| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ICXCNIKA
Starting Member
27 Posts |
 Posted - 03/07/2010 : 20:43:42
|
Hi all. I was hoping I could get some help with this topic. I was on the byzcath forum and an Orthodox priest said that the official Orthodox position is that the Theotokos never sinned. I have to admit I have never heard that before. I thought it might just be me so I asked friends from both my current parish and some from previous parishes and they too had never heard of this. Is this is the official position of the Orthodox Church then why haven't we heard of it before? Which Ecumenical Council or local council that was later accepted Universally dealt with this subject? There are some very good points made in an article by St John Maximovich titled Zeal not according to Knowledge. it can be found here http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/library/st_john_maximovich/on_veneration_of_the_theotokos.htm
Here are some of the question I am struggling with:
Any passages in support of this position need to some how be reconciled with the New Testament in some way. Jesus Christ cannot be the ONLY one without sin if there is someone else without sin just as He cannot be the only way to the Father if there is another way
I believe there is no real difference from the Roman doctrine of IC and this position on the Sinlessness of Mary, why is Mary capable or even need to be uniquely sinless? Wouldn’t her parents also need to be sinless?
If the Theotokos never sinned she would have had to attain theosis at the moment of her conception. How can a person attain Theosis before even knowing sin and overcoming it through ascetical labors, prayer, and repentance? How does this really affect how we see the Theotokos? How can she be a role model since she would only have Jesus as a Savior in a general sense of fixing the fallen humanity she received i.e. death but not specifically like you and I for our personal sins. Did Jesus die on the cross for our personal sins or just the first sin(ancestral curse)? How can Mary represent Repentance which is at the heart of the Gospel if she had nothing to repent of?
This in no way is meant as an attack on the Panagia whom I deeply love. I am sure that if she did sin it would have been infrequent by our standards and she may have attained theosis and followed Christ's commandment given to us all to sin no more at a point in her life. |
|
|
grengliman
Senior Member
USA
1053 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 08:46:27
|
Multiple theories abound on this topic.
It seems the Orthodox position is sinlessness; however, it is a different sinlessness than our Lord.
The Theotokos' nature was purified by the Holy Spirit in order to accept the Divine Logos. She was made an instrument of the incarnation. She is still human and participates in the consequences of fallen humanity.
Her sinlessness up to this point was a feat of divine providence, but that does not mean she was cut from a different cloth than us. For the Logos to take perfect humanity for His flesh He needed a very real human, like us in every way.
There can be no theosis before the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
In this event, the beginning of the temporal ministry of the personal sanctification of the individual, Pentecost, the Theotokos was deified. For the rest of her earthly time, her submitting to the human condition and even death is a kenosis similar to that of her Son, Jesus Christ.
As you know, the Theotokos is beyond the Judgement and Resurrection. She is the model for us. She is no longer restrained by the limits of time and space and therefore can make intercession for the entire body of Christ. In her is contained the fullness of the mystery of human salvation.
It is the Person of Jesus Christ and the Theotokos that the mystery of the Church is contained. The Theotokos is the perfected hypostasis of the Church, the human model, the end result that can be each one of our futures by the grace of the most Holy Trinity. |
 |
|
|
parascheva1014
Moderator
USA
1273 Posts |
|
|
parascheva1014
Moderator
USA
1273 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 11:55:29
|
quote:
Jesus Christ cannot be the ONLY one without sin if there is someone else without sin just as He cannot be the only way to the Father if there is another way
Christ is without sin because he does not have the fallen nature. He is fully God and fully man however God can not sin so it would not have been possible for Christ to sin. He took sin upon himself at His baptism so that he could conquor it. (see article "Preaching Christ Crusified" on page 4 of this issue of The Word http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/JANUARY_2010_WORD.pdf)
The Theotokos is said to be sinless but this doesn't mean the same thing as when Christ is referred to as having no sin.
The Theotokos could have sined she simply did not sin. She still had the fallen nature but she was purified by the Holy Spirit. Her parents did not have to be sinless.
