Sinlessness of the Mother of God

[Andrew Kisliakov]

Dear all,

Having read the forum archives, I know that this topic has been raised before, but I would like to have a couple of questions clarified.

From earlier reading, my impression has been that there has never been a single viewpoint among the Fathers regarding the sinlessness of the Mother of God. I believe that the following viewpoints have been expressed:

- The Mother of God never sinned
- The Mother of God may have sinned prior to the Annunciation, but not after
- The Mother of God sinned both before, and after the Annunciation
- The Mother of God sinned, but never wilfully

I would like to confirm that all the above viewpoints do appear in the writings of the Fathers and, if possible, to get some references to where specifically they occur.

Andrew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Andrew Kisliakov wrote:



Dear all,

Having read the forum archives, I know that this topic has been raised before, but I would like to have a couple of questions clarified.

From earlier reading, my impression has been that there has never been a single viewpoint among the Fathers regarding the sinlessness of the Mother of God. I believe that the following viewpoints have been expressed:

- The Mother of God never sinned
- The Mother of God may have sinned prior to the Annunciation, but not after
- The Mother of God sinned both before, and after the Annunciation
- The Mother of God sinned, but never wilfully

I would like to confirm that all the above viewpoints do appear in the writings of the Fathers and, if possible, to get some references to where specifically they occur.

Andrew

I'm far from having read all of the Patristic witness about this. But from what I have read my impression is that the Patristic consensus is that "The Mother of God never sinned."

By this is meant, according to my understanding, that by her own free will however the Mother of God did not sin.

ie the sinlessness of the Mother of God is not due to the fact of the special relationship or union with her Son as if this compels her not to sin. Rather the special degree of relationship with her Son and the fact that He chose to abide in her womb, is an aspect of her free will not to sin.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Nina]

Dear Andrew Kisliakov,

In addition to the words of Father Raphael, please read below quotes from the book "The Feasts of the Lord" by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlahos.

"The archangel Gabriel called the Panagia "full of grace". He said to her "Rejoice, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women" (Lk. 1, 28-29). The Panagia is called "full of grace" and is characterized as "blessed" because God is with her.

According to St. Gregory Palamas, as well as other holy Fathers, the Panagia had already been full of grace before the day of the annunciation. Living in the holy of holies of the Temple, she had reached the holy of holies of the spiritual life, which is deification. If the forecourt of the Temple was intended for the proselytes and if the Temple proper was for the priests, the holy of holies was intended for the high priest. The Panagia entered there, an indication that she had attained deification. It is well known that in the Christian era the narthex was intended for the catechumens and the impure, the Temple proper for the illuminated, the members of the Church, and the holy of holies for those who had attained deification.

Thus the Panagia was already deified before she received the visit of the archangel. She had used a special method for knowing God and communing with Him, as St. Gregory Palamas interprets in a wonderful and inspired way: it is hesychia, the hesychastic way. The Panagia understood that one can reach God not by logic, sensation, imagination and human fame, but through one's 'nous', which is sometimes called the eye of the heart. Thus she silenced all the powers of her soul which derive from sensation, and through noetic prayer she activated her nous. In this way she reached illumination and deification, and she therefore was granted to become the Mother of Christ, to give her flesh to Christ. She had not only virtues but the deifying grace of God.

The Panagia had the fullness of the grace of God, in comparison with other people. To be sure, Christ, as the Word of God, has the whole fullness of the graces, the Panagia received the fullness of grace from the fullness of the graces of her Son. She is lower than Christ because Christ has grace by nature, while the Panagia has it by participation, but she is higher than other people.

The Panagia had the fullness of grace from the fullness of the graces of her Son before, during and after conception. Before the conception the fullness of grace was perfect, during the conception it was more perfect, and after the conception it was most perfect (St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite). In this way the Panagia was virgin in body and virgin in soul. And this bodily virginity of hers is higher and more perfect than the virginity of the souls of the saints, which is attained by the energy of the Holy Spirit." (pp. 25-26)

"The Panagia was born with the ancestral sin, she had all the consequences of decay and death in her body. When she entered the holy of holies she had attained deification. But this deification was not enough to rid her of those consequences which meant corruption and death, just because the divine nature had not been united with the human nature in the person of the Word. Thus it was at the moment when by the power of the Holy Spirit the divine nature was united with the human nature in the womb of the Panagia that the Panagia first tasted her release from the so-called ancestral sin and its consequences. Furthermore, at that moment there took place what Adam and Eve had failed to do in their free personal struggle. At that moment of the Annunciation the Panagia reached a higher state than that in which Adam and Eve were before the fall. She was granted to taste the final goal of creation, as we shall see in other analyses.

Therefore for the Panagia no Pentecost, no Baptism was needed. What the Apostles experienced on the day of the Pentecost, when they became members of the Body of Christ through the Holy Spirit, and what happens to all of us in the sacrament of Baptism, happened to the Panagia on the day of the Annunciation. It was then that she was released from the ancestral sin, not that she had any guilt, but she was deified in soul and body by reason of her union with Christ.

This is the background for interpreting the words of St. John of Damaskos that on the day of the Annunciation the Panagia received the Holy Spirit, which purified her and gave her the power at the same time both to receive the divinity of the Word and to give birth. That is to say, the Panagia received from the Holy Spirit both purifying grace and the power to receive and give birth to the Word of God as man." (pp. 27-28)

[M.C. Steenberg]

When I first saw this new thread on the list today, not wearing my glasses at the time, I read 'The silliness of the Mother of God'.

I'm glad to see that was a blurred vision. :)

INXC, Matthew

[Herman Blaydoe]

I am pretty sure that the idea that the Theotokos did not sin is pretty universal amongst the Fathers in the Orthodox Church. I would be very curious to know who amongst them might have thought otherwise.

[Paul Cowan]

I am pretty sure that the idea that the Theotokos was not silly is pretty universal amongst the Fathers in the Orthodox Church. I would be very curious to know who amongst them might have thought otherwise.

Thanks Herman for letting me steal your post.
Paul

[Olga]

When I first saw this new thread on the list today, not wearing my glasses at the time, I read 'The silliness of the Mother of God'.

I'm glad to see that was a blurred vision. :)

INXC, Matthew

As a humorous aside, I have a CD of Russian church singing which has English translations of the various hymns included in the sleeve notes. The translations are, of course, well-intentioned, but are, at times, off the mark, such as this one, for the Resurrectional Theotokion Bogoroditse Dyevo, raduisya: "Hail, Virgin Mother of God, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with you. Messed are you among women ...." :o

[Peter Farrington]

I note that the Cath. Enc. says...


In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.


Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").

In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).

St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. 4).

So there may well be value in working through the Fathers to get a rounded and Patristic approach.

Peter

[Andrew Kisliakov]

Dear all,

Thanks for the responses and the humour :)

From Peter's reference, we see that at least three of the Fathers (is Origen considered in the church as a Father?) did not hold to the sinlessness of the Mother of God.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia article (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm) quoted by Peter does go on to present quotations by certain Fathers which they use to support the belief that she was sinless. Some of the examples are somewhat strained, and I wouldn't use them as proof that a particular Father held the doctrine. To me, the more convincing ones are those of Sts. Ambrose, Theodotus of Ancyra, Augustine, Ephrem the Syrian and Jacob of Sarug.

I would be grateful if anyone can provide the exact quotes from these or other Fathers who did support the position of her sinlessness.

Andrew

[Michael Stickles]

Tertullian also seems to ascribe unbelief to her, in rather severe terms, in his work On the Flesh of Christ, where he comments on Matthew 12:46-50 (relevant excerpts):




... whilst there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother’s adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; but they do not go in, because, forsooth, they set small store on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait, as if they had something which they could contribute more necessary than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work.




When denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave others the preference; and since He shows their title to this favor — even because they listened to the word (of God) — He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him.

But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship.


I'm pretty sure he wrote this before he began championing Montanism (which he calls a "raising schism" in a work of about the same time as this one).

[Peter Farrington]

I think that Ephrem and Jacob of Serug are writing poetry rather than systematic theology, which I think the Cath. Enc. accepts.

I will dig out a book called The Blessed Virgin Mary in the First Six Centuries which has most references to the Theotokos. Not all of the arguments seem reasonable to me as it is a Roman Catholic volume published in the 19th century, but the references are comprehensive.

As I have been thinking about this over the last hours I think that I do not want to say that the Virgin sinned, in the sense that it is not my place to judge another, least of all her. But I do believe that our Faith requires us to resist any tendency to set her apart from us and our own humanity.

She must be fully and completely human as we are to share our own humanity completely and fully with Her Son and Her Saviour.

Whether she sinned at any time is not my business. There is plenty enough positively to say about her and her holiness and obedience. It is the suggestion that she was not human as we are which I find theologically problematic and indeed difficult to reconcile with the wider teachings of the Orthodox Faith.

Origen may perhaps not be considered a Father, but he is an important witness, and indeed only some of his ideas have been properly considered and condemned.

Peter

[Michael Stickles]

Andrew,

I found the following quotes in various places online.

First, St. Ambrose:


What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? For why should I speak of her other virtues? She was a virgin not only in body but also in mind, who stained the sincerity of its disposition by no guile, ...
... that the very appearance of her outward being might be the image of her soul, the representation of what is approved. For a well-ordered house ought to be recognized on the very threshold, and should show at the very first entrance that no darkness is hidden within, as our soul hindered by no restraints of the body may shine abroad like a lamp placed within. (From Concerning Virgins, Book II, Chapter II)


"Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin" (Commentary on Psalm 118:22–30 [A.D. 387]).

St. Ephraim the Syrian:


"You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?" (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361])."


"As lightning illuminates what is hidden, so also Christ purifies what is hidden in the nature of things. He purified the Virgin also and then was born, so as to show that where Christ is, there is manifest purity in all its power. He purified the Virgin, having prepared Her by the Holy Spirit, and then the womb, having become pure, conceived Him. He purified the Virgin while She was inviolate; wherefore, having been born, He left Her virgin. I do not say that Mary became immortal, but that being illuminated by grace, She was not disturbed by sinful desires" (Homily Against Heretics, 41).

I couldn't find a direct quote from Theodotus of Ancyra, but found the following snippet on TheologyWeb:


Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").

I also found a few claims that all of the Fathers you mentioned (as well as others) mention in other places in their writings that Mary was a sinner, but none of the pages I found which claimed this gave specific references. Some of them raised the idea that some Fathers saw Mary as sinless for part of her life (i.e., while carrying Christ), but not her whole life. It may also be possible that some or all of the "Mary as sinner" passages were actually referring to a different Mary (Mary Magdalene, Mary the sister of Martha, etc.). However, without references I can't be certain either way.

The site earlychurchfathers.org has a page (http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/belief.php?id=13) which lists some references for early writings referring to Mary as sinless. However, don't trust any reference as really claiming that without checking it first. They include the same work from Tertullian which I quoted before, and even their specific reference taken alone does not seem to support Mary as sinless (the St. Ambrose and St. Ephraim references do seem to support that; I didn't check the others).

