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus: "There is an equal harm in both these heresies, both when men demean the Virgin and when, on the contrary, they glorify Her beyond what is proper" (Panarion, "Against the Collyridians").

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

It is a central part of St. Cyril's soteriology that the Holy Theotokos was wholly human, even as God is wholly divine; had she been more than human, then it would not have been with human flesh that the divinity was incarnate - and what was not assumed could not have been healed.

As St. Cyril (in unusually pithy form) puts it: [PG 76:23]

As Christ appropriated a body taken from a woman and was engendered by her according to the flesh, He recapitulated in Himself the generation of man.

The Coptic understanding of St. Mary's 'sinlessness' has been expressed thus:

By free divine grace, St. Mary gains preparatory perfection
in spirit and body to enable her to receive Him. The divine grace
sanctified St. Mary, so that she could become the True holy of
holies in whom God dwells and the second heaven, the Mother of
“Life, Light and the Holy One”.
[SAINT MARY In The Orthodox Concept, by Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty]

In terms of Original Sin, it goes on to say:

The Orthodox Church, whose love towards St. Mary is
deeprooted, considers her more holy than all the heavenly
creatures, whilst a natural member of the human race. We do not
however, set her apart from the human race by assuming that she
was born without original sin, as if she was born not of human
seed.

In Christ,

John

[Paul Cowan]

Father David:
Thank you. I think I am getting it. So what you said


I don't have the quotes at hand, however the most common point of view is that the Mother of God never willfully sinned. Because she was human and had a fallen human nature, sin was inevitable.


If she never willfully sinned then she did sin. Why does the church say she did not sin? If this is cause and effect why do we press the point? Why do the RC? It makes it easier for me to believe that she did have sin in her life after a point in time, but because of her relationship to Christ she chose not to activley sin as if she was taking confession every second from Christ Himself.

I don't mean to badger this issue, but it is a stumbling block for me and family I try to explain it to. Many things I just tell them, "I don't know, it's what we believe though".


All these opinions are just that; opinions. Thus none are exclusively Orthodox but not neccesarily heretical neither , they are simply opinions, speculation and possibly pious traditions.

Perhaps I am using my brain too much, but I have a hard time with that. With as much debating and energy given to EVERY conceivable aspect of Christ and His mother over the past 2000 years, I cannot believe all we have are opinions and speculation about this topic we stand so firmly on. I believe it! I accept it! Why?

All Holy, yes. Blameless, yes. Blessed, yes. Sinless, well maybe at some point in her life, yes? That I can accept. But not always sinless even by choice. That would make her equal to Christ.

I guess I need to go back to Catachumen class. I never was good in school.
Paul

[John Charmley]

Dear Paul,

Orthodox soteriology depends upon the Most Holy Theotokos being fully human, which means that she shared our nature. As one Coptic source has it:

The sanctifying by the Holy Spirit of her depository, makes the
One born of her, be conceived without the impurity of the original sin. As
for The Virgin herself, her mother conceived, like all people, and so The
Virgin said in her hymn: "my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior"
(Luke 1:47).

We have to show a tithe of her humility in accepting the miracle wrought by God.

"Behold the maid -servant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word" (Luke 1:38)..... For that, God granted her the motherhood, and kept her virginity too, and she became a mother, the thing in which she had
absolutely never thought ...... Through abandon, she became the mother
of the Lord....... rather the greatest in value of all mothers.


She is the greatest of our race, but, of course, she cannot be equal to her son, who is fully human and fully divine. She, herself, laid no claim to greatness or to praise - setting us an example of service and devotion beyond compare.

The Ethiopian Church has the greatest reverence for the Most Holy Theotokos, and it is recorded that:

King Zara Yaqob (1431-1468) commanded that every
Church in Ethiopia should have an altar dedicated to St. Mary the
Virgin, and her feasts should be celebrated like Sundays under
pain of excommunication.

(Incidentally, I do apologise for anyone from the Eastern tradition who finds the baldness of the words 'St. Mary the Virgin' a little shocking; it is certainly not meant to indicate any lack of reverence, and simply reflects Coptic tradition).