The main difference between the RCC and OC doctrine is that "immaculate conception" is a way of explaining how the RCC doctrine of "original sin" and the transferance of guilt does not apply to the Theotokos in the same way the RCC says it applies to her parents and the rest of humanity. The doctrine if the "immaculate conception" is not relevant to EO teaching because we don't believe in the transferrence of guilt for sin others have committed. We believe everyone is born with the fallen nature and everyone is only responsible for the sins they actually commit. The Theotokos was born in the same way everyone else was born, with the same fallen nature. She was simply purified by the Holy Spirit allowing her to abstain from committing any sins. The difference in RCC and EO theology is not a difference in the immaculate conception itself but rather the absence of "original sin/guilt". You see if she had inherited "original guilt" from her parents then there would be no way for Christ to not also inherit "original guilt". Instead of deciding to reject "original guilt" the RCC came up with the "immaculate conception" as a separate miracle to reconcile the logical inconsistancy of "original guilt" transferred to all humanity and the incarnation of God without guilt.
quote:
How can a person attain Theosis before even knowing sin and overcoming it through ascetical labors, prayer, and repentance?
She likely refrained from sin precisely because of her ascetical labors from birth, as she was raised in the Temple. She is also the only female to enter the Holy of Holies. |
Edited by - parascheva1014 on 03/08/2010 12:01:55 |
|
|
|
asorthodox
Junior Member
USA
125 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 12:07:51
|
Our Holy Mother born like us, chose not to sin, even when faced with temptations, etc. She is thus the ideal for a person.
Fr. William |
|
|
|
ICXCNIKA
Starting Member
27 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 16:37:19
|
| Thank you all for your thorough explanations. |
|
|
|
dopp
Starting Member
Canada
24 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 01:05:49
|
I hope it's not too late to post here (about two weeks since last post). I've been struggling with this issue lately too.
The Orthodox priest whom I've most loved and respected in life answered me very clearly once when I asked him this question. 'Did the Theotokos sin?' He said: 'Of course.'
This was a funny thing, as he is rarely the type to answer questions directly. But for him, I guess, as for me - this answer was obvious. If the Theotokos was without sin, we are lost.
For one thing, claims that she was always sinless, even in thought, smack very heavily of pelagianism. The Church has always soundly rejected the idea that humans can achieve complete holiness of their own power. If she resisted sin entirely during her life before the birth of her son, then there is really no necessary need for the incarnation at all. If she did this on her own power, then we do not require God's Grace for salvation.
Responses which place the cause of her sinlessness with God's Grace, however, are equally difficult. Many will talk about the theotokos sharing our 'fallen nature' but not committing any actual sin. This makes sense within an RC framework in which the 'fallen nature' is something almost substantive. But what does it mean within Orthodox thinking? What does it mean to bear the nature of the fall without actually committing sin?
But this goes further. If the Theotokos shared our 'fallen nature' without sin, but was different from Christ in her sinlessness, what does this mean? Does it mean that Christ did not share our 'fallen nature?' One poster here says so - but I'm saddened to have to note that this may very well be direct heresy. If he did not share our nature, then Christ was not fully man. If one believes, like Florovsky, that 'sin does not belong to human nature, but is a parasitic and abnormal growth.' then Christ's sharing in our nature need not include a 'fallen nature' - in fact such a concept is precluded. But if there is such a thing as a 'fallen nature,' and if the Theotokos, but not Christ, shared in it - then Christ is simply not fully human. One simply cannot say that there is some element of my nature which Christ did not share, and then say that Christ was fully man. He would only be mostly man. I think Florovsky is right - but his solution precludes the argument that the Theotokos shared in an element of our nature which Christ did not.
What's worse, if the Theotokos is eternally without sin, I do not see how she could help a person like me. Indeed, I may follow and worship a sinless Christ precisely because I do indeed worship him. He is God - infinitely far above me. But I do not worship the saints - I ask for their help. If the Theotokos never committed sin - what does she know about the life I've lived? What does she know about turning to Christ the incarnate Logos to heal one's broken soul? What does she know of repentance - the absolute essence of the Christian life for us sinners? Nothing. She never sinned, and so she never repented. Repentance is metanoia - it is turning back to God. But if the theotokos never turned away, she never turned back. She may be a wonderful example, then, for any of you who have never sinned - and for all I know, maybe you really haven't. But as for me, my life would be as incomprehensible to her as a desert is to a fish. All I know is repentance because all I know is sin. She and I have nothing in common spiritually if she never even once had the experience of turning back to God. We may both be human, but she is as helpful to me as I am to a child trying to learn Afrikaans.
I won't even address the Bulgakov language posted below.
People slice things all different ways, because the fact is that a pious Orthodox heart doesn't like to sit around thinking about the Theotokos sinning - and we shouldn't. But no matter how one tries to work around it, one ends up a pelagian, an adoptionist, a sophiist, or just plain without recourse to her prayers.