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Peter Farrington wrote:




So there may well be value in working through the Fathers to get a rounded and Patristic approach.


For us at least, the Fathers need to be always seen & interpreted from within the larger framework of the Church.

Thus St John Maximovitch writing in his The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God writes:


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"). This Holy Father accuses those who give Her an almost divine worship: "Let Mary be in honor, but let worship be given to the Lord" (same source). "Although Mary is a chosen vessel, still she was a woman by nature, not to be distinguished at all from others. Although the history of Mary and Tradition relate that it was said to Her father Joachim in the desert, 'Thy wife hath conceived,' still this was done not without marital union and not without the seed of man" (same source). "One should not revere the saints above what is proper, but should revere their Master. Mary is not God, and did not receive a body from heaven, but from the joining of man and woman; and according to the promise, like Isaac, She was prepared to take part in the Divine Economy. But, on the other hand, let none dare foolishly to offend the Holy Virgin" (St. Epiphanius, "Against the Antidikomarionites").

After striking this balance St John then writes:


The Virgin Mary, having given Herself entirely up to God, even though She repulsed from Herself every impulse to sin, still felt the weakness of human nature more powerfully than others and ardently desired the coming of the Saviour.

In other words the Mother of God is not sinless in the same sense her Son is, ie by nature, but rather by free will and resistance to that which is sinful. That is why there is tremendous wisdom in St John's words that the Theotokos, "still felt the weakness of human nature more powerfully than others" That is, she understood the effect of sin more clearly than we but without submitting to this sin. Understanding this and suffering from it as a Mother she then, "ardently desired the coming of the Saviour."

We also should not overlook the insights of St Gregory Palamas who sees the Mother of God as the first hesychast. The point here is not just that she is the first practitioner of a certain kind of inner payer, later treasured and taught by the Church. The point is to describe that when we refer to the sinlessness of the Mother of God we mean that by her way of life she sums up the very purpose of God for man. And the Fathers, such as St Irenaeus have written of this from the beginning.

In effect what the Church is saying then is that the question of the sinlessness of the Mother of God refers to man's ultimate purpose. Truly if we use such words to describe the Mother of God we have to be careful about what we mean. But if we entirely reject them we risk overlooking the fundamental insight about man's salvation which the Fathers base their words on.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andrew Kisliakov]

Peter,

Personally, I generally agree with the points that you have made. I prefer to regard the Mother of God as sinless, but am happy to acknowledge that there are differences of opinion and leave it at that. Unfortunately, as I am involved in a discussion on another Orthodox forum where some are categorically asserting that she did sin, I feel obliged to find out more about what we know the Fathers to have written on the subject.

I did see a reference to the book "The Blessed Virgin Mary in the First Six Centuries", which looked interesting, and hope to find it in a library when I have the chance. However, if you have access to a copy and would like to post any relevant passages, it'd be much appreciated.

Andrew

[Nina]

Some of them raised the idea that some Fathers saw Mary as sinless for part of her life (i.e., while carrying Christ), but not her whole life. It may also be possible that some or all of the "Mary as sinner" passages were actually referring to a different Mary (Mary Magdalene, Mary the sister of Martha, etc.). However, without references I can't be certain either way.This is a very important point that Mike raises (thank you!). That is why we are taught to refer to her as Panagia, Theotokos etc. not only to distinguish and give her the due and proper honor, but also to avoid confusions with the rest of Marias, since the name has been and is so popular.


The site earlychurchfathers.org has a page (http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/belief.php?id=13) which lists some references for early writings referring to Mary as sinless. However, don't trust any reference as really claiming that without checking it first. This is another very important point (again thank you Mike!). Because some source cites (like the Encyclopedia above) and interprets a saying from the Fathers, it does not mean that the Fathers meant it so, or were writing for that purpose. I think it was Peter who posted that in an article a modern day Bishop cautions against taking Fathers out of context etc.

P.S Thank you Father Raphael for the explanations.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

When I read the following in my inbox I thought it to be in response to what I wrote. Coming to the boards I see it is not. But it sums up the point concerning the Mother of God so neatly that I thought it proper to post it here:

Peter Farrington wrote:


She must be fully and completely human as we are to share our own humanity completely and fully with Her Son and Her Saviour.

"Fully and completely human" is something we have discussed at Monachos many times, so much so that it has become almost a trade mark of Monachos.

God's meeting with humanity is fundamental to what we mean by salvation. Sin is not left out of this since sin is so much a part of what we as humans now endure. But yet God does not submit to sin in the sense that He engages in anything sinful. This precisely is the Mystery of God's love that He can 'meet' sin in a much more profound way than us but yet without this in any sense being sinful. An analogy perhaps is someone who experiences the effects of a terrorist bomb blast: this experience is not equivalent to the sinfulness of the person who initiated the bomb but yet the experience is more real in a way. Faintly in some such way God experiences the sinfullness of man and the Mother of God as deified shares in this kind of experience.

This however means that what is fully and really man refers not just to sin. No matter how real the experience of sin is to us there is a crucial sense in which the experience of sin is also un-real. This is so since man's authentic nature actually refers to a deified condition and not that which is sinful. The deified person's experience of sin in virtue of the fact that he/she has communion with the human condition is also different from that of the sinner who sins.

As remarked in my last post, the positive language we use about the Mother of God, refers not only to how we exalt & honour her. Beyond this it refers to how she sums up and refers to the true purpose of human nature; ie to live in a deified and hence in some sense sinless state.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Michael Stickles]

Fr. Raphael's quote from St John Maximovitch got me thinking.


The Virgin Mary, having given Herself entirely up to God, even though She repulsed from Herself every impulse to sin, still felt the weakness of human nature more powerfully than others and ardently desired the coming of the Saviour.

Especially about "the weakness of human nature" in comparison with Athanasius' reference to "the corruption which goes with death". Now, one of the reasons Protestants object to the idea of Mary as sinless is because of the widely held theory that Christ's death was primarily a penal or judicial substitution -- that we deserved death for our sins, but He died as a substitute for us. Therefore, if Mary did not sin, she didn't need Christ to die for her.

But if I'm putting things together correctly, and if what St. John refers to as "the weakness of human nature" is at least largely the same as what Athanasius calls "the corruption which goes with death", then even if Mary was indeed sinless, that would not at all infer that she did not need Christ's redemption. Rather, it would allow her to know the experience of that weakness or corruption in itself, apart from the consequences wrought by sinful behavior, and desire more greatly the redemption from that corruption which Christ obtained for us through His incarnation, death and resurrection.

[Nina]

As remarked in my last post, the positive language we use about the Mother of God, refers not only to how we exalt & honour her. Beyond this it refers to how she sums up and refers to the true purpose of human nature; ie to live in a deified and hence in some sense sinless state.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Exactly! Dear Father you say things so beautifully and explain them with such ease that is conveyed even through internet :).

Dear all,

There is a reason why we chant the hymn Άξιον εστίν (It is truly meet) during Divine Liturgy. "It is truly meet to call thee blest, the Theotokos, the ever-blessed and all-immaculate and Mother of our God." This part of the hymn was revealed to us and inscribed in the slate by the Archangel Gabriel himself. Further in the hymn we chant: "More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim." Seraphims and Cherubims did not sin as far as I know. If we maintain that Panagia sinned, how can we chant those verses during Divine Liturgy? That would be a lie and sacrilegious.

The greatness of Panagia is that she is a human and she rejected sin by her own will (what we are called to do also). Here is another quote from the book The Feasts of the Lord by Metropolitan Hierotheos:


"No one is born free of the ancestral sin. The fall of Adam and Eve and its consequences were inherited by the whole human race. Of course even the Panagia could not be freed from the ancestral sin. The words of the Apostle Paul are clear: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3,23). In this apostolic passage we see that sin is understood as a deprivation of the glory of God and also that no one is exempt from sin. So the Panagia too was born with the ancestral sin. [...]

[...W]e must say again that the ancestral sin meant deprivation of the glory of God, alienation from God, the loss of communion with God. It also had physical consequences, however, because decay and death entered the bodies of Adam and Eve. In the Orthodox Church the inheritance of ancestral sin does not mean inheritance of the guilt of the ancestral sin, but rather of the consequences of sin, which are decay and death. Just as when the root of a plant becomes diseased, so do the branches and leaves, with Adam's fall it was the same. The whole human race became ill. The decay and death which man inherits is the favorable climate for the nurture of passions. In this way man's nous is darkened." (pp. 26-27)

Here, we have the explanation of Saint Gregory Palamas who called Panagia the first hesychast, to understand how Panagia dispersed the "darkness of the nous" (please refer to the previous quotes of Met. Hierotheos in post # 3 and what Father Raphael says in post # 13).


"The Panagia's reply to the archangel's message that she would be granted to give birth to Christ was expressive: "Behold the servant of the Lord! Let is happen to me as you have said" (Lk. 1,38). Here we see the obedience of the Panagia to the words of the archangel, and also her obedience to God in respect of an event which was astounding and strange to human reason. Thus she subjects her reason to the will of God.

Some people maintain that at that moment all the righteous men of the Old Testament, and all mankind were waiting anxiously to hear the Panagia's reply, fearing that she would refuse and not obey the will of God. They maintain that because whenever man is in such a dilemma, precisely because he has freedom he can say yes or no, and just as in the case of Adam and Eve the same could have happened with the Panagia. But the Panagia could not refuse, not because she did not have freedom, but because she had real freedom. St. John of Damaskos distinguishes between natural will and the will of choice. A person has the will of choice when he is characterized by ignorance of something, by doubt, and finally by the inability to choose. He is wavering about what to do. A person has natural will when he is led in a natural way, without vacillation, without ignorance, to put the truth into action.

It seems, then, that the natural will is connected with "will-ing", while the will of choice is a matter of "how to will", especially when there are doubts and waverings. It follows then that natural will is the perfection of nature, while the will of choice is the imperfection of nature, since it presupposes someone who has no knowledge of truth, who is not sure about what he ought to decide.

Although Christ had two wills because He had two natures, human and divine, he had a natural will in the sense that we mean here, and certainly he did not have a will of choice. As God He always knew the will of God the Father, and there was never any doubt or wavering in Him. This is also experienced in the saints by grace, especially in the Panagia. Since the Panagia had attained deification, it was impossible for her to reject the will of God and not consent to the incarnation. She had perfect freedom, and therefore her freedom always acted in accordance with nature and not against it. Since we have not reached deification, we have incomplete freedom, with the so-called will of choice, and therefore we waver about what is to be done. Her question "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" shows humility and the weakness of human nature, but also the paradox of the matter, since there are miraculous conceptions in the Old Testament, but not without seed." (pp. 28-29)

[Nina]

There is a reason why we chant the hymn Άξιον εστίν (It is truly meet) during Divine Liturgy. "It is truly meet to call thee blest, the Theotokos, the ever-blessed and all-immaculate and Mother of our God." This part of the hymn was revealed to us and inscribed in the slate by the Archangel Gabriel himself.