In Christ,

John

[Kosta]

A child's question (like the one, 'did Adam have a belly button?') - if Jesus Christ was incorruptible, and He wouldn't have died naturally, at what point would He have stopped growing old? He was 'not yet 50', but is thought to have been about 33 when he was crucified.

Well. i wont touch that, but St Ireneous of Lyons did indeed believe Jesus was in his late forties when he was crucified, he rejected the claim by those that said the Lord was 33.

Food for Thought.

[John Charmley]

Dear Kosta,

Thank you for this. I am assuming that the passages from St. Irenaeus are from Against Heresies Book 2, Chapter 22, parts 4-6?

I have always been told that the Church teaches that Our Lord's ministry lasted about 3 years, and in Luke 3:23 it states plainly that:

23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

It is not clear from the context of St. Irenaeus that he is saying that Our Lord was in His fifties, he seems to be refuting Gnostic heresies attaching some magical significance to the number 30. It seems to me to read that Our Lord was crucified between the ages of 30 and 40:

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a teacher.

Professor Behr's book. The Way to Nicaea links the Saint's words to the motif of recapitulation, which is so important an element in his writings: I quote:

An interesting consequence of the need for Christ to recapitulate the whole economy, is that for Christ's work of recapitulation to be complete he must recapitulate not only Adam's formation, by becoming man, but also all the stages pertaining to human life. So Irenaeus states that Christ "therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants", a child for children, a youth for youths, and an old man for old men, offering to each an example appropriate to their age. … The literary coherence of Scripture, and the rhetorical coherence derived by engaging with Scripture to interpret Christ, is the ultimate criterion for Irenaeus' reflections on the eternal Word of God. (p. 130-1)

Given Dr. Steenberg's expertise here, I venture these comments with due humility, and hope they help.

In Christ,

John

[Kosta]

Dear John
Its hard to say. What you say can definately be assumed from chapter 5. The problem arises when you read chapter 6:

"...Thou art not yet 50 years old and hast though seen Abraham?, Now such language is fittingly applied to one who has past the age of 40, without having as of yet passed his 50th year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only 30 years old it would unquestionly be said, 'Thou are not yet 40 years old'. For those who wished of convicting Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw he had attained , but they mention a period near His real age, whether they truly ascertained this out of the entry by the public register or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that he was above 40 years.........For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by 20 years when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham."


Now historically Jesus was born in about 6 bc. This from the fact that Herod died in 4 BC and ordered the killing of the holy innocence abit before he passed away. According to the gospel he calculated all male infants 2 years and younger. If Jesus was crucified in 32/33 a.d. he would have been about 38/39 years of age at crucifixion.

[John Charmley]

Dear Kosta,

The point that probably needs emphasising is what professor Behr says about the method of recapitulation - it shows the dangers of laymen thinking they can simply interpret the Fathers without contextual knowledge.

Given his own expertise here, I would be most interested to know what Matthew Steenberg's view on this is.

What is worrying is that I know that there are those out there who try to use these paragraphs to pour doubt on Holy Tradition and on the teachings of the Church, so we must be very grateful to you for bringing them up in this way so we can explore them in the proper Orthodox context you provide.

In Christ,

John

[Rebecca Gabl]

Nina, your excerpts were quite helpful. I think I'll buy that book!

[Nina]

Nina, your excerpts were quite helpful. I think I'll buy that book!

Yes, Rebecca! St. John Maximovich's "The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Mother of God" is a very informative book.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I've only a moment to write at present, so this will be simply and off-the-cuff response, rather than having the text in front of me.

St Irenaeus is convinced that Christ has attained the age of a 'master', i.e. an elder, when he approaches the cross, which he takes on the testimony of a tradition originating from St John (of which we have no other evidence than Irenaeus himself) that this was in accord with the ancient time-line of ages of life, putting him just before his fiftieth year. But bear in mind that Irenaeus' concerns in stating this are not historical, as such; his comments on the great age of Christ are theological in meaning. They serve as the preamble to one of his most famous passages on recapitulation: 'Therefore he passed through every age of life; a child for children... a youth for youths... and old man for old men...'. It is not the precise age that concerns Irenaeus, so much as it is the fact that Christ lived human existence in all its parts and phases, from birth to a full death.