So that's my quiet voice. I'm not the only devoted Orthodox who believes this, and maybe I should be excommunicated for it - I don't know. But, regardless, someone needed to say it - the Church doesn't speak with one voice on this point. |
|
|
|
recent convert
Junior Member
100 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 11:50:07
|
| What about the tradition as the Theotokos as the second Eve in which the first known mention is by St. Irenaeus in the mid to late 2nd century? Eve was sinless until the fall,of course, and so does not this define the Theotokos? Is not the seducing serpent (the devil) the same serpent who is wroth with the woman of Revelation 12 (being the Theotokos) who makes "war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (per Revelation 12:17). We have to remember how pivotal the Theotokos as the vessel who bore our Redeemer and what seems to be the paradox of redeeming fallen creation "all creation was thrown into a ferment over this plan for the utter destruction of death" wrote St.Ignatius in his letter to the Ephesians re: the mystery of the Theotokos in conjunction with our Lord's incarnation. She has been completed but we have not and for us the process is still ongoing and not totally clear (as St. Paul mentions in seeing through a glass darkly). If we are too vexed by the unexplainable we can fall into despair. |
Edited by - recent convert on 03/22/2010 12:29:32 |
|
|
|
dopp
Starting Member
Canada
24 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 15:02:07
|
I'm having a bit of trouble making complete sense of the last post. But your comment on Eve, I think, leads to four possibilities:
1. Prior to ever committing any sin, Eve (and therefore Adam) still required the incarnation of the Logos for their salvation. This is an idea which is out there, but poses difficulties. If Adam and Eve required redemption even before committing any actual sin, wherein lies the fall? From what does Christ redeem us? If we subscribe to this idea, I think it follows pretty clearly that the actual committing of sin is really unrelated to salvation through the incarnate Logos, and that man was fallen in the way that really mattered from his very creation.
OR
2. The Theotokos, being sinless, did not require the incarnation of the Logos for her own salvation. She already existed, and continued to exist in a pre-fallen state, never separated from God. I would imagine the vast majority of Orthodox Christians would prickle at this idea. Further, one absolutely cannot affirm this without affirming that the incarnation is not necessary to the salvation of anyone, but is, instead, at best a historical/metaphysical event which CAN lead some of us to salvation. If the Theotokos took another path, by simply never sinning in the first place, then there are other paths out there. We need not seek the Church necessarily. And, indeed, if the Theotokos entirely resisted sin of her own power, then this is possible for others as well, either from the beginning of their life, or from any given moment onward. We as humans are not actually crippled, just badly wounded - with enough willpower we can march to holiness of our own.
OR
3. The Theotokos was not human.
OR
4. The guilt of sin, or some form of 'fallen nature,' is in some sense transferred regardless of actions taken by individuals, from the moment of the fall. Thus, though never sinning, the Theotokos still required salvation through the incarnate Logos. This idea of transference has been precisely the Roman Catholic response to pelagianism, which is what is implied by option (2). This idea is pretty soundly rejected by every modern Orthodox thinker I've encountered, and exists within Orthodoxy only in the works of the Western fathers like St. Augustine who, on this point, are taken to be in error.
Which of these, in your view, does Orthodoxy affirm: the optionality of our faith, pelagianism, man's fallen status from the moment of his creation, or the Theotokos as non-human? I don't believe we affirm any of those things. Indeed, there is a very simple way of affirming the reality of the fall, our individual guilt, and the human need for the incarnation: that the Theotokos committed sin.
These questions are not simply puzzling or vexing. They are important because they are Christological. They are therefore important for the same reason that the Church directly, through an ecumenical council, insisted on the term 'Theotokos.' If Mary did not bear God, then she bore only man, and we are not saved. But equally, if she did not require salvation the same as us, then Christ's salvation is not universal. If she was not woman, and only woman, then God need not have become man so that man might become God - it was already possible, even if difficult.
Nicene Orthodoxy is on the line, and when faced with a divide between our own pious impulses and the absolute core doctrines of the faith, we must uphold the Truth in doctrine. The central doctrines of the Trinity, and the effect of the incarnation of the Son as articulated in the Ecumenical councils simply trump popular traditions stating, out of respect rather than evidence, that the Mother of God managed to live her life without any sin. If the Theotokos never sinned, then either God made us broken to begin with, or the incarnation was a nice thing rather than a necessary thing. This is not the faith of the fathers - and that matters a lot. |
|
|
|
macacic
Moderator
USA
1968 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 15:28:42
|
| I've always understood the Church teaching to be that the Theotokos never committed a voluntary sin. We all know that we also pray for the forgiveness of involuntary sin. |
|
|
|
grengliman
Senior Member
USA
1053 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 20:00:54
|
Thoughtful posts by dopp.