Today (July 13) we celebrate the Synaxis of the Archangel Gabriel and also the miracle of the Icon of the Theotokos Άξιον εστίν (It is Truly Meet) in front of which the Archangel Gabriel revealed to us the verses "It is truly meet to call thee blesed, the Theotokos, the ever-blessed and all-immaculate and Mother of our God. More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim."

Please read the story below which came into my Inbox (but I have been told from a friend here that it is from OCA website):


Icon of the Mother of God "It Is Truly Meet"

The "It is Truly Meet" Icon of the Mother of God is in the high place of the altar of the cathedral church of the Karyes monastery on Mount Athos.

One Saturday night an Elder went to Karyes for the all-night Vigil. He left, instructing his disciple to remain behind and read the service in their cell. As it grew dark, the disciple heard a knock on the door. When he opened the door, he saw an unknown monk who called himself Gabriel, and he invited him to come in. They stood before the icon of the Mother of God and read the service together with reverence and compunction.
During the Ninth Ode of the Canon, the disciple began to sing "My soul magnifies the Lord…" with the Irmos of St Cosmas the Hymnographer (October 14), "More honorable than the Cherubim…."

The stranger sang the next verse, "For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden…." Then he chanted something the disciple had never heard before, "It is truly meet to bless Thee, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God…" Then he continued with, "More honorable than the Cherubim.…"

While the hymn was being sung, the icon of the Theotokos shone with a heavenly light. The disciple was moved by the new version of the familiar hymn, and asked his guest to write the words down for him. When the stranger asked for paper and ink, the disciple said that they did not have any.

The stranger took a roof tile and wrote the words of the hymn on its surface with his finger. The disciple knew then that this was no ordinary monk, but the Archangel Gabriel. The angel said, "Sing in this manner, and all the Orthodox as well." Then he disappeared, and the icon of the Mother of God continued to radiate light for some time afterward.

The Eleousa Icon of the Mother of God, before which the hymn "It Is Truly Meet" was first sung, was transferred to the katholikon at Karyes. The tile, with the hymn written on it by the Archangel Gabriel, was taken to Constantinople when St Nicholas Chrysoberges (December 16) was Patriarch.

Numerous copies of the "It Is Truly Meet" Icon are revered in Russian churches. At the Galerna Harbor of Peterburg a church with five cupolas was built in honor of the Merciful Mother of God, and into it they put a grace-bearing copy of the "It Is Truly Meet" icon sent from Athos.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all, in an earlier post, Father Raphael wrote:


As remarked in my last post, the positive language we use about the Mother of God, refers not only to how we exalt & honour her. Beyond this it refers to how she sums up and refers to the true purpose of human nature; ie to live in a deified and hence in some sense sinless state.

I think this (and the remainder of his post, as well as comments in other posts since) brings up an important issue in this context. If we are to search the patristic corpus for signs that the Theotokos' sinlessness means 'she never did anything at all wrong', I fear we'll be gravely disappointed. But is this what we mean by human sinlessness? A look at some of the early fathers, who explored her perfected obedience, yet also not mistakes in action, might be helpful.

INXC, Matthew

[Peter Farrington]

Looking through The Blessed Virgin the First Six Centuries, and which seeks to elevate the Theotokos as much as possible, I would have to say that the references pretty much generally, with only one or two exceptions, do not actually ever address the question of whether or not the Virgin Mary sinned or not.

They speak of her purity, especially in the context of her virginity. And they speak of her being the Second Eve, and therefore of her obedience.

But they do not seem to want to ask whether or not there was the possibility of her sinning. Indeed I myself, though wishing to resist any suggestion that her humanity was different to ours do not find it appropriate to ask the question about whether or not she sinned.

What is it to me? I know that I sin daily. I know that she is a firm support in my spiritual struggle. I am not sure that it is helpful to end up insisting she was a sinner, as long as we do not elevate her nature above and apart from our own.

I believe that we can say with the patristic consensus that she was the best that humanity had to offer God, and that she gave a perfect obedience to His will becoming the mother of those who believe, and she is witness to what we may become through a similar obedience - we have no excuse. But to delve into her own life, its weaknesses and failings such as they may have been, seems inappropriate.

I wonder if this is a little like the idea of the apocatastasis? If it is pushed to a dogma then it can (does?) become unacceptable, but it may be perhaps piously held as a hope. Likewise if we raise the humanity of the Theotokos out of our own condition as a matter of dogma then it can (does?) also become unacceptable, but again as a pious and righteous belief we speak of the sinlessness of the Virgin.

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Peter wrote:


I believe that we can say with the patristic consensus that she was the best that humanity had to offer God, and that she gave a perfect obedience to His will becoming the mother of those who believe, and she is witness to what we may become through a similar obedience - we have no excuse. But to delve into her own life, its weaknesses and failings such as they may have been, seems inappropriate.

I believe there is an important point here. A number of years ago there was an effort from within Orthodoxy in the west to show that the Mother of God sinned. In words at least, the motivation of this effort was to show that the Mother of God was fully human. The problem here was more one of focus- that it did not proceed from a Patristic understanding of human nature & sin but rather from a modern view about life. Indeed this was one of its chief weaknesses- that it did not begin with the clarity of theological vision but rather with the fuzziness which characterizes most modern ways of looking at life.

In general however we can say that the modern way of looking at God's providence for mankind is that its purpose is to justify man's weakness. It is extremely rare that this is worked out with any clarity- it's just implicit and assumed in everything presented and in how one sees God working. Thus the challenge of communicating with this since it is based more on 'a feeling about life' than on anything clearly worked out. In any case it would be wonderful for us as Christians to understand one day what all of this really means.

Compare the life of the Theotokos as described for example by St Gregory Palamas with our 'life-style' of all-encompassing-fuzziness and you get a sense of the difference between the Patristic understanding of human nature, which the Theotokos is meant to sum up, and ours.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Effie Ganatsios]

Peter Farrington wrote:






For us at least, the Fathers need to be always seen & interpreted from within the larger framework of the Church.

Thus St John Maximovitch writing in his The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God writes:



After striking this balance St John then writes:



In other words the Mother of God is not sinless in the same sense her Son is, ie by nature, but rather by free will and resistance to that which is sinful. That is why there is tremendous wisdom in St John's words that the Theotokos, "still felt the weakness of human nature more powerfully than others" That is, she understood the effect of sin more clearly than we but without submitting to this sin. Understanding this and suffering from it as a Mother she then, "ardently desired the coming of the Saviour."

We also should not overlook the insights of St Gregory Palamas who sees the Mother of God as the first hesychast. The point here is not just that she is the first practitioner of a certain kind of inner payer, later treasured and taught by the Church. The point is to describe that when we refer to the sinlessness of the Mother of God we mean that by her way of life she sums up the very purpose of God for man. And the Fathers, such as St Irenaeus have written of this from the beginning.

In effect what the Church is saying then is that the question of the sinlessness of the Mother of God refers to man's ultimate purpose. Truly if we use such words to describe the Mother of God we have to be careful about what we mean. But if we entirely reject them we risk overlooking the fundamental insight about man's salvation which the Fathers base their words on.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I found the following :

Blessed John Maximovitch (1896-1966) affirms that The Church teaches that "through the fall of Adam and Eve, all of the human race inherited death, becoming enslaved to the devil through the passions. The progeny of Adam and Eve are not guilty of their first parents’ tasting of the fruit; we are not being punished for this first sin or 'original sin.' If, for the sake of argument, we maintain the invalid heterodox teaching that the Theotokos was preserved from this 'original sin,' that would make God unmerciful and unjust. If God preserved her, why then does He not purify all men? But then that would have meant saving men before their birth, apart from their will. This teaching would then deny all her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Anna, 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 virtue consist? She would have been placed in the state of being unable to sin.

“The Virgin, as a true daughter of Adam and Eve, also inherited death. She was not in a state of never being able to die. Thus, St. John of Damascus writes on the occasion of her Dormition, ‘O pure Virgin, sprung from mortal loins, thine end was conformable to nature.’"

Blessed Archbishop John continues to comment that the Virgin was not placed in the state of being unable to sin, but continued to take care for her salvation and overcame all temptations. The righteousness and sanctity of the Virgin Mary was 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 above all other creatures. Mary was to become the Mother of God, the Theotokos, not because she was to give birth to divinity, but that through her the Word became true man, God-Man.

The last comment made by St. John is so important -- “Mary was to become the Mother of God, the Theotokos, not because she was to give birth to divinity, but that through her the Word became true man, God-Man”.

The full text is at http://aggreen.net/theotokos/orig_sin.html

[Effie Ganatsios]

They speak of her purity, especially in the context of her virginity. And they speak of her being the Second Eve, and therefore of her obedience.

But they do not seem to want to ask whether or not there was the possibility of her sinning. Indeed I myself, though wishing to resist any suggestion that her humanity was different to ours do not find it appropriate to ask the question about whether or not she sinned."


She was human, Peter. Here are two more lines from the above articles I quoted.


"If the Holy Virgin Mary’s human will was interfered with (ed.—as in Roman Catholic doctrine) She would not be totally human and therefore Jesus Christ would not be totally man (ed.—human) and totally God.”

"In her lifetime, the Blessed Virgin Mary did not sin by her own choice with the help of the Holy Spirit.



Only Christ was and is sinless, as we are told in the bible.

[Effie Ganatsios]

I just found something beautiful and would like to share it :

"However, we may well think, dear brethren, that only God incarnate, the Lord Jesus Christ, could be such an ideal man, while a mere mortal could never attain such perfection. But to show us the error of such thinking, we have before us the Mother of God, Who is the highest example of the attainment of such perfection, and Who teaches us with Her entire life and Her dormition that man can attain perfection precisely by means of these three qualities - humbleness, obedience to the will of God, and moral purity.


The Holy Virgin was so humble, that she wished to be even the lowest servant of the maid who would become the Mother of God. The Holy Virgin was so humble, that having Herself become the Mother of God, She did not become haughty, but modestly performed Her great service.


The Holy Virgin was so obedient to the will of God, that having heard from the Archangel concerning Her forthcoming service, so extraordinary and unknown to any mortal, She meekly replied: “Behold the handmaiden of the Lord.” The Holy Virgin was so obedient to the will of God, that having heard from the elder Simeon of the future painful torment to which Her heart would be subjected, She humbly accepted Her share in the sufferings on the cross of Her Son and God."

[Florianos]

God bless !!

The Theotokos is absolutly sinless, I think there is no doubt in the patristic writings about this!!

She is not only sinless but she is Full of Grace, ALL-Gracefilled!!
To be full of grace there is no place left for sin!!
St. Gregory the wonderworker write:

Holy and wise in all things was the all-blessed Virgin; in all ways peerless among all nations, and unrivalled among women. Not as the first virgin Eva, who being alone in the garden, was in her weak mind led astray by the serpent; and so took his advice and brought death into the world; and because of that hath been all the suffering of saints. But in her alone, in this Holy Virgin Mary, the Stem of Life hath shot up for us. For she alone was spotless in soul and body

In CHRIST

[John Daniel]

I believe that Tertullian also denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Theotokos, so this does not surprise me.