Taking this back to the original question of the thread (I think): this has direct bearing on his perception of human nature as a dynamic, maturing reality. There is no 'nature', as if that were some substance or 'thing', that the Son can merely pick up or dress himself in -- there is human nature as human life: a thing lived, which Christ joins to himself and lives himself.

Irenaeus sees Mary in exactly the same terms, and indeed calls her the 'Recapitulator of Eve'.

INXC, Matthew

[Peter Farrington]

Thank you for that Matthew, it was helpful, especially from the pov of St Irenaeus' intent.

I am also interested in understanding what there is in the Jewish tradition about ages. I have the sense that being 50 years of age is meant to be understood as meaning something in the Scriptural account and in the mouths of the Jewish leaders. I don't get the sense that it means simply 50 years of age as we would understand it in a strictly chronological sense.

Does anyone know what the ancient Jewish teachings about important ages in a person's life was?

Peter

[Antonios]

Good question, Peter. Perhaps the idea of turning 50 had certain social status meaning? Still today, turning 50 is a big occasion to celebrate.

[Macarius]

Nina...wonderful post. A clear response to complex question. Thanks.

[Paul Cowan]

Dear Nina:
This was the most thorough and comprehensive explanation I have ever heard. I sincerely appreciate the time and thought you put into this.

I have a burr under my saddle I can't get rid of. You touched on two points of it, but I have yet to hear anyone say the words "she sinned". You eluded to it twice if I may quote part of your post. (Not in a light of picking it apart, just to clarify)


However, even then as Sts. Basil the Great and John Chrysostom speak of this, She was not placed in the state of being unable to sin, but continued to take care for Her salvation and overcame all temptations (St. John Chrysostome, Commentary on John, Homily 85; St. Basil the Great, Epistle 160).


'She took care of her salvation and overcame all temptation.' So did Christ. He was tempted and overcame all passions. This quote makes her equal to Him and His abilities to over come sin or simply not to sin.


The teaching of the grace-given sinlessness of the Virgin Mary denies Her victory over temptations; from a victor who is worthy to be crowned with crown of glory, this makes Her a blind instrument of God's Providence.


'Grace-given sinless is a wrong teaching. I realize that. In order to be victorious over passions you have to be tempted by them. I realize this also. Here again, if she over came all temptations she is equal to Christ. She had to of sinned in order to not be equal with Him. Is no one willing to say the words? "She sinned."

I am stuck on this. Forgive me everyone, but I keep hearing people tip toe around the words. I promise, once I learn this, I will be the most staunch advocate of the Truth on the planet. I am like a bulldog. Once I have it, I never let go. But as long as any doubt remains, I am followingly blindly by Faith that what I am being taught is correct.


1. The teaching of the complete sinlessness of the Mother of God does not correspond to Sacred Scripture, where there is repeatedly mentioned the sinlessness of the: "One Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ"

I do not subscribe to sola scriptora. I do believe the traditions of the Church. I believe the many miraculous things reported by Holy men. (some are hard to believe). Perhaps I am going about this wrong. Does the Church say the Theotokos is sinless? Perhaps I am stuck on bad information? Then this whole discussion is moot. If the Church does hold to this concept, How does it support the theory based on the above quotes by the church Fathers?

almost done seeking,
Paul

[Antonios]

Hi Paul,

I think the Philokalia's definition of temptation (as found in the glossary) which is based upon Patristic teachings may help clarify some of your questions.