Liturgically the prayers of the Church state--"...As a good and loving God, forgive every sin they committed in thought, word or deed, for there is no one who lives and is sinless. You alone are without sin. Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your word is truth." Taken from the prayers of the memorial for the departed.
To explain the paradox that one encounters with the above liturgical position and the theological stance of the Fathers concerning the sinlessness of the Theotokos, I choose to copy text from a man who can explain in far better words than I.
Quote from Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 140-141
The dogma of the immaculate conception is foreign to the Eastern tradition, which does not wish to separate the Holy Virgin from the descendants of Adam upon whom the fault of the first parents weighs. Nevertheless, sin acting as a force in her nature, and as impurity could find no place in her. St. Gregory Palamas in his homily on the Presentation to the temple, explains this sanctity of the virgin by the successive purifications which have taken place in the nature of her ancestors, as well as in her own nature from the moment of her conception. She was not holy in virtue of a privilege, of an exemption from the destiny common to all humanity, but because she has been kept from all taint of sin though without any impairment of her liberty. On the contrary, it was above all an expression of her liberty, and the human response to the will of God.
Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
grengliman
Senior Member
USA
1053 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 20:20:22
|
I wanted to add here that it is the tradition of the Saints that Christ indeed voluntarily submitted to our fallen nature in every way sans sin.
Although this corruptibility of the human nature nature, with the possibility of death and suffering, was not inherently part of His humanity, as He created it, assumed it and deified it. |
|
|
|
Yiorgos75
Junior Member
Australia
461 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 21:17:56
|
I wonder if it is safe to assume that the Theotokos (prior to her conception of the Lord) was as holy as a person was ever going to be prior to the Incarnation?
St Gregory Palamas (being referenced by Lossky) seems to allude to the fact that the Theotokos came from a holy lineage in as much that all her ancestors were holy people, finally culminating in the birth of the Theotokos. I have heard that the Theotokos, from her time in the Temple was immersed in prayer of the heart and lived a pure life both physcially and ritually. She fulfilled the obligations of the Law to the final letter and sought prayerful (and righteous) communion with God, contemplating His statutes "day and night". This could give meaning to the understanding that "impurity could find no place in her".
Being that as it is, this does not mean that she shared a nature different to us. I think all it means is that she had reached the pinnacle of purity that a human being could reach prior to the Incarnation. It was the Incarnation and the Theotokos' free will to work synergistically with our Lord ("Be it according to Your will") in the Incarnation that was the turning point of humanity. When we emulate the Theotokos, we too become Godbearers and He dwells in us as we dwell in Him. This must be essentially what happened to the Theotokos as she is the example par excellence of all Christians.
Having being raised in purity, keeping her body and mind chaste, at all times using her free will to work synergistically with the will of our Lord, contemplating the statutes and justice (dikaiosyne) of the Lord ("and she kept all these things in her heart"), our Theotokos completes in an overabundance the promise that our Lord Jesus Christ made to us of "he who dwells in Me, I dwell in him".
The Magnificat of the Theotokos (as noted in the Gospel) must serve as a source of insight for us as well. Also, the Fathers of the Church firmly tell us that the Theotokos is the "first citizen of the New Jerusalem". If she is the first citizen and we are all called to also become citizens as well, then it would follow that we (with the Theotokos) all share the same human nature. The question however is one of purity and no one can deny that of all humans that were ever born or will be born, the Theotokos is the most blessed and pure, for "all generations henceforth shall call me blessed".
Just my two cents.
With humility in Christ,
George.
PS. Honestly guys, I can't understand the fascination with whether the Theotokos was sinless or not. I think that the matter is incredibly delicate and one that can only be understood within the context of prayer and contemplation. In my opinion (and not wanting to stifle independent discussion) I suggest that this topic shoud take a break and we should allow God (in His Providence) to reveal to us the wisdom and understanding that we desire, lest we make a mistake inadvertently. |
|
|
|
grengliman
Senior Member
USA
1053 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 22:35:31
|
I think the issue is raised because of the perceived pelagianism by the position.
