Dn Patrick are you an eastern Orthodox deacon? The sinlessness of Mary cannot be squared with Orthodox worship??? Have you ever attended a divine liturgy? What seminary did you attend?
Is this really necessary? You are simultaneously insulting this individual’s integrity, sincerity, education and intelligence by asking such questions.
I’d imagine that Dn Patrick could be referring to a particular phrase in the Divine Liturgy:
“let us worship the holy Lord Jesus, the only Sinless One”
Which is a direct contradiction to the sinless claim. I would encourage you to find me an example where any of the worship lexicon directly attributes to Mary sinlessness that is as blatant as this. (Mind you, the DL is the most important worship service we have!) If you say that by “only Sinless One”, St. John meant that Jesus is the only one without “ancestral sin”, then you are simply putting words in the golden-mouth’s mouth. Besides, ancestral sin is a misnomer anyways, it describes a lack of communion with God rather than actual sin.
In the early church the sinlessness of Mary may have not been a tradition of the Antiochan school which emphasized the humanity of Christ and a more literal interpretation of scripture. On the other hand the sinlessness of Mary was indeed a tradition of the Alexandrian school and their higher theology which emphasized the divinity of Christ.
References please. I want to see where this teaching was embraced by the Church as a whole before the 5th century AD.
Terms such as "pure" & "spotless" were adjectives to describe her ever-virginity. Her sinlessness and the fact that she is more honorable than the cherubim greater than the seraphim teaches us the potential that theosis has. The very hymns about the sinlessness of Mary and her now heavenly status above the bodiless powers describes this infintismal process open to humanity which she has entered into.
I’m glad to see that you recognize the terms "pure" and "spotless" as being references to her ever-virginity. However, this narrows down the terms considerably that you can use to imply her sinlessness. Please show me these hymns which you speak of.
It doesnt matter when she became sinless, Orthodoxy doesnt define this aspect.
Yes, it does matter; in fact this is the topic of the thread! (“Ever-sinless Theotokos” )And yes, The Church does by and large teach that she lived her entire life without commiting a personal sin. “She could have sinned, but she chose not to.” (Hopko’s “Orthodox Church” series)
What matters is she progressed to a transfigured state and continues to do so unlike any other. Just like in iconography where the dark lines are written first and then the lighter lines, she went from one glory to another, from a woman born under the Law to Panagia. Her origins was one of her own race, a fallen human, born with ancestral sin but her realized goal is one of divinization. And it is our goal as christians as well. In the Annunciation she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit opening up the path of theosis. Her obedience teaches us how to approach Godliness. In the case of the Theotokos it was her humility and obedience to God, her free will accepted the angel's proclamation, accepted the Will of God, and not her own will, and as a result was the first to experience the divinization of man. It was She who opened up divinization to the whole of humanity. What was lost with Eve was regained with New Eve.
I agree with most of this. You rightly state that her theosis could not begin before the annunciation, as theosis is impossible without the incarnation. But theosis by definition is a gradual process of sanctification and conforming one’s life to Christ. If her theosis began at the incarnation, then it would make logical sense that she gradually became more and more Christ-like. However, in a sinless state, there is no such progression. You are perfectly in the will of God from the start and remain in such until death. You reach the zenith at once and remain there. Absolute sinlessness does not mean just resisting evil temptations; it means remaining perfectly within God’s will at all times. If this were the case, then She wouldn’t go through such a process of theosis as we are required to do; she would have beeen “instantaneously deified” (immaculate conception?) In this way, she would no longer serve as the great example, but the great exception! (This “great exception” status is what we accuse the Roman’s of having granted to Mary)
　
The gospel of Luke has the Theotokos prophecy, "Henceforth every generation shall bless me.." The word makaria does not mean simply to "speak well of, or wish one well ". If that was the case the word 'eulogy' would have been used. Instead the word makariousi in the future verb form is used. Makaria is a state of being, a state of blessedness and bliss. Makariouzi means we will praise and give joy to the Theotokos for that blessed state she has reached. We praise her not as a (eulogy) but to share in the happiness of reality; the blissful state she has already entered into hence makaria. Adam and Eve was in that blessed state of Eden but expelled and hence all other men after her, The new Eve was the first to be reinstated and allows all other after her that oppurtunity for she brought the Logos incarnate into the world, the savior. Do you see how the sinlessness of Mary is the example par excellence of the reality of theosis.
It’s best not to refer to the scriptures for support to this doctrine. (Unless you consider Proto. of James to be such) To say that her being referred to as “blessed” being the same as “sinless” is a stretch beyond imagination.
On the other hand, there are painfully clear verses within Scripture which teach the exact opposite.
Romans 3:23 is such a verse. Until you are able to show me a convincing argument that shows how Mary is exempt from this verse, (that doesn’t twist the verse like a pretzel to avoids it’s obvious meaning) I will default to scripture.
The canon of scripture is the measuring stick of truth by which all novel and innovative doctrine is to be compared. (And this “doctrine” is quite new relative to the others) If it get’s to the point where we have to bend the scripture to accommodate our new doctrines, perhaps we should re-examine such doctrine.
Bishop Kallistos says himself that it is due time for the Church to re-examine what Her Tradition is, and what are her traditions. Until such a doctrine becomes dogma, I will consider it to be of the latter; by the very reason that it blatantly contradicts scripture. (and not just in one place!)
I would like to make a quick comment on Dn Patrick's post. I agree that this doctrine does more to obscure than illuminate what Christ did for us, as well as attempt to belittle his unique personhood of being “the only sinless One“.
Please, anyone show me how by believing that the Theotokos remained without sin her entire life gives glory to God and Jesus. Is it really necessary for us to say this? What we can say without a doubt is that the Holy Spirit purified her womb upon Her receiving the Word. What happened before that, or after that, with regards to her purity, (I’m not referring to virginity) is mere speculation. The purification of the womb does beg the question however; if she was perfect beforehand, why would such a thing be necessary?
Honestly, I believe Christ could have chosen any vessel that he so desired from which to become incarnate. It wouldn’t take anything away from His nature, because He is God. We don’t have to say that someone has to be “such and such” to be worthy of God. Jesus spent time with the dregs of society that no one else wanted to associate with, and used some of the most unlikely characters to accomplish His will. In fact, if he was born of an ordinary person like you or me, I think that would do more to glorify Him than anything. Perhaps this may be closer to the truth after all.
　
　