There is a basic distinction between the demonic provocation and man's assent: the first lies outside man's control, while for the second he is morally responsible. These are staged as follows (as taken directly from the Philokalia):

1) Provocation: the initial incitement to evil, as defined by St. Mark the Ascetic as an 'image-free stimulation in the heart'; so long as the provocation is not accompanied by images, it does not involve man in any guilt. Man cannot prevent provocations from assailing him as they originate from the devil and assail man from the outside independently of his free will. Thus, he is not moraly responsible for them. Man must in his power maintain constant watchfulness so to reject each provocation as soon as it emerges into his consciousness. If he does reject it, the sequence is cut off and the process of temptation is terminated.

2) Momentary disturbance of the intellect, occurring 'without any movement or working of bodily passions'. This seems to be more than the 'first appearance' of a provocation described above; for, at a certain point of spiritual growth in this life, it is possible to be totally released from such 'momentary disturbance', whereas no one can expect to be altogether free from demonic provocations.

3) Communion or coupling: Without as yet entirely assenting to the demonic provocation, a man may begin to 'entertain' it, to converse or parley with it, turning it over in his mind pleasurably, yet still hesitating whether or not to act upon it. At this point, the provocation is no longer 'image-free' but has become a logismos or thought; a man is morally responsible for having allowed this to happen.

4) Assent: This is a step beyond mere 'communion' or 'coupling'. A man now resolves to act upon it. There is now no doubt as to his moral culpability, even if circumstances prevent him from sinning outwardly, he is judged by God according to the intention in his heart.

5) Prepossesion: 'The involuntary presence of former sins in the memory'. This results from repeated acts of sin which predisposes a man to yield to particular temptations. In principal, he retains his free choice and can reject demonic provocations; but in practice, the force of habit makes it more and more difficult for him to resist.

6) Passion: If man does not fight strenously against a prepossesion, it will develop into an evil passion.

Taking these into consideration, perhaps we can discern where Jesus Christ and the Theotokos were different. Maybe Jesus did not pass the stage of provocation and the Theotokos did not pass the stage of momentary disturbance? This would still have them both be sinless. Of course, I'm just guessing, but perhaps this can be a way in understanding it? Maybe some of the other members could comment?

[Nina]

Macarius (Michael) and Paul,

thank you for your kind words, however I merely posted excerpts from St. John Maximovich's "The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Mother of God." So the merit and credit are due to St. John Maximovich. :)

Paul,

The answer you are trying to find is laid out in the first paragraph of St. John Maximovitch. "The teaching of the complete sinlessness of the Mother of God does not correspond to Sacred Scripture, where there is repeatedly mentioned the sinlessness of the: "One Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ" (I Tim. 2:5); "and in Him is no sin"(I John 3:5);"; then again in the second paragraph: "There is none without stain before Thee, even though his life be but a day, save Thee alone, Jesus Christ our God, Who didst appear on earth without sin, and through Whom we all trust to obtain mercy and the remission of sins" (St. Basil the Great, Third Prayer of Vespers of Pentecost)."

The first paragraph and the second paragraph investigate the issue respectively from a scriptural and patristic point of view.

In other words St. John Maximovitch is trying to convey that none of the ancient Holy Fathers say that God in miraculous fashion purified the Virgin Mary while yet in the womb; and many directly indicate that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by Her Divine Son.

I understand your frustration with this issue and your desire for wanting an even more concrete answer, or rather evidence/illustration. It is natural to have such proclivity, since first of all we have been training our minds to accept things of pure empirical essence (pure pragmatism), and second, our theology has been tragically influenced by scholasticism, where we tend to logically deduce and explain in terms of human reasoning even the most unintelligible mysteries of God.

Our Church Fathers, however, are not interested with details that have no significance whatsoever with our salvation. In terms of the sinlessness or lack thereof of Theotokos, they point out all there is needed to know. i.e., that only Christ is without sin, without deeming it necessary to scholastically delve into further details.

They, however, pay significant attention to other details that are both essential for the Mother of God and for us, that is, on one had the purity of Her, Her ever-Virginity, (which are necessary conditions for Christ to be born free of original sin) and on the other hand Her clash with sin and Her Victory through Her Son. Therefore this struggle with sin and victory from it comprise the ultimate goal of our spiritual life. It is not whether you fell into sin or not, that ultimately counts before God, but whether you were victorious or not. This is what saints and Theotokos achieved in their lives.