What one regrettably may overlook is theosis is impossible before the decent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Even if the Theotokos was sinless in every way, would she still attain to deification without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? I think not.
The economy of the Son paves the way and makes ready the world for the perfecting, indwelling of the Holy Spirit within the individual.
It is a two fold economy. Christ makes it possible with the broad stroke of the Incarnation, Resurrection and Ascension; the Holy Spirit works withing individuals in the Body of Christ to bring each human hypostasis to spiritual perfection and union with the Uncreated energies that flow eternally from the Holy Trinity.
In this light, plagiarism is moot in the sinlessness of the Theotokos issue. Sinless or not, one cannot perfect oneself, one cannot deify oneself, this is the work of the Holy Spirit. |
|
|
|
Yiorgos75
Junior Member
Australia
461 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 23:33:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by grengliman
In this light, plagiarism is moot in the sinlessness of the Theotokos issue. Sinless or not, one cannot perfect oneself, one cannot deify oneself, this is the work of the Holy Spirit.
Thus the turning point for humanity and why the Theotokos is the example par excellence. |
|
|
|
dopp
Starting Member
Canada
24 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2010 : 01:15:10
|
Thanks to everyone for the good posts. Certainly my biggest concern when I started posting here was that there seemed to be far too snappy an answer coming out: ie 'Nope, never sinned. The end.' I didn't think that was at all fair to the Tradition as it did not reflect the nuances expressed in the voices of the fathers, and authors like Lossky.
macacic says: 'I've always understood the Church teaching to be that the Theotokos never committed a voluntary sin. We all know that we also pray for the forgiveness of involuntary sin.'
I can accept this as possible within an Orthodox economy of salvation. Frankly, I just plain don't know how any of us would know that, and I think it's too simplistic to simply say 'the Tradition says so.' It's always appropriate to ask where, how, and why Tradition speaks as it does. It is only in digging deep that we find the real unity of the Church's voice. So I'm not sure where this comes from, but I would accept it as a possible reality given an Orthodox Christology. However, to me this by no means constitutes 'sinlessness' - so perhaps the question is one of terms. Our involuntary sin is still sin, and thus I cannot see how it would make sense to say the theotokos never sinned or was 'sinless' while saying she sinned involuntarily. Those are two entirely different things.
grengliman: I certainly don't make a habit of arguing with men like Lossky, though I suppose I could flash credentials of my own. I again acknowledge that his framework can, at least potentially, vibe with an Orthodox economy of salvation, though I would really have loved to have had the chance to unpack the question a bit with him. I can certainly read him to agree with me in principle - but I think one could also read him to disagree with me. I, of course, like to think he would agree with me - but maybe that's just arrogant.
Yiorgos75: I think you're quite right about this not, as a rule, being a valuable point of inquiry for Orthodox - but I want to make sure that that is fully understood. The fact is that, surprising as it may seem, reflecting on the sinlessness of the Theotokos is of equally little value in the Christian life to reflecting on any of her potential sins. None of us would do the latter to any saint, but when pressed, we would all admit that they must have, at some point, committed sin. By this I do not even necessarily mean an identifiable action, but rather I mean that all of them, like all of us, and like the Theotokos, had to TURN BACK to God at some point. This implies a turning away, and this is sin. Perhaps it was for her, and maybe some other saints, what was called above 'involuntary sin' only which turned her away - and perhaps the distinction matters in some sense sometimes - but it really doesn't make much difference in the economy of salvation. We are all in a state which requires turning back, whether we put ourselves there by our own will or not. We have to acknowledge this if we are saved, though we do not have to sit around thinking about it. Regardless, for those fully divinized saints, even any specific and willfully sinful actions they took in life just don't matter anymore - and this would naturally be true of the Theotokos, being a saint as she is.
So what's the difference - why debate it? The Roman Catholic Church has gone to immense lengths in recent centuries to try and define and defend a view of Mary which makes her, in all point of fact, not really human, and which has actually pulled the RC understanding of the economy of salvation even further from the truth. This comes out in places like the immaculate conception, which all agree is rejected by the Orthodox. Its root lies in allowing certain well meaning and emotional instincts to trump sound and Traditional doctrine. If the Theotokos is immaculately conceived, and therefore without the stain of sin, then she did not require the incarnation for her salvation. She was not a person like you and me, and Christ did not take flesh from a woman who was fully human, but from someone who lacked a very key component of our existence. She would be, in this case, very clearly 'co-redemptrix' despite official RC rejection of that idea.