Tertullian also seems to ascribe unbelief to her, in rather severe terms, in his work On the Flesh of Christ, where he comments on Matthew 12:46-50 (relevant excerpts):











I'm pretty sure he wrote this before he began championing Montanism (which he calls a "raising schism" in a work of about the same time as this one).

[Darlene Griffith]

But I do believe that our Faith requires us to resist any tendency to set her apart from us and our own humanity.
She must be fully and completely human as we are to share our own humanity completely and fully with Her Son and Her Saviour.
I would have to concur with these statements. How could Mary share in being human if she was sinless? What then did Christ heal when clothing Himself in humanity? Further, does this not suggest that she was not in need of forgiveness, and therefore that Christ didn't die for her? How could He die for her sins if she didn't have any?


Whether she sinned at any time is not my business. There is plenty enough positively to say about her and her holiness and obedience. It is the suggestion that she was not human as we are which I find theologically problematic and indeed difficult to reconcile with the wider teachings of the Orthodox Faith.

Well, I have no idea how the blessed Theotokos missed the mark, but to think that she did at some point isn't implausible. Rather, it speaks to the veracity of Scripture that "ALL have sinned." Further, I would suggest that such an idea puts forth that she was a SUPERhuman as I said elsewhere.

[Antonios]

How could Mary share in being human if she was sinless?

Was Adam before the fall human? We would agree that he was even as he was sinless.

As we believe, because of his sin, the effects of sin entered into creation, namely corruption, decay, death. The Virgin Mary inherited those effects of the fall which is why she died and this is why only through her Son does she have everlasting life.

The propensity to sin was also an effect of the fall, but the potentiallity to sin was always part of our nature. This is an account of us being made with free will. Christ did not come to take away our free will (read our potentiallity to sin), but to teach us how to resist our fallen propensity to sin and by His work on the Cross to make the effects of our forefather's sin become powerless (most notably death and imprisonment in Hades).

Likewise, the Virgin Mary was born in the same vein (note, this is where we differ from the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception). She, like Eve, was born with the potentiallity to sin. What she did, unlike Eve, was that she resisted the propensity to sin to a degree which no human born of a mother and father had ever accomplished - neither Moses, nor the prophets, nor Eve herself who was fashioned by God from Adam! In THIS way she is a sort of 'superhuman', not because her being was above human nature and that the effects of the fall did not affect her, but because in imitating Christ by her willful obedience to God in every circumstance, she did what no other human did before her. In THIS, she is immaculate. By THIS, God found a servant worthy enough and undefiled to be borne from and have become the Mother of God, forever afterwords known as blessed for all generations. This is how she is unique and this why she alone in all of creation is the Mother of God. Not that she couldn't sin, but that she chose NOT to sin. This was NOT of course enough to prevent her from death, for even sinless infants and children die. In fact, Christ Himself died! Thus, she stills finds salvation in Christ alone and calls Him her Savior.

I hope this helps in any way.

[Yolanda]

We must always pray to the Lord to tell us what to do, and the Lord will not let us go astray.
Adam was not wise enough to ask the Lord about the fruit which Eve gave him, and so he lost paradise.
David did not ask the Lord whether it would be a good thing if he took Bathsheba to wife, and so he fell into the sins of murder and adultery.
So with all the saints who sinned: they sinned because they had not called upon God to enlighten and help them. St Seraphim of Sarov said, 'When I spoke of myself I was often in error.'
But there are also sinless mistakes of imperfection: we can observe such even in the Mother of God. St Luke tells us that when she and Joseph were returning from Jerusalem she did not know where her Son was, supposing Him to be journeying with their kinsfolk and acquaintances, and it was only after they had searched three days that they found Him in the Temple at Jerusalem, conversing with the elders.
Thus the Lord alone is omniscient, and each one of us, whoever he may be, must pray to God for understanding, and consult his spiritual father, that we may avoid mistakes.
- "Saint Silouan, the Athonite" By Archimandrite Sophrony Sakharov

[Herman Blaydoe]

Darlene,

If you cannot accept these thought on the subject, why don't you just ask the Theotokos directly in prayer?

Herman the Pooh

[Darlene Griffith]

Thank you all for going out of your way to do your best to convince me of the sinlessness of the Theotokos. At this time, I cannot accept this teaching. Further, to do so would be against my understanding of the word sinless from the very texts of Holy Scripture. To do so, I believe, would be unfaithful to Christ my Lord, who I know never sinned, who was the spotless Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Were I to accept this teaching, I would dishonor Christ. Imagine someone whom you have always trusted trying to convince you to drink gasoline. "Have I ever steered you wrong before? No. So please just trust me on this. If you drink the gasoline you will not get sick or die." Would you drink the gasoline? Of course not. In the same way, I honestly believe that if I were to accept this teaching it would have grave and injurious effects upon my soul. I honor Jesus Christ above all else and cannot put anyone, or anything, not even the blessed Theotokos, on par with Him. He ALONE is worshipped as the Perfect sacrifice, the one who always did what was pleasing to His Father. "Worthy is the lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." Revelation 5:12

[Anna Stickles]

Darlene,

What you are holding onto is not the teaching of Scripture, but specifically a Calvinist interpretation of Scripture's teaching on the nature of man and his relationship to sin.

And I appologize if I twisted your mind into a pretzel when trying to explain this. :(

[Daniel R.]

Dear Darlene,

I would like to say that to me it might be best to simply put it out of mind. You cannot accept this, right well then do not let that in anyway remove you from the Orthodox Faith simply continue as you have been doing pray, fast, go to church and bring it not to mind. Thing of those things that you can do and accept and for now don't not worry over those you can not.

In Christ.
Daniel,

[Darlene Griffith]

Darlene,

What you are holding onto is not the teaching of Scripture, but specifically a Calvinist interpretation of Scripture's teaching on the nature of man and his relationship to sin.
Anna,

Calvinist? I don't think so. I was among Calvinists for nearly a decade and have rejected their hopeless view of salvation. I reject:

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

Perhaps you can explain precisely and explicitly what you mean.

[Darlene Griffith]

I feel as though I was tricked into becoming Orthodox. Its been said that I studied my way into Orthodoxy, but obviously I didn't study enough. But really, I've only myself to blame. I wasn't diligent enough in studying all the Church's doctrines and practices.

[Anna Stickles]

Darlene, Originally I was going to try to walk you through things a step at a time, but I don't want to further frustrate you when it is already difficult. You said:


I was among Calvinists for nearly a decade and have rejected their hopeless view of salvation. I reject:

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

So I'll just sign out with the encouragement to keep on keeping on. :-)

The basic issue at stake here, which you cannot quite yet see, is that you are still holding on to a Calvinistic view of the Fall that sees the sin that entered at the fall in terms of causing a change of nature. The end result is that depending on how exactly it is articulated - by law or by nature we are now sinful as an unescapable reality. This is what is at the root of the quote of yours that I included in and tried to address in my "pretzel post" . All of these things you list are intimately tied up with this root issue, and you have obviously cut off a lot of the branches but the root is still there and effecting how you perceive God's economy of salvation.

But maybe it just needs time. I've found for myself in working through these issues that we can't force the process of cleansing and conversion that Christ is leading us through as we come into Orthodoxy. And for myself as I have worked through things I have found that often there are other things I have to understand first before a given particular thorny issue becomes clear.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Darlene:

Maybe take a look at this which I posted this morning on the 'Was it ever possible for our Lord Jesus Christ to have sinned' thread:


the focus for St Maximus is in addressing the question of how the human will chooses in reference to the Divine will. Here we can begin I think to see the crucial difference between Christ and us. When we choose what is of God we struggle towards this. Whereas with Christ even when humanly He expresses fear or hesitation, He assumes these things without being sinfully subject to them.

Instead in Christ, death and the human fear of it, is taken on but then immediately transformed into a means of life. And this is achieved by the free accord of Christ's human will with His divine will. In other words this response is not as ours is, as the result of choosing various options. Rather in Christ choice is made humanly towards what IS good, according to the will of His Father and in the Holy Spirit, and this choice is accomplished even through the pathway of human fear and doubt, so that in Christ human will responds freely to what is divine.

This in effect then is the distinction that we also refer to when we speak of the Theotokos and the saints. They share in the sinful condition. But they battle this back through ascetic effort so that from sinful will and desires they come to that place where sin- for example hesitation and fear about the will of God- is either becoming that purified life of faith as in the saints (and hopefully this refers to us also) or already has become so as with the Theotokos.

My words probably make things less clear than they could be. But my point about the absolute difference between how Christ's will works towards good as God and how the saint's will works is crucial. This difference makes all of the difference so that we really are saying that Christ with the Father & Holy Spirit is the One God & and that we are not saying that all of the saints-even the Theotokos- are equal to God; which would be the heresy of pantheism.

But nobody here is saying that Darlene. It's very important to grasp both sides of this- that Christ is sinless not through ascetic effort (which would make Christ no different than the saints); and that the saints and the Theotokos work towards the conquering of sin through ascetic effort.

What this comes down to then is whether it is possible to conquer sin in this way -ie to vanquish it in Christ so that while it is present it no longer holds onto and enslaves us. We believe that this indeed is possible since we already see the process at work in the saints. And so we have faith from what the Church conveys about the Theotokos that she was able to attain a state beyond the enslavement of sin consistent with the path that the other saints already have traveled.

When we say then about the Theotokos that she is sinless, we never mean this in the sense of her being sinless in the way that her Son is. We mean it rather in the sense of her having attained through Christ her Son that state which is promised to all of the saints if they will give of their lives to Christ.

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Darlene Griffith]

Darlene,

Do you believe that was Adam sinless before he fell?
Yes, I do. I don't subscribe to supralapsarianism, which many, but not all Calvinists do. I don't believe that we inherit Adam's sin or guilt. We are not responsible for Adam's sin, but only our own.

But perhaps you are on to something. From time to time, the ghosts of Calvinism haunt me. That's to be expected since I have close friends that are Calvinists.

[Daniel R.]

On the Commemoration of Saint Theodora at Vespers it says,

'The sun, setting beneath the earth, never saw thee sin;
and the Lord, Who knoweth men's hearts and seeth things hidden,
knew thee to be untiring *
and illumined the eyes of thy heart * with the light of repentance.
Wherefore, thou didst diligently strive to please Him
through painful abstinence * and the perfection of the virtues.'

Not sure this helps at all but I just thought I would say as this is a saint and not the Theotokos.

One thing I think what people are trying to say is like how the saints can be purified through theosis this is the same process and when they had got near the end of their life they would no longer sinned against God. And that the Theotokos did this from childhood now remember she was raised in the Temple (and I think had the Archangel Gabriel as her guardian angel) she did not choice not to sin on her own, she was still tempted to sin, she was still subject to sin and death, but she prayed to God and the Lord heard her, so she did not give in to sin. She still struggled and needed the Salvation of God, she needed Christ to be born to be crucified and to rise again. She was in no wise sinless by nature. Therefore she serves as an example to us that we may also choice not to sin but when tempted to turn to God.

