Dear brother Mina,
I did not get to my e-mails until 2 days ago. Sorry for the long delay. I admit I was not intending to come back here. Thanks for your questions.
Dear Mardukm (is it pronounced Mardooq, with the Arabic letter "qaf" at the end?)
Correct. Many of my friends call me “Mark” for short.
As I said before, the sanctification by the Holy Spirit is not the same as the grace of the Holy Spirit in baptism. He sanctified many in the Old Testament, and even descended on a pagan king to speak prophecy. Just because the Holy Spirit descends on such people doesn't mean the Holy Spirit takes away their "stain" (I'm using the word stain now, since you believe something differently than I had imagined, and I'll explain why I feel there's a contradiction between your belief and what I learned).
The Holy Spirit sanctified even Judas Iscariot, for he was performing miracles in the name of Christ along with the other Apostles. The Holy Spirit sanctified even Saul the King, who betrayed the kingly honor, in which David had to be chosen afterwards. These men chosen by God are an example of God showing us that those He had chosen still had the freedom to leave. In addition, their sanctifications are not removal of "stains" either.
Sanctification is simply a generic term for the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can sanctify in many various ways, and such gifts are not the same for all. The effect of the sanctification Mary received at the moment of her conception (really nothing more than the Grace of Baptism) is different from the effect of sanctification on Judas (to be an Apostle and perform miracles) and on Saul (to have the divine right of kingship). The effect of the sanctification Mary received at the moment of her conception was also different from the effect of the sanctification she received at the Annunciation. The grace Mary received at the moment of her conception was the grace to dedicate herself to God. In distinction, the grace Mary received at the annunciation was the grace to be able to bear the FULL DIVINITY, and, also, IMO, the unique grace to remain a virgin despite bearing Christ.
I pray I have now answered you sufficiently on this matter of sanctification, demonstrating that in this respect, the IC does not contradict the Oriental Tradition. Of course, I always welcome any other questions.
St. Severus teaches us that death causes us to sin. Nevertheless, there are some who have the law of death in the members and do not sin. That is death reigned in the likeness of Adam "even unto those who have not sinned" (Romans 5:14). Death was the issue that needed to be conquered, as it is the cause of sin for most people. Thus, when Christ died destroying death, the sting of death, which is sin, no longer exists, for death is destroyed, and thus no more stings (1 Cor. 15). The Oriental Orthodox Church does not differentiate between "stain" as you define it and "Original Sin." Stain to us is the act of sinning. Stain to you is removing the propensity to sin. However, to us the propensity to sin comes from death. Thus, it contradicts our tradition (especially St. Severus) if one is to say that one can remove the propensity of sin without death. This is an affront to our own dogma, and contradicts it tremendously, much worse than what I had previously thought the IC meant.
I guess more clarification is in order. The stain of sin (the spiritual consequences of the fall) is a universal concept in all the Traditions – Oriental, Eastern, and Western. I think that is undeniable. Fine, don’t call it “stain,” but don’t you think we need to go beyond mere terminology in order to truly understand each other? Isn’t this method of ecumenism the very one proposed by our Oriental Tradition? Now, aside from the spiritual consequences (the West specifically calls it “stain,” and other Traditions don’t use that word, though the words “taint” or “filth” is common enough in the language of the Oriental Fathers – which is the same thing), there are the physical consequences of sin, which are death and corruption (including physical/emotional/psychological illnesses and instabilities). For example, Pope St. Athanasius wrote in one place: “
For this cause, then death having gained upon men, and corruption abiding upon them, the race of man was perishing; the rational man made in God’s image was disappearing, and the handiwork of God was in process of dissolution” (On the Incarnation of the Word); and in another place, he wrote, “
But when man, by the counsel of the Serpent, departed from the consideration of God, and began to regard himself, then they not only fell to bodily lust, but knew that they were naked, and knowing, were ashamed. But they knew they were naked not so much of clothing, as that they were become stripped of the contemplation of divine things, and had transferred their understanding to the contraries.” Further, he wrote “
Whence also when it gets rid of all the filth of sin which covers it and retains only the likeness of the Image in its purity, then surely this latter being thoroughly brightened, the soul beholds as in a mirror the Image of the Father, even the Word, and by His means reaches the idea of the Father, Whose Image the Savior is.”(Against the Heathen) So from our Father Athanasius, we see that the Fall not only had physical consequences, but also spiritual consequences (the “stain” or “taint” or “filth” of sin).