The trouble for us is that over-emphasis on 'sinlessness' leads to the exact same position. If we think we are doing honor to the Theotokos by trying to make her out to be perfect of her own, then we dishonor, perhaps even blaspheme her son, the savior. We can't do that - and I worry that there is a trend in the Church in that direction. I want to make sure we do not forget the foundational articulations of the core of our faith, and that we never, no matter how well-meaning our instincts, allow what we perceive to be piety to cramp or crush them.
Because of this, our view of the Theotokos can, at times, make a lot of difference - especially insofar as it reflects our view of Christ and the salvation of humanity. This was clearly seen in the Church's debates on nestorianism. The term 'Theotokos,' which was at the center of this controversy, is far more than something nice to say - it is mandatory to affirm its accuracy for all Orthodox. Quite simply, anyone who does not affirm it does not share our belief. Why? Not because of the Theotokos herself - it has nothing to do with her personally - but because if we do not affirm her as the mother of God, we do not affirm Christ as God.
That's a settled question backed by a full-on Ecumenical council. But this question is not - it is still a live issue - and in many senses it amounts to the same problem in reverse. If we do not affirm her as human, we do not affirm Christ as human, and then...we're screwed, quite frankly. All is more or less lost. It may seem like a nice thing to do to elevate her and talk about her perfection, but that is no more beneficial to us than talking about her failures. We should be asking for her prayers - and really asking - not putting her intercessions out of our own reach, and making her life an 'example' which is literally impossible for us to follow. How quickly we will forget in 'honoring' her this way that we too are called to that same holiness, and through God's Grace can really achieve it. She MUST be human AND God-bearer, or else Christ was simply not both fully God and fully Man - and we are lost. Full humanity, manifested in the world in which we and she lived, means requiring his salvation through repentance. There is no other way to be human after the fall - and thus, if she did not require these things, she was not human.
Because she is human, however, and did bear God, we who did sin and have sinned, must allow God to draw us ever closer to her level of holiness. What sense is there in talking about how she never sinned? We did - other saints did - and that same holiness is our promise and our call. Nothing is won by over-elevating, by jumping to conclusions, or by claiming a person never did something.
But a lot can be lost if we take away her humanity with our good intentions...because in doing so we take away Christ's as well.
So, all told, my point is simple. We know very little about the life of the Theotokos. Our primary source on her life, the Protoevangelium of James from which most of the stories in the Tradition are drawn, was known to the fathers and not accepted as canon. Those elements which have been reaffirmed in the broader Tradition may be taken as true, but as for certain canon we are left with only a few scattered bits of the Gospels. We can't affirm or deny all that much about her. But we know what is by far the most important thing: she was the mother of the incarnate Logos - Christ our God - she was Theotokos.
For that fact to be real, though, we have to accept her as human. We may call her 'pure' and 'immaculate,' our 'champion leader' - all of that is well and good. And we need not sit around thinking about sins she may or may not have committed. They will never be known to us - they have been washed away even if they existed, and, in the specific sense in which I sometimes get angry at my wife, maybe she really never committed any - for all I know, that's true. But we do know that she, like us, required repentance through the incarnation of the Logos in order to be saved. And that means that she, like us, was a creature caught in the chains of sin, unable to free herself of her own power, but only set free for God upon the return of her will to the Way incarnate, her son.
I don't know what that was like for her. It's different for everyone. For one thing, we all have our own temptations, and so too would she have. I don't know how many she acted on - I don't know if she ever acted on any. But I do know that she experiences the same salvation which we all experience - and that means she sinned, in some sense, no matter how broad or non-specific - she found herself in a place which required turning back to God.
We have to affirm this to uphold an Orthodox view of salvation. Defenses of the sinlessness of the Theotokos at best tell us very little of importance, and at worst devise arguments which contradict our Christology and soteriology. Perhaps the better question is really, 'did the Theotokos require salvation, just like us?' The answer to this is 'absolutely, yes - in absolutely every way.' If we answer this question first, and if we do so properly, the follow-up, 'did she ever sin specifically, willfully?' the answer follows quite naturally: 'What does that matter?' But we must mean this in FULL - not merely half. We can no more say 'no' than we can prove a 'yes.' It doesn't matter because her salvation is real and full - and it is far more cruel to her memory to assert that she never needed this salvation than it is to be honest about the beauty of her acceptance of it.
Yours in Christ,
-Daniel |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Re: Sinlessness of the Theotokos?