Christ is sinless by nature the Only Begotton Son who is at the bosom of the Father could not sin for though he was tempted by the devil he was not tempted that is the devil tyried to tempt him but failed, not just to break Him but even to get Him to consider it, for at all times His human will is in accord with is divine will.

When we are tempted we are tempted, that is we are tempted to to wrong whether we fall or reject the idea. When Christ was tempted it was more like the devil asking him to do something that He did not even thing about doing not for a second but rejected it from before time beacuse of who He is.

So maybe 'for all have sinned [ἁμαρτία]' that is 'for all have missed the mark' means beacuse unlike Christ our very nature from the fall is subject to death and sin and we are tempted by sin and all have missed the mark. But not "for all have transgressed [παραβαίνω]".

Just some thoughts.

In Christ.
Daniel,

[Anna Stickles]

Yes, I do. I don't subscribe to supralapsarianism, which many, but not all Calvinists do. I don't believe that we inherit Adam's sin or guilt. We are not responsible for Adam's sin, but only our own.

But perhaps you are on to something. From time to time, the ghosts of Calvinism haunt me. That's to be expected since I have close friends that are Calvinists.

Yes, the ghosts of our past ways of thinking continue to haunt us for a long time because of how these ways of seeing things have become habits of mind. I have struggled and continue to struggle with this quite a bit.

[Darlene Griffith]

The basic issue at stake here, which you cannot quite yet see, is that you are still holding on to a Calvinistic view of the Fall that sees the sin that entered at the fall in terms of causing a change of nature.
I would disagree with you, and if you had the opportunity to sit down with me over tea in my home, we would be able to discuss this at length. It is persons that sin, not natures. This is a basic understanding of Orthodox anthropology.

The Calvinists believe that all humans inherit Adam's guilt and his sin. That is, they inherit his sin as if they committed it themselves. This fits in quite nicely then, with the teaching on Imputed Righteousness in which all who are regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are born again receive the righteousness of Christ, and God regards them as if they have lived the perfect, sinless life of Christ. Iow, God completely forgives their sins and in exchange for their sins God gives them the righteousness of Christ, not unlike that of wearing a cloak or outer garment. There was a popular Protestant song some time ago that said, "Clean before my Lord I stand and in me not one blemish does He see." It could be likened to the angel of death passing over the door of the Israelites because of the blood of the lamb.


The end result is that depending on how exactly it is articulated - by law or by nature we are now sinful as an unescapable reality.
I'm not quite sure what it is that you're saying here so I will explain in my words what I believe.

1. Every human being is subject to the Fall.
2. The consequences of the Fall are such that all human beings (given that they live long enough and have the capacity to understand right from wrong) are born into such a state that at some point they will choose to sin.
3. This choice to sin will be made with the full knowledge that what they are doing is wrong.
4. Being born into a state of immortality (as in Adam all die), the human race is subject to sin.
5. Christ bore the sins (the last Adam became a life-giving spirit) of ALL the human race at Calvary including the Theotokos.
6. Through Christ, any human being who has been born from above and received His life and the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit has power to overcome sin.
7. Each human being who misses the mark and sins, if in repentance and true humility asks for Christ's forgiveness, will receive His forgiveness because our God is merciful and compassionate.

And by the way, I attended a Wesleyan/Methodist college and am quite familiar with the teaching of sinless perfection and entire sanctification. But even in this teaching it is understood that all of the human race is subject to sin, with the only exception of Jesus Christ who is fully God and fully man. We were taught to seek entire sanctification, a spiritual condition/mindset in which a Christian's will is such that all his/her desires are to please God at all times = a state of sinless perfection.


This is what is at the root of the quote of yours that I included in and tried to address in my "pretzel post" . All of these things you list are intimately tied up with this root issue, and you have obviously cut off a lot of the branches but the root is still there and effecting how you perceive God's economy of salvation.
How I may perceive God's economy of salvation is one thing, and I grant you that I still need to mature and come to a better understanding. However, this subject has no bearing on the sinlessness of Mary. One can have a Scriptural understanding of salvation and be living in such a way as to attest to that very reality of what it is to be a Christian. Yet, the same person may not affirm the teaching of the sinlessness of Mary and that will have little bearing on their soteriology and the manner in which they live their faith. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

I have no doubt that there have been many faithful, devout Christians who have lived exemplary lives of what it means to love God, yet have not believed Mary to be sinless.

[Antonios]

2. The consequences of the Fall are such that all human beings (given that they live long enough and have the capacity to understand right from wrong) are born into such a state that at some point they will choose to sin.

This is true for me and for you and for every person who ever lived except for the Theotokos, which is why she was found worthy to become the Mother of God. I'm sorry you do not see the exceptionalism of the Virgin Mary. Is not the fact that she alone is the Mother of God exceptional? I think your stumbling block is because you think such exceptionalism would necessarily mean that she had no need for salvation through Christ. This is the root of your misunderstanding. You admit that an infant who has not sinned still dies, correct? That they feel hunger and pain and all the other effect on account of the fall? The Theotokos was born in the same vein, in the same fallen condition, and thus, without Christ, the Theotokos could not be saved from death. He is her Lord and Savior. At the same time she is His mother, the same mother whom He obeyed in the wedding at Cana even as He said "My hour has not come". If you can't see the exceptionalism in the person of the Theotokos, then it is very unfortunate. It was, after all, her flesh He assumed. It was her breasts He fed on. It was her arms He was coddled in and was nurtured. It was she alone who saw Him come into the world in the manger and leave the world on the cross. It was her intercession for the guests at the wedding which prompted Him to perform His first public miracle and turn the water into wine (even as He said His hour had not yet come).


4. Being born into a state of immortality (as in Adam all die), the human race is subject to sin.

The human race is subject to death from the fall. This is the ultimate effect of the fall - estrangement from God. In addition, as a consequence of the fall and because of such estrangement from God, our potentiality to sin has become a propensity to sin. However, acting on sin is NOT natural to us. It is in fact, that which is NOT natural to us and why we are said to 'miss the mark' when we sin. It is on account of our free will that we choose to sin (regardless of what Calvinists believe), and our subjection to sin is 'natural' to us only in that our will has been weakened because of the fall. This weakening does not mean however that we could not willfully always choose the good and never sin, for the potentiality to do this also exists, as rare as it would be. So rare, in fact, that only one person born of a mother and father was able to do this, and that is the person who gave birth to the Son of God.


5. Christ bore the sins (the last Adam became a life-giving spirit) of ALL the human race at Calvary including the Theotokos.

Christ bore the sins of all the human race on the Cross. Yes, of course. And because He did, He destroyed the power of death over the human race. This, however, is not any less true if the Theotokos had never sinned. The power of death still ruled over her even as she never chose to sin. Think about it: if this was not the case, then why do people die even after having confessed and received forgiveness on their death bed? If they received confession for their sins or are baptised on their death bed, why do they still die? Is not a person's sins cleansed at baptism and at confession? You are confusing our nature to die with our nature to sin. Death was introduce by sin, yes, but if one lives an entire life without sin, this does not overcome death. Think about Christ! We can both agree that Christ never sinned, but even still He died. His death, however, was different, because only by Christ, Who came from above, could death be destroyed, and that is why even as the Theotokos lived a life without sin, this was not enough to overcome the power of death, and why only by the work of Christ is she saved from death.


How I may perceive God's economy of salvation is one thing, and I grant you that I still need to mature and come to a better understanding. However, this subject has no bearing on the sinlessness of Mary.

If you confess that you still need to mature and come to a better understanding, then why are you so quick to throw away any progress you have made because of something that you can't understand? If the sinlessness of Mary is a stumbling block to you, then put it aside for now and pray for understanding.


One can have a Scriptural understanding of salvation and be living in such a way as to attest to that very reality of what it is to be a Christian. Yet, the same person may not affirm the teaching of the sinlessness of Mary and that will have little bearing on their soteriology and the manner in which they live their faith.

You think this may be true, but I would disagree. Such soteriology you speak of would not be orthodox and could very well affect the way one live's their faith. For example, ordained clergy members who speak against the sinlessness of the Theotokos are not only affecting their faith (even as they sing the hymns of the Church which profess this and serve in the feasts which celebrate this), but are affecting the faith of those they have been called to serve.


I have no doubt that there have been many faithful, devout Christians who have lived exemplary lives of what it means to love God, yet have not believed Mary to be sinless.

There have been many faithful, devout Christians who have lived exemplary lives of what it means to love God who have believed in all KINDS of things, some of which should not be mentioned. This, however, does not mean we should separate ourselves from the Church so that we can justify in our minds our own personal beliefs and understandings over the explicit teachings of the Church.

[Father David Moser]

We believe that the Virgin Mary did indeed live a sinless life. This is, as Fr Irenei has shown, very prominently stated in the services and prayers of the Church. However, her sinlessness is the result of her own effort and falls under the statement of Apostle Paul that "our righteousness is as filthy rags before God". Yes, she was sinless, but that isn't enough - she needs to be filled with grace as well and that required the work of Christ.

If the Virgin Mary, who was sinless, requires the grace of God to be saved - how much more do we, who are full of sin, require that grace. And, if I may say so in relation to this whole conversation - how is it that we who are full of sin dare to judge anyone, and especially the All-pure Virgin.

Fr David Moser

[Aidan Kimel]

Achieving a genuine understanding of the Orthodox understanding of sin, sinfulness, and sinlessness is exceptionally difficult for us converts, especially for those of who have been formed by Reformed and Lutheran theology. The simple fact is, whether for good or ill, the anti-Pelagian controversy did not significantly impact the Eastern Church as it did the Western Church. Consequently, Orthodoxy has a different understanding of the relationship of grace and human freedom than does Western Christianity, though it is difficult to articulate what this difference is. To Western ears, some Orthodox teachers really do sound like Pelagians: "if you pray and work long and hard enough, you too can become sinless." It sounds like salvation through the ascetical disciplines. Grace slips in somewhere through the invocation of synergism, but it seems to take a back seat. This is a caricature, I know.

Matters have become more complicated since the Latin dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception. My impression is that some Orthodox theologians have over-responded to this doctrine, by either denying the sinlessness of the Theotokos or by over-statomg the autonomous freedom of every human being to live sinlessly.
I have personally come to the conclusion that the mystery of grace and free will is unanalyzable. What gets stated and stressed all depends on the needs of the theological and pastoral moment. My understanding of these matters has not changed much since I last meditated on the subject: "The Sinlessness of the Theotokos and St John the Forerunner (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29805.0.html)." Perhaps one day some Orthodox theologian will be able to explain everything to me to my satisfaction. I am waiting.

Until that day, we are left with the deep Orthodox conviction of the sinlessness of the Theotokos ... but not only her but also St John the Baptist and perhaps other Old Testament saints. Converts to Orthodoxy, especially converts from Protestantism, need to revise their anti-Pelagianism in light of this conviction. I just do not know what precisely needs to be revised. But the place to begin our reflections is on God's sanctifying and purifying work within Israel and the holy ancestors of Christ.