Personally, I don’t accept your understanding that “death is the cause of sin.” That seems like an overly Byzantine understanding of original sin. What I learned as a Copt and Oriental growing up is exactly what Pope St. Athanasius taught – that the Fall had spiritual AND physical consequences, death being just one of those (physical) consequences, and another being the “stripping of the contemplation of divine things” (a spiritual consequence) – though these are not the only physical and spiritual consequences of the Fall. Making physical death the be all and end all of the Fall is not what I learned as a Copt growing up.
Here is an excerpt from HH Pope Shenoute’s
Adam and Eve: After the fall, this image was distorted; the moral human nature was wounded, weakened and damaged by sin. A predisposition to sin invaded the human nature. It is written that Adam begot a son in his own likeness, after his image (Gen 5:3). In other words, Adam begot a son in his own ‘distorted’ image. Therefore, St. Paul said, “we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others” (Eph 2:3). King David also said, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Ps 51:5).
The sinful human nature that we inherited is sentenced to death for “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). Thus death reined over all humanity as St. Paul said, “Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12), “by one man disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19).
According to Byzantine Tradition, which it seems you are espousing, death and fear of it causes sin. In distinction, according to the Coptic Tradition (which is more similar to the Latin Tradition in this regard), it is sin that causes death. I am just presenting to you what I learned growing up as a Copt. You seem to have had a different educational experience, leaning more towards the Byzantine/Eastern understanding, which may be part of the cause of the discrepancies in our respective viewpoints.
My friend, yes we all believe in the Assumption. But not all of us believe in the IC. Big difference.
I agree, but we disagree on the result of this difference. I believe that since a matter of UNANIMOUS agreement is deemed to be UNdogmatizable (is that a word? Well, you know what I mean) by some within Orthodoxy, then a matter that does NOT have unanimous agreement has even LESS merit to obtain dogmatization. I mean, since there are many in the EOC and even some in the OOC who agree that the IC is a legitimate theologumenon, wouldn’t dogmatizing AGAINST it cause even more disunity?
Thus, why do you join a church that doesn't give us the freedom for the IC to be theologemoun?
For several reasons. (1) I personally and wholeheartedly believe in it. (2) There is nothing in my Oriental Tradition that contradicts it, and vice-versa, when the dogma is properly understood. (3) I have hope that when it is properly understood, it will eventually be acceptable to all. (4) The proscription is only an excommunication, and not an anathema. (5) The proscription of a dogma is not an inherent part of the dogma. It is conceivable that the proscription may be lifted.
No, I said that according to Luke, she DID NOT know until her Annunciation. If she was IC'ed, then she should have known before the Annunciation. That's my argument.
Since she was IC’d NOT for the purpose of bearing Christ, but simply to be dedicated completely to God, then it seems we are in agreement.
Now, I'm confused. What's the difference between "purification" and "removal of the stain of Original Sin?"
In my understanding, they are the same. The Grace of “purification,” of “removal of the stain of Original Sin” is merely the Grace of Baptism, the same Grace Mary received at the moment of her conception, and which the forerunner, being the greatest among those born of women, excepting that person who is least (who is Mary), received in the womb of his mother St. Elizabeth. The Catholic Council of Trent taught that Baptism “makes us pure, without stain…” This will be more fully explained in the next part, where you ask about the effects of baptism.
My friend, I had this dialogue before with a Catholic who was a convert from Protestantism. He explained to me that Christ's being both God and man, outside time and within time. In time His death destroyed Original Sin and can have its effects outside time. One of these effects therefore was the IC. He used this understanding to clear any misunderstanding that the Theotokos did not need Christ for her salvation. But supposedly, it was Christ's death working back in time to bring salvation to the Theotokos in her conception from St. Anna. This lead me to the understanding that the Latins understand that Original Sin was removed from her, and there was no differentiation between "stain" and "Original Sin." Now, I get a different understanding.
You have the spiritual fruits of patience and understanding, brother, and I appreciate that a lot.
Nevertheless, I tell you this. Don't we believe that baptism removes "Original Sin?" But what you say that if Original Sin is removed, we shouldn't die. So does that mean we only removed the stain as well?