As the desert fathers say in their aphorisms: It does not matter how many time you fall down(sin), that counts, you get up(repent) and move on(put on a good fight). You will still fall down, but what is important is that the end of your life will find you standing.

In conclusion, let us not focus our attention in things that do not pertain to our salvation. Whether She struggled with sin, or not has no consequences for our salvation. On the contrary, Her Purity, Her ever-Virginity, Her Obedience to the Lord accepting the good news from Archangel Gabriel, and foremost Her victory over sin, must serve as the ultimate spiritual paradigm in our lives.

[John Charmley]

Dear Nina,


I understand your frustration with this issue and your desire for wanting an even more concrete answer, or rather evidence/illustration. It is natural to have such proclivity, since first of all we have been training our minds to accept things of pure empirical essence (pure pragmatism), and second, our theology has been tragically influenced by scholasticism, where we tend to logically deduce and explain in terms of human reasoning even the most unintelligible mysteries of God.

Our Church Fathers, however, are not interested with details that have no significance whatsoever with our salvation. In terms of the sinlessness or lack thereof of Theotokos, they point out all there is needed to know. i.e., that only Christ is without sin, without deeming it necessary to scholastically delve into further details.


Now you really are going to have to take the credit for this one, as they are your words, and they are inspired - and apply to much else that we do here and elsewhere.

Why do we need to know the unknowable? What would it do for us if we 'knew' the answer to this question? We are told that Christ was like unto us in everything but sin, and that the Most Holy Virgin lived a life of humility and obedience; perhaps the Fathers thought we could work it out if we really had to?

We know she is the Queen of our Race, and that she forever intercedes for us with her Son - but we know she was wholly human, and we know what human nature is because it was what He assumed in order to heal it; she, like us, needed that healing.

Nina, many, many thanks for sharing your wise words, as well as those of the Saint with us.

In Christ,

John

[Antonios]

Dear Paul,

What Nina and John both posted are correct and I thank them for posting it. They both have such a wonderful way of expressing true faith; it is a precious gift to have them close to us in our Monachos family. What they say is what the Fathers of the Church have always said, and what our Lord said Himself. That we are to have the faith of children. I apoligize if what I posted seemed scholastic in it's approach. I try not to explain things in a novel way, since my thoughts are often far from the truth, and what I posted above is not anything I have read from the Saints of our Church. My aim was only to perhaps shed some understanding for you, though I myself am often thoroughly confused. As Nina posted, it is "Her Purity, Her ever-Virginity, Her Obedience to the Lord accepting the good news from Archangel Gabriel, and foremost Her victory over sin, [which] must serve as the ultimate spiritual paradigm in our lives." Explaining what the Theotokos has done for humanity is a discussion way too deep for me. Knowing in my heart of hearts what she has done for me in my own life, however, is something I can not begin to explain nor would ever try to. She has never once let me down. May her prayers be with you and all of us as we approach Great Lent.

eternally seeking,
Antonios

[Nina]

I apoligize if what I posted seemed scholastic in it's approach. I try not to explain things in a novel way, since my thoughts are often far from the truth, and what I posted above is not anything I have read from the Saints of our Church.
Antonios

Oh, no.....! Dear Antonios, you have to forgive me, since I prepared my post on a Word document today and I did not check what was posted after the last post of Paul here (I was rushing to go to a very long 6+ hours meeting).

It was a simple monologue, since Paul addressed me, and I was trying to explain my stance. Therefore the 'scholastic approach' was not referred to you (absolutely not), or to anyone else here. It was in general. Since I hear it daily in life, I always remind myself not to apply the same approach to my faith. So basically it was a note to myself.

Love your post (now that I read it), however I did not see it before. I did not mean to disparage or decry it. I am sorry! Your posts are always wonderful! Explaining Theotokos is a discussion way too deep for me as well; and my faith does not resemble at all the faith of children!

Please forgive me! I hope you accept my sincere apology for my absentmindedness because of lack of time today.