Fr Patrick has criticized my recommendation of Sergius Bulgakov's The Burning Bush, but not only will I continue to recommend it, but I am also going to recommend Bulgakov's book on St John: The Friend of the Bridegroom. I do so not because I believe that Bulgakov's sophiology is beyond serious critique but because I believe that in these two books Bulgakov is reflecting deeply on truths he has received in the life of the Church.

Fr Aidan

[Anna Stickles]

Matters have become more complicated since the Latin dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception. My impression is that some Orthodox theologians have over-responded to this doctrine, by either denying the sinlessness of the Theotokos or by over-statomg the autonomous freedom of every human being to live sinlessly. ...

But the place to begin our reflections is on God's sanctifying and purifying work within Israel and the holy ancestors of Christ.

Fr Aidan,

I appreciate your reflections here. One thing I have found in my reading of the ascetical literature and lives of the saints is that as far as I understand it Orthodoxy doesn't teach that we are all born in the same state of soul. I am open to correction if I am wrong, as this is observation from empirical evidence rather then taken from an particular Patristic theolgian. But it seems that just as our individual bodies are born in various states of health, illness, so too we are born with souls that can vary in how deeply they are effected by the Fall. This does not seem to be something generally recognized in the West.

My personal opinion is that the Theotokos, by God's providence was conceived with a soul fully alive, fully healthy, not according to her own virtue but as the culmination of the efforts of the OT saints and God's providence for the salvation of mankind. No NT author has ever said that the grace in the Law was empty, only that it was incomplete. The sacramental grace present in the OT dispensation was there preparing the way for Christ to be born, preparing the way for the Theotokos to be what she is. Her freedom was exercised to preserve this inviolate, but no one is autonomous, we are all interdependent.

[Archimandrite Irenei]

Dear Fr Aidan,

Thank you for your reflection. I found it both honest and reflective of a truly Orthodox position. And you are quite right that the misunderstanding of sin is one of the key issues with which people in western cultures struggle -- so strong has been the influence of understandings of it that come from outside the Orthodox tradition. This has been extremely apparent on these recent threads, where a misunderstanding of what 'sin' and 'sinless' mean has led people to deny both Church teaching and other resources, holding fast to a view that is grounded in understandings quite far from the mind of the Church.

INXC, Fr Irenei

[Darlene Griffith]

I've read what has been said here and still am unconvinced of Mary's sinlessness. And I thought Orthodoxy always looks at everything through the lens of Christ. The problem is, we're not behaving much different from the Protestants who toss verses back and forth at each other, each trying to emphatically defend his/her position. Only here it's philosophical arguments that turn on themselves. Boiling it down to simple terms this is what I hear:

Jesus is sinless.
Mary is sinless too, but in a different sense than Jesus.
However I still have to use the word sinless to describe Mary, even though her sinlessness is different than Jesus' sinlessness.
Her sinlessness is different because she had to exert her own will and consciously choose the good at every turn.
Of course, she couldn't help but choose the good, since she was already cleansed from sin in the womb of her mother.
So, how does this make her different from Jesus in the final analysis?
Conclusion = It was not possible for Jesus to sin. It was not possible for Mary to sin.

This is misleading, good intentions notwithstanding. Who's changing the definitions of sin here anyway? I have a host of reasons why I cannot accept this teaching. My biggest problem with most of the answers I've seen thus far is not only do they ignore what Holy Scripture says about the condition of ALL human persons born after the Fall, they also contradict what Holy Scriptures say.

I got it. The Theotokos was somehow cleansed of all sin prior to being born but after her conception she never committed any actual sins always doing what was pleasing to God.

Problem 1: Since she was born into the world a perfect human being, it wasn't possible for her to sin. So, her ascetical efforts in always choosing to do what was right are meaningless. She couldn't do anything otherwise. There was only ever one option for her and that was not to sin. This, in my understanding, puts her right on par with Jesus.

Problem 2: Since she never sinned, she never had to repent. Never having had to repent, she never had to ask for forgiveness. I thought Jesus came not to save the righteous, but the sinners. That doesn't look good for a sinless Theotokos.

I've got more difficulties, lots more. By the time I'm done with this subject, I may have enough to write a 50 page essay!

[Darlene Griffith]

Oh, and the East vs West argument gets overused and old, like a worn out shoe. It boils down to: East is good. West is bad. East is theologically pure. West is theologically defiled. etc, etc, etc. It begins to sound a bit sanctimonious after awhile.

[Darlene Griffith]

Fr Patrick has criticized my recommendation of Sergius Bulgakov's The Burning Bush, but not only will I continue to recommend it, but I am also going to recommend Bulgakov's book on St John: The Friend of the Bridegroom. I do so not because I believe that Bulgakov's sophiology is beyond serious critique but because I believe that in these two books Bulgakov is reflecting deeply on truths he has received in the life of the Church.
And I hope Fr Patrick continues to criticize Sergius Bulgakov's writings on Mary. They border on blasphemy. If I'm not mistaken, a holy hierarch from San Francisco rejected Bulgakov's writings as well, and was rather vocal about it.

[Father David Moser]

I've read what has been said here and still am unconvinced of Mary's sinlessness.

After reading this thread and your protestations for a few weeks now, I would like to share the response of Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco to a similar line of questioning - perhaps it will help. There was a woman in one of his parishes who came up to him during one of his visits and began asking all kinds of questions about the beliefs of the Church. He patiently answered question after question. When it became apparent that there was no end to the questions and that his questioner was not to be convinced, the Archbishop said to her that she should attend all the services of the Church and listen carefully to the hymns and then after doing this for a year (or maybe it was three, I forget) she should come back and ask whatever questions remained. After that year (or three) had passed, Archbishop Anthony was again visiting the parish, but his questioner had no further questions for him, they had all been answered by the services of the Church.

Maybe that's what is needed here - less talking and more praying. Go to the services of the Church, listen carefully to the hymns. Pray to the Mother of God and ask her to reveal the truth to you.

Fr David Moser

[Archimandrite Irenei]

Dear in the Lord, Darlene,

I do not myself believe there is anything more pious about eastern, versus western, thought. I believe that in the above comments the modes of western intellectual analysis have been mentioned, not as a general commentary on western thinking or any claim of eastern triumphalism, but rather because in the matter to hand (that is, definitions of sin and how to view its relationship to purity and redemption), the alternative views that have been put forward in the current discussion are in fact directly related to expressions of western analysis and theological expression that have become almost classic examples of a genre.

As to your potential problems: the doctrine of the Orthodox Church is not that the Virgin was incapable of sin -- and transfiguration in God (which is the aim of every Christian person) is never equivalent to becoming God by nature, which is what would be required for such a claim. To be transfigured in Christ is the perfection of human freedom, not its loss.

As to the second: once again, this is an intellectual trap that is forced upon you by how you are defining sin, repentance and salvation. I entirely agree with you that, from that standpoint of what sin must mean, and how redemption must relate to acts of personal sin, such a position does not make sense. However, that standpoint is not the view of sin, repentance and salvation that we find in the hymns, the Fathers, or their understanding of the Scriptures.

As to the broader concern that the Church's doctrine somehow contradicts the Scriptures: this is, again, an issue of the pretext that you bring to your reading. You clearly have a rather well developed view of certain concepts (sin, salvation, redemption) and how passages in Scripture are to be read, which you bring to your reading, gained from some source or background other than the teachings of the Orthodox Church. This is fair enough -- one comes into the Church from whatever background one has. But what you are persisting in reading as a contradiction with the Scriptures is in point of fact a contradiction with your pre-determined interpretation of what the Scriptures mean. The Church herself grounds her proclamation in her Scriptures; the hymns of the feasts that extol the Virgin's purity and freedom from the taint of sin, do so in texts that are laden with Scriptural quotations, allusions, references. The Fathers who commentate on these themes, do so in harmony with the reading of the Scriptures. What is really at question here is how you approach the Scriptures, and derive your understanding from them. If you have already developed your view of what certain terms, concepts and ideas must mean, then of course you will find places where the Church says something different, and from your perspective the Church's teachings will appear to go 'against' Scripture. But this really is not the case.

Finally, I realise that on the internet things tend to get discussed in quite 'intellectual' terms, however I do not feel it is correct to suggest that the discussion here is proceeding by 'philosophical arguments', turning in on themselves or otherwise. What we have is a clear and straightforward teaching presented by the Church as her own. It is not a debating point. However, when contemporary minds struggle with it, they are forced into at times quite bizarre philosophical acrobatics to defend their dissent; and to this we try as much as is beneficial to respond to those intellectual concerns in a way that points the intellect back toward the teaching of the Church. But at the end of the day, as at its beginning, the Church's teaching here is very clear, straightforward, and unambiguous. Where our minds falter because we've inherited concepts, readings, paradigms, etc. that make the Church's proclamation challenging to us, that make it seem to be senseless to us, then we must learn to behold in the Church a wisdom greater than our own, and seek the conversion of our minds to the teaching of Christ in His Church.

INXC, Fr Irenei

[Antonios]

I've read what has been said here and still am unconvinced of Mary's sinlessness. And I thought Orthodoxy always looks at everything through the lens of Christ. The problem is, we are not unlike the Protestants who toss verses back and forth at each other, each trying to emphatically defend his/her position. I have a host of reasons why I cannot accept this teaching. My biggest problem with most of the answers I've seen thus far is not only do they ignore what Holy Scripture says about the condition of ALL human persons born after the Fall, they also contradict what Holy Scriptures say.

I got it. The Theotokos was somehow cleansed of all sin prior to being born but after her conception. She never committed any actual sins always doing what was pleasing to God.

Problem 1: Since she was born into the world a perfect human being, it wasn't possible for her to sin. So, her ascetical efforts in always choosing to do what was right are meaningless. She couldn't do anything otherwise. There was only ever one option for her and that was not to sin. This, in my understanding, puts her right on par with Jesus.

No, Darlene, you keep missing the point made over and over again. She was not born a perfect human being- she was born in the fallen human condition just like everyone else with the potential to sin, and it was always possible for her to sin. Instead, and unique to her (the one God chose to become the pure and holy living tabernacle of God incarnate), by her ascetical life in humble obedience to God, she did not commit sin. She COULD sin, but she did not. There is nothing meaningless at all in this, in fact, this is why she is regarded as 'more honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim'. She was not an automaton of God's grace, but a willing and obedient servant who found favor with God, enough so that He sent His Archangel Gabriel to her to announce the good news and His Holy Spirit into her and assumed her spotless flesh.

IN CONTRAST, Her Son Jesus Christ, Who IS perfect by nature (perfect Man and perfect God) COULD NOT sin.

This is why He is God and she is His creature.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand but it must do with your preconceived Protestant beliefs and the misunderstanding of Scripture you keep referring to regarding the nature of sin and the human condition.

We are ALL in need of salvation in Christ, the Theotokos included, because without Christ, then there is no resurrection into life, there is no restoration and reconciliation. Infants who die without sin still die. And children who die without sin still die. And adults who die without sin still die. Death, which was introduced before we came to be and which became our nature could not be overcome by following the law and living a sinless and righteous life. Something greater and before us needed to remedy this. Only by God coming down and lifting us up has death been overcome, and this is how Christ saves me and you and the Theotokos and why all three of us call Him our Lord and God.