Yes, Baptism only removes the spiritual consequences of Original sin (sin, in all its forms and understanding, loss of original justice, loss of sanctifying Grace, spiritual death), not the temporal/physical consequences (i.e., death, corruption, etc.). This is the same Grace that Mary received at her conception, and which the Forerunner received while yet in his mother’s womb.
This is why I find your interpretation of the IC to be actually more dangerous than the previous interpretation I understood. Alexandrian tradition, through Sts. Athanasius, Cyril, and Severus (although he's really Syriac) teach us that the sin of one lead to the death of all, and that the spiritual death we all have leads us to sin. St. Paul even teaches this as well in Romans 5:12.
Now we’re getting somewhere. Previously, you spoke of death, and it seemed like you were not making a distinction between physical death, and spiritual death (which is why I said your understanding seems more Byzantine than Coptic). But now I see you are distinguishing between the temporal/physical consequences of original sin from the spiritual consequences of original sin. So I apologize for my assumption earlier. On this basis, given my explanation above of what Baptism does, I think we can come to an agreement. But, as always, more questions are welcome.
Thus, if the IC was a removal of her "stain" by the Holy Spirit, and it is the "stain" that leads all to sin, then this is dogmatically in contradiction with the belief that our spiritual death causes us to sin.
I don’t follow your rationale here. I never denied that spiritual death causes us to sin. Perhaps you can explain this some more, because from my perspective, we have actually made some headway.
I have to respectfully disagree. I saw "equality" as a matter of previous actions, not state of the soul. Equality can also be a matter of humanity. Christ is equal to us by His human nature, equal to the Father by His divine nature. In this case, it is clear the "equality" is in the matter of their "innocence," and I interpret this to mean their previous actions of sinlessness.
I think “utterly equal” is different from mere “equal.” Like you said, there are different kinds of equality, but “utter equality” is a different thing, n’est pas.
But alas, even you should concede that even the state of the soul, there's no "real" equality, for Original Sin was not removed (as was the case with Eve), but merely the "stain." So, then what does St. Ephraim mean then? It is stain, Original Sin, or actions?
Yes, I agree that St. Ephraim was speaking after a spiritual fashion when he said “utterly equal.” “Utterly equal” refers to all matters in the realm of the spirit. This not only includes actions (ie., not sinning), but also the lack of the stain (spiritual death, absence of original holiness, absence of original justice).
The comparison between Christ and the Virgin Mary can be why Christ chose the Theotokos as His mother, not necessarily as some sort of removal of "stain". St. Jacob of Serug said that if there was anyone else more perfect than Mary, Mary wouldn't have been chosen.
I’ll agree that it MIGHT be only in reference to the fact that both Christ and Mary never sinned, but when we say Christ is “sinless” do you think we mean only that Christ never sinned, and not actually that Christ also did not have the stain of original sin? Thus, when a Father compares Mary’s sinlessness to Christ’s, why should we automatically think that it refers only to the fact of not sinning actively?
You misunderstand my question. I'm not questioning free will brother. I'm simply asking which is more amazing? Those under the curse who don't sin or those not under the curse who don't sin? This is a matter of contemplation that I find why the Theotokos is most amazing, stainless even under the curse of Original Sin (in the way I understand though, since there's no belief in our church of some sort of "stain").
But Mary was also under the curse of death (physical death, that is, not spiritual death). The dogma of the IC does not deny that.
My friend, forgive me but the actions of intercourse require actions of sexual feelings. If it is this sexual feeling besides intercourse that is considered "lustful" and thus "sinful," then this has dire consequences socially. Yes, I understand St. Augustine may have taught thus, but I don't think this teaching is held consistently through the Fathers. This sounds to me semi-Manichean. The Coptic Church does not hold to this belief.
I never understood “lust” to refer to mere sexual impulse or sexual feelings. I was never taught that as a Copt. You admit the Coptic Church does not hold to that belief, yet you are equating “lust” with mere sexual desire. We believe Sts Anna and Eliakim did not conceive Mary in lust. That does not mean they had no sexual desire for each other. So on this matter, I don’t think there is disagreement. St. Augustine taught that lust is a mortal sin, but he never taught that mere sexual desire is a mortal sin. Lust does not only refer to a disordered sexual desire, btw, but to any EXCESSIVE passion for something.