[Antonios]

Dear Nina,

What you wrote about the Most Holy Theotokos was absolutely correct, and rest assurred that I did not feel as if you were posting something to disparage or decry what I wrote. In fact, it was after reading both you and John's post wherein I realized that often times I rush to try to explain things but instead teeter along the cliff of heresy by introducing ideas and notions that may be completely wrong, or worse, spiritually harmful. The wonderful thing about Monachos is that there are so many faithful, instructive members who all together help steer each other back to the true Orthodox path, sometimes even serendipitously as evident in what happened today.

Again, do not feel upset that you offended me. You did not. Truly, there is no reason to feel anything but joy knowing that we have the Most Glorious and Holy, Ever-Virgin Theotokos interceeding on our behalf.

Sincerely,
Antonios

[Paul Cowan]

Yes, Nina, Thank you as well to you John.
My need to know is not so great that I need to continue with my badgering. In my heart I accept the image and type of the blessed Theotokos. As a human and as the Mother of God, she is the example I need to model my life after to try to attain the higher virtues.

Please pray for me the sinner. Thank you all for your insights.
Paul

[Nina]

I would like to share something that I just learned about Panaghia, from the Letters of Elder Joseph the Hesychast from the book Monastic Wisdom, p.142.

"...Then I turn [and pray] to the Panagia. Our dear, sweet Mother shows so much love. May you always have her name on your lips."

May you always have her name on your lips, is another beautiful blessing, (my mom always blessed us 'May Panaghia be with you!') and I was very moved when I read it.

In the same book Elder Joseph gives this other precious advise - since we are approaching that time of the year when in church we hear Her Salutations:

"Cry out to His dear Mother constantly, read the Salutations, and she will protect you. She will always guard you from every evil. ...Always have a little icon of the Panagia in your shirt, and venerate it when you go to sleep. The more you love her, the more she will love you. And whenever you cry out to her in difficult times, you will feel her help and consolation appreciably. She always intercedes unceasingly for all children who fervently cry out to her." (p.325)

While typing these words of the Elder, I see the little icon on the right corner of Monachos and I am so happy that She is always here with us! Many thanks to the person who placed the icon there!

[Andreas Moran]

I second what Nina has said! Also, there's a difference between a sin and a mistake.

[Paul Cowan]

Andreas,
Can you elaborate more on this?


Also, there's a difference between a sin and a mistake.


I have made alot of mistakes in my life that also turned out to be sins. I don't think I ever sinned that it was not a mistake to do so.

Paul

[Herman Blaydoe]

When an archer misses his target, I don't think he does it purposefully, it is usually a "mistake". And the Greek word for sin literally means "to miss the mark". We pray for forgiveness of sins committed knowingly and unknowingly. I know that the Catholics make a distinction between "intentional" sins and actions that are not intentional, but as far as I know, Orthodoxy makes no such distinction.

[Andreas Moran]

I was thinking of a specific example of a mistake which was not a sin (I don't think!). In 1998, I went to visit friends in Bosnia. One daughter of these friends had committed suicide during the war there. I prayed to God to have mercy on her soul. Later, Fr Zacharias told me this was a mistake - it's too dangerous to pray for a suicide. He didn't say I had sinned but had made a mistake.

[Sunny]

Dear Andreas,
I know this is completely off the original topic and for that I apologize. But can you elaborate on the comment that," it is dangerous to pray for a suicide?"
thank you,
Sunny

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Sunny,
Please see later posts on the Thread 'Universalism and the Orthodox Church'. I was told by both Father Zacharias and Bishop Eirenaios that we cannot pray for suicides without a special blessing to do so (which is unlikely to be given). Lydia has been told the same by spiritual fathers in Russia. I can't actually articulate what the dangers are - I wasn't told and didn't ask.
In Christ,
Andreas.

[Sunny]

Dear Andreas,
I didn't know about this. Thank you for the information as I have a family member and friend on my prayer list who were suicides. I will seek counsel from my spiritual father.
Sunny