Problem 2: Since she never sinned, she never had to repent. Never having had to repent, she never had to ask for forgiveness. I thought Jesus came not to save the righteous, but the sinners. That doesn't look good for a sinless Theotokos.

And what is it to you if she never had to repent? Worry about your own sins and stop judging the Mother of God.


I've got more difficulties, lots more. By the time I'm done with this subject, I may have enough to write a 50 page essay!

You would do better by reading the Fathers and studying the hymnology of the Church and praying to God for understanding in all this. You are making this much more complicated then it needs to be and it has to do with what has been ingrained in your head over years as a Protestant. Humble yourself, check your baggage at the door, learn to listen to the wisdom of the Church and stop kicking against the goads. You can bring up all the Scripture versus you want and Protestant talking points you wish, but without the foundational understanding of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, then you risk making an idol of the Scriptures and even worse, an idol of your own mind's interpretation of the Scriptures.

Forgive me, please, Darlene, for my harshness. I'm just trying to help.

[Antonios]

Darlene, I just saw what Father David and Father Irenei posted above. Listen to them and learn from them. Take my posts with little attention, as I am not a spiritual guide or pastor or teacher and my words may actually do the opposite of what I am trying to do. I just read your post in the other thread and see that this is a major struggle of faith for you and I am sorry that you are going through this. I will stay out of this conversation from here on out. I urge you to be patient and to pray. This is really the best advice I can give.

[Darlene Griffith]

And what is it to you if she never had to repent? Worry about your own sins and stop judging the Mother of God.
Don't assume I don't worry about my own sins. If anything, I suffer from scrupulosity that reaches perilous dimensions at times . It may not appear that way here on Monachos, however. The persona that tends to emerge in debate here just obscures the real me. Trust me on this one.


Forgive me, please, Darlene, for my harshness. I'm just trying to help.
Antonio, you don't even come close to some Calvinist's I've rubbed elbows with in debate. You'll never know the levels that harshness can reach until you've disagreed with a Calvinist. Trust me on this one too. ;-)

[Kosta]

I have to add that the Orthodox church does not define WHEN the Theotokos became sinless. In the latin doctrine of the immaculate conception, the when is meticulously defined at the certain point in time (at the very moment of conception). Whether we say the Theotokos remained sinless from the womb or was cleansed at the Annunciation or at Pentecost, we are simply expressing our opinion for the Church has not defined this. If a person is baptised, his sins are wiped away and if the baptized happens to die immediately after baptism then he dies sinless. Likewise an infant is considered sinless. We must keep in mind that the process of divinization which is a mystery.

The service of the entry into the temple explains that she is sent their to be'safeguarded' (meaning she could fall to sin) and to be 'prepared' to recieve God:

"Ann the all-blessed cried out rejoicing: 'O Zacharias take her whom the prophets of God proclaimed in the Spirit, and lead her into the holy temple, there to be brought up in reverence, that she may become the divine Throne of the Master of all, His palace, His resting place, and his dwelling filled with light."

"The Theotokos, glorious fruit of a sacred promise, is truly revealed unto the world as higher than all creation. Piously lead into the House of God, she fullfills the vow of her parents and she is preserved by the Holy Spirit"...

Here is another example taken from the Matins service of the Entry into the temple:
"Mary without spot rejoiced in body and spirit, dwelling as a sacred vessel in the temple of the Lord. Recieving heavenly food, she who was to become the Mother of Christ the Savior according to the flesh increased in wisdom and grace. Thy wise parents led thee to the innermost part of the temple, O undefiled Virgin, there to be brought up in strange fashion and prepared as dwelling place for Christ our God."

Should we conclude that the phrase; 'Mary without spot rejoiced in body and spirit' mean she was without sin from the womb? One can hold this opinion, on the other hand this is what the matinal canon of the Anunciation teaches (which is written in the form of a conversation between the Theotokos and the Archangel Gabriel):

Theotokos: Recieving the glad tidings, O Gabriel, I am filled with divine joy. For thou dost speak to me of joy, a joy without end.
Angel Gabriel: Divine Joy is given to thee, O Mother of God....(Canticle 6)

Theotokos: The descent of the Holy Spirit has purified my soul and sanctified my body: It has made of me a Temple that contains God, a Tabernacle divinely adorned, a living sanctuary and the pure Mother of Life...(canticle 7)

The phrase, 'Mary the spotless one rejoiced in body and spirit' makes more sense in the context of the matinal canon of the Anunciation. The angel brought her the good news and imparted divine joy within her. At that moment she was overshadowed by the descent of the holy spirit making both her body and soul "spotless".

[Antonios]

Antonio, you don't even come close to some Calvinist's I've rubbed elbows with in debate. You'll never know the levels that harshness can reach until you've disagreed with a Calvinist. Trust me on this one too. ;-)

Come now, Darlene, it's not their fault. How can it be their fault when they have no will! ;)

[Herman Blaydoe]

You and I (and presumably the Theotokos) face decisions to give in to sin or not, every day, perhaps even every minute. Sometimes we actually decide NOT to give in to sin. Some are better at this than others. The great theologians of the Church have written mountains of literature on how to do this, on how to be "perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect". It is an achieveable goal, to become consistant in not sinning, to become a better marksman such that we can "hit the mark" each and every time. Some will do it sooner than others. Is it so hard to believe that perhaps, of all people, the Theotokos was better at this, more consistant, at an earlier stage (perhaps even from the start), than others? She who was dedicated to God at a very early age by very pious parents, who lived in the Temple, and who was closer to Christ than anyone could possibly be since she carried Him in her own body?

This is ALL about Christ. The Theotokos would not be the Theotokos without Christ. How can it be anything except about Christ? If Christ can help us achieve a state where we no longer sin (it can happen or our Lord Himself is a liar), doesn't it make sense that Christ might be able to help His own mother to do so?

[Darlene Griffith]

Theotokos: The descent of the Holy Spirit has purified my soul and sanctified my body: It has made of me a Temple that contains God, a Tabernacle divinely adorned, a living sanctuary and the pure Mother of Life...(canticle 7)

The phrase, 'Mary the spotless one rejoiced in body and spirit' makes more sense in the context of the matinal canon of the Anunciation. The angel brought her the good news and imparted divine joy within her. At that moment she was overshadowed by the descent of the holy spirit making both her body and soul "spotless".
And this I can beleive. (as per what I have bolded.). Again, though, what is bolded is quite different than what others are saying about the sinlessness of the Theotokos.

[Darlene Griffith]

You and I (and presumably the Theotokos) face decisions to give in to sin or not, every day, perhaps even every minute. So true.


Sometimes we actually decide NOT to give in to sin.Glory to God!


Some are better at this than others. The great theologians of the Church have written mountains of literature on how to do this, on how to be "perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect". Yes, I would agree that some are better at this, although I would prefer to say more ardent and dilligent to guard their souls.


It is an achieveable goal, to become consistant in not sinning, to become a better marksman such that we can "hit the mark" each and every time. Some will do it sooner than others.I heard this teaching while attending a Wesleyan/Methodist college in the form of Sinless Perfection and Entire Sanctification. I can accept that it very well may be true. I think, perhaps there are those who have been an example of what the Scriptures attest, "...whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin." But this testifies of a process, and with an understanding that sin has been committed previously prior to arriving at this state.


Is it so hard to believe that perhaps, of all people, the Theotokos was better at this, more consistant, at an earlier stage (perhaps even from the start), than others? She who was dedicated to God at a very early age by very pious parents, who lived in the Temple, and who was closer to Christ than anyone could possibly be since she carried Him in her own body?
It's not hard to believe at all. In fact, I do believe that the Theotokos was more consistent at being faithful to God than any other human being. As a "mere" human being, (how Fr.Thomas Hopko puts it) she is THE prime, THE quintessential, THE unique and best example of a Christian to all of us. There is none, no one, anybody, that compares with the blessed Theotokos. She outshines us all! However, to agree to all that is bolded above is not affirming that Mary was sinless, and never ever missed the mark her entire life.


This is ALL about Christ. The Theotokos would not be the Theotokos without Christ.Amen. And as I've heard it said, the gospel is not about Mary, but Mary is all about the gospel.


How can it be anything except about Christ? If Christ can help us achieve a state where we no longer sin (it can happen or our Lord Himself is a liar), doesn't it make sense that Christ might be able to help His own mother to do so?
Achieve, as in achieve at some point, most certainly yes. Achieve as to begin accomplishing at some point, yes. To achieve without ever one set back, without ever missing the mark, not once, nada....Nope, don't accept it.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Darlene,

You wrote:


It's not hard to believe at all. In fact, I do believe that the Theotokos was more consistent at being faithful to God than any other human being. As a "mere" human being, (how Fr.Thomas Hopko puts it) she is THE prime, THE quintessential, THE unique and best example of a Christian to all of us. There is none, no one, anybody, that compares with the blessed Theotokos. She outshines us all! However, to agree to all that is bolded above is not affirming that Mary was sinless, and never ever missed the mark her entire life.

in reply to:


Is it so hard to believe that perhaps, of all people, the Theotokos was better at this, more consistant, at an earlier stage (perhaps even from the start), than others? She who was dedicated to God at a very early age by very pious parents, who lived in the Temple, and who was closer to Christ than anyone could possibly be since she carried Him in her own body?

Can you not see that your reply is theoretical and based on what you believe the power of sin to be? Instead why not begin by acknowledging the power of Christ to overcome death and sin? From here then why not acknowledge that yes- sin in its personal manifestations can here indeed be so trampled down through Christ, that only outward temptations remain, not acted upon? Why not even get to the point where it is acknowledged that those who act in this manner still die in the physical sense- but in them the corrosive forces of death draw back to greater or lesser degrees?

If you can then allow your mind and heart to get to this place through an ascetic effort of self restraint of all previous mental and emotional habits- well blessed are you! For then you see the power of Christ and His true gift and something of its extent in the saints, in the Theotokos, and potentially in us.

To deny this though although it sounds like a defense Christ's prerogative actually ends up in denial of His gift to us and power; plus its manifestations in the Church which are there for us to see.

Therefore it is highly unlikely that anyone Orthodox will ever dare to openly backtrack of such a position of sinlessness of the Theotokos. The actual position has been outlined many, many times to reveal that no one is claiming equality with Christ (which is a heresy anyway). But this doesn't mean that on the other hand we fall into something just as grievous- to deny that Christ may sanctify us to an extent beyond expectation and that beginning right now.

But to hop on board as others are saying in various ways- you have to set aside to previous habits of mind and thought and emotion. Again as others are explaining so well, this is baggage and must be set aside for you to experience what others are trying to explain.

There's no cheating allowed when it comes to Christ. To know what His promise is of us being able to fly means, you first have to experience itself. And to do that we have to lay aside the heavy baggage that keeps us chained to the earth. Take a chance and fly!