If it's lust in bed, and not merely male seed, that transmits "stain", why didn't Christ have an earthly father? Assuming it's possible to not have sexual feelings in bed, wouldn't it be possible that some people in the past might have been born without the "stain" as well, and that the Theotokos was not the only one who was IC'ed according to your beliefs?
Since I don’t equate “lust” with “sexual desire,” then I think your point here is moot.
So now we have two immaculate events? One at conception and one at the Annunciation? I thought the Latins thought the conception was enough for the Incarnation?
First of all, yes, I think that is a popular Latin theologoumenon, but it is not what the dogma of the IC actually teaches. The Apostolic Constitution on the dogma merely states that the she was IC’d because it was fitting for her AS the Theotokos. But it does NOT say that she was IC’d because it was necessary for her TO BE Theotokos. Like I said, this latter belief is a Latin theologoumenon which I myself do not hold. Though I would add that in the quotes I provided earlier of EOC Fathers, St. Proclus of Constantinople makes an explicit causal connection between the immaculateness of Jesus’ birth and Mary being immaculately conceived.
Secondly, yes, there are two immaculate events. The Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception of Jesus Christ. The Immaculate nature of their respective conceptions came about differently. Mary was immaculately conceived by the Grace of Baptism being applied to her at the moment of her conception. In distinction, Jesus was immaculately conceived because he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, without a human father. So the IC does not give to Mary anything that is uniquely Christ’s.
The idea that her Virginity, her celibacy, her lustless thought was the primary reason for Christ being born without Original Sin was something that St. Severus fought against Julian with. Julian thought the same, but St. Severus said this wasn't the primary reason. The primary reason was for Christ to become the first fruits of salvation, a New Seed for mankind, so that "in Adam, all die, but in Christ, all live." Not merely the act of Virginity itself, but what this Virginity entails, i.e. that no male seed means a New Seed is born, and a New Life is to be obtained. It signifies as well spiritual birth, for just as Christ was born from the Virgin, so we are reborn from the baptismal font.
That’s all good and well, but I don’t see what this has to do with the dogma of the IC. The dogma of the IC has nothing to do with her virginity, her celibacy, or lustless thought.
Finally, some word documents (HE Metropolitan Bishoy's website) from the dialogues between the Coptic and the Catholic churches, and what the Coptic Church finds problems with:
http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Catholics/The%20Immaculate%20conception.doc
IF what HE Bishoy claims of the dogma of the IC is true, then I would agree with him. But he seems to have a misunderstanding of what the dogma of the IC teaches in several places, as well. If you want to discuss those points of misunderstanding, let me know.
There is no such belief in the Coptic Orthodox Church to begin with, thus the IC is not a dogma since the idea of the "stain" doesn't even exist anyway, and in fact seems to contradict the ideas of the Alexandrian fathers, as I have mentioned before. It would be interesting to hear what the Coptic Church has to say about the particular belief of the "stain."
We don’t have to use the WORD “stain.” But if you understand that there is a distinction between spiritual death and physical death; if you understand that when we are baptized, it is spiritual death, and not physical death, that is being immediately conquered; if you understand that the Fall resulted in some sort of deficiency in man’s holiness; if you understand that the Fall resulted in some sort of spiritual wound, and not just physical death – then I think you might agree that even though the COC does not USE THE WORD “stain,” the very concept is there nevertheless.
Right back atcha with abundance.
I advise you my friend that instead of defining what other churches believe, just defend your own church's faith, and leave the beliefs of other churches to be defined by those within those churches. It is why Salpy is upset, but she wouldn't ban you.
I don’t think I ever defined anything for the Armenian Church, and I apologize if it seemed that way. I specifically stated that I agree that the IC is not an Article of Faith for the Armenian Church as a whole, and that, given sister Salpy’s quotes from the American Armenian Church, that it is not a belief in the American Armenian Church. But she tries to speak for her whole Church, which she has no authority or right to do, and the Armenian Church is not restricted to the U.S. There was no reason for her to be upset - like when she accused me of stating that the OO is the same as the CC, which I never did. She seems intent on misrepresenting me for the reason I can only guess that she is prejudiced against Catholics. I hope she is not prejudiced, but if that is the case, I can only pray for her.
To be honest, I don't know. She was filled with grace, yes. Was there a way for to be even more full than full? I suppose.