In Christ-
Fr Raphael

[Aidan Kimel]

May I also recommend the homilies of St Gregory Palamas on the Theotokos: Mary the Mother of God (http://www.amazon.com/Mary-Mother-God-Sermons-Gregory/dp/0977498301). After reading these homilies, then ask yourself this question: Could St Gregory ever have entertained the proposition that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a sinner, in the way that most other adults, even the most saintly, are sinners? I really do not think he could have. The difficult question is, why?

Orthodox devotion to the Theotokos and St John the Forerunner invite us, I think, to temporarily bracket our theories of universal human sinfulness. Orthodox Christianity know all about the totalitarian pervasiveness of human sinfulness, and it certainly knows what the Bible teaches about sin, and yet it dares to speak the personal holiness of these two individuals in ways that appear to suggest that neither were personally guilty of sin. It has refused to allow theory to annul the truths about the Theotokos and Forerunner that it knows in its deepest heart.

I am as perplexed by all of this as the next person. There is mystery here. It is a mystery that is expressed in the Deisis and the close connection between the Synaxis of the Theotokos and the Synaxis of John the Forerunner. My knowledge of these matters is so exceptionally limited that I hesitate to say very much. But I just want to caution against allowing theory to exclude truths and realities that do not neatly fit into our categories.

[Archimandrite Irenei]

Dear Father Aidan, you wrote, concerning the Church's teachings on the Theotokos living without sin:


It has refused to allow theory to annul the truths about the Theotokos and Forerunner that it knows in its deepest heart.

This is wonderfully put. It also sums up nicely what we've seen across this discussion: namely, that the 'theorisations' of our intellect are what often cause us so much trouble -- but toward these the Church proclaims her simple truths. Simple does not mean 'easy'; which is something you also hinted at:


I am as perplexed by all of this as the next person. There is mystery here. It is a mystery that is expressed in the Deisis and the close connection between the Synaxis of the Theotokos and the Synaxis of John the Forerunner. My knowledge of these matters is so exceptionally limited that I hesitate to say very much. But I just want to caution against allowing theory to exclude truths and realities that do not neatly fit into our categories.

Thank you for these comments!

INXC, Fr Irenei

[Paul Cowan]

The following is more concerning her holiness than her sinlessness, but is written in the first person by Hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite the Bishop of Athens in the year 57AD.

During the lifetime of the Mother of God, St Dionysius had journeyed from Athens to Jerusalem to meet Her. He wrote to his teacher the Apostle Paul: "I witness by God, that besides the very God Himself, there is nothing else filled with such divine power and grace. No one can fully comprehend what I saw. I confess before God: when I was with John, who shone among the Apostles like the sun in the sky, when I was brought before the countenance of the Most Holy Virgin, I experienced an inexpressible sensation. Before me gleamed a sort of divine radiance which transfixed my spirit. I perceived the fragrance of indescribable aromas and was filled with such delight that my very body became faint, and my spirit could hardly endure these signs and marks of eternal majesty and heavenly power. The grace from her overwhelmed my heart and shook my very spirit. If I did not have in mind your instruction, I should have mistaken Her for the very God. It is impossible to stand before greater blessedness than this which I beheld."

[Anna Stickles]

Instead, and unique to her (the one God chose to become the pure and holy living tabernacle of God incarnate), by her ascetical life in humble obedience to God, she did not commit sin. She COULD sin, but she did not. There is nothing meaningless at all in this, in fact, this is why she is regarded as 'more honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim'.

I don't mean to pick on honest mistakes, but since this is such a sensitive issue, I thought that maybe the above was worth a correction. She is not regarded as "more honorable than the cherubim..." because she was sinless, but because she has entered into the deified state that Christ has bestowed upon the human race through adopting it at the incarnation and raising it up be seated at the right hand of God far above all "rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come." (Eph 1:20-21) at the resurrection.

Even the overshadowing by the Holy Spirit at the Conception, was not a state of glory like that which the human race, and she at her Assumption, receives as a result of the resurrection.

It is precisely setting her apart this way, saying that she has inherited something due to her special dispensation of being blameless from birth that is above simply what it means to be fully human that we have to avoid. To be first in glory and to have inherited this most fully, we can say, but not putting her in a separate category.


3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves

18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

May God answer St Paul's prayer and may we be enabled to receive from the Church in her hymnography and hagiography God's provision for this prayer to become true in us.

[Herman Blaydoe]

The very interesting but off-topic postings on hermeneutics have been moved to a new thread: Orthodox Hermeneutics (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?8708-Orthodox-Hermeneutics)

Herman the moderating Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I came across this today in St Athanasius. I post it because it relates directly to a question that was previously raised in this thread of whether humanity in Christ can attain sinlessness. I have underlined the particular passages related to this. But really the whole section sets the context for the point that was previously made in this thread.

St Athanasius: Against the Pagans; Part 2

In the beginning evil did not exist. Nor indeed does it exist even now in those who are holy, nor does it in any way belong to their nature. But men later on began to contrive it and to elaborate it to their own hurt. Whence also they devised the invention of idols, treating what was not as though it were. 2. For God Maker of all and King of all, that has His Being beyond all substance and human discovery, inasmuch as He is good and exceeding noble, made, through His own Word our Saviour Jesus Christ, the human race after His own image, and constituted man able to see and know realities by means of this assimilation to Himself, giving him also a conception and knowledge even of His own eternity, in order that, preserving his nature intact, he might not ever either depart from his idea of God, nor recoil from the communion of the holy ones; but having the grace of Him that gave it, having also God's own power from the Word of the Father, he might rejoice and have fellowship with the Deity, living the life of immortality unharmed and truly blessed. For having nothing to hinder his knowledge of the Deity, he ever beholds, by his purity, the Image of the Father, God the Word, after Whose image he himself is made. He is awe-struck as he contemplates that Providence which through the Word extends to the universe, being raised above the things of sense and every bodily appearance, but cleaving to the divine and thought-perceived things in the heavens by the power of his mind. 3. For when the mind of men does not hold converse with bodies, nor has mingled with it from without anything of their lust, but is wholly above them, dwelling with itself as it was made to begin with, then, transcending the things of sense and all things human, it is raised up on high; and seeing the Word, it sees in Him also the Father of the Word, taking pleasure in contemplating Him, and gaining renewal by its desire toward Him; 4. exactly as the first of men created, the one who was named Adam in Hebrew, is described in the Holy Scriptures as having at the beginning had his mind to God-ward in a freedom unembarrassed by shame, and as associating with the holy ones in that contemplation of things perceived by the mind which he enjoyed in the place where he was— the place which the holy Moses called in figure a Garden. So purity of soul is sufficient of itself to reflect God, as the Lord also says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

[Anna Stickles]

Tertullian also speaks of this -although I think that other Fathers would not say two parts, but more correctly, two modes of action or two energies.


"That position of Plato’s is also quite in keeping with the faith, in which he divides the soul into two parts—the rational and the irrational. To this definition we take no exception, except that we would not ascribe this twofold distinction to the nature (of the soul). It is the rational element which we must believe to be its natural condition, impressed upon it from its very first creation by its Author, who is Himself essentially rational. For how should that be other than rational, which God produced on His own prompting; nay more, which He expressly sent forth by His own afflatus or breath? The irrational element, however, we must understand to have accrued later, as having proceeded from the instigation of the serpent—the very achievement of (the first) transgression—which thenceforward became inherent in the soul, and grew with its growth, assuming the manner by this time of a natural development, happening as it did immediately at the beginning of nature.

But, inasmuch as the same Plato speaks of the rational element only as existing in the soul of God Himself, if we were to ascribe the irrational element likewise to the nature which our soul has received from God, then the irrational element will be equally derived from God, as being a natural production, because God is the author of nature. Now from the devil proceeds the incentive to sin. All sin, however, is irrational: therefore the irrational proceeds from the devil, from whom sin proceeds; and it is extraneous to God, to whom also the irrational is an alien principle. On the Soul ch 16

This idea of evil not being part of our nature, but also how since the fall it becomes an accretion we need to be separated from is also in St Macarius' 2nd homily


1. LET us beseech GOD that he would divest us of the old man, because he alone is able to take away sin from us, they being stronger than us, that have taken us captive, and detain us prisoners in their own kingdom. But he has promised to rescue us from this sore bondage. As when the sun shines, and the wind blows, the sun indeed has a distinct nature of his own, and the wind likewise another nature, and yet no man is able to make an actual separation of the wind from the suns unless GOD alone shall make the wind to cease, that it may blow no longer;-even so is sin blended with the soul, although both retain their own nature. It is impossible therefore to separate the soul from sin, unless GOD make a calm, and put a stop to this evil wind, which dwells in the soul and body. 2. And again, as a man that sees a bird flying may desire also to fly himself, but not having wings, it is impossible he should fly;-just so a man may be willing to be pure, and without blame, and without spot, and to be always with GOD; but he has not wherewithal to compass it. He is willing to fly up into the divine air, and into the liberty of the Holy Spirit; but, unless he receive wings for his purpose, he can never do it. 3. Let us therefore beseech GOD that he would give us " the wings of the dove," his Holy Spirit, that so " we may fly to him and be at rest;" and that he would separate the evil wind, and cause it to cease from us both in soul and body: for he only is able to bring it to pass."

Tertullian also hints in ch 11 of On the Soul that the soul when conceived partakes of neither the Spirit nor the irrationality of Satan but as it grows then starts to incline in one direction or another. If we say that the Theotokos was holy from birth, then is this simply to say that from birth her soul inclined toward God and thus was preserved unto God, separated from sin?

But this becomes a problem in a culture that sees sin only in terms of the conscious choices we make. In the way that our culture understands children, they cannot be holy, nor evil as something they themselves chose, because they are not making rational, self-reflective choices. In this understanding then to say that one child is preserved holy and others are not seems unfair of God, because the holiness or sinfulness of the child is seen as an act of God not having anything to do with the choice of the child.

I think though in Orthodoxy there is understanding that even babies are not animals operating by instinct, but have a spirit that can incline toward evil or good even before they are self-consciously aware of this. There are many who obviously do incline to sin, who even from very little infants are throwing temper tantrums when they don't get their way, who defend their bodily freedom kicking and crying when picked up or restrained, who are digging a pit which God then has to rescue them from later in life if they choose to cooperate with His Love. And there are also some saints who seem never to have inclined toward sin, or only for a short time and a small degree such that their life was always close to God. St Matrona of Moscow comes to mind. And so it is not far out to say that even from conception the spirit of the Theotokos was inclined toward God and:

preserving her nature intact, she might not ever either depart from his idea of God, nor recoil from the communion of the holy ones; but having the grace of Him that gave it, having also God's own power from the Word of the Father, she might rejoice and have fellowship with the Deity, living the life of immortality unharmed and truly blessed....
But this whole way of looking at things challenges our cultural perception of children, and also as I said does not fit with a view of sin that sees it only as a conscious choice rather then as a spiritual inclination that is preconscious and yet that we are part of and therefore to some extent responsible for.

For this understanding to really sink in though, we have to remove the whole idea of guilt and blame and simply trust in the mystery of the freedom of each soul, and also God's providence for each person that never allows things out of His hand, nor beyond the scope of His love.