www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Orthodox interpretation of Romans 3:23

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him Forever!

How does the Orthodox Church interpret Romans, 3:23: "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"? Especially, how does the sinlessness of Mary fit in with this verse? I thought that the Orthodox might interpret this to mean that all people (excluding Christ) would have received a "fallen nature" due to original sin. But I'm not sure on that. Thanks.

Adam

Dear Adam,

Yes, all have received a fallen nature except Christ.

The attribution of sinlessness (anamartitos) to the Theotokos has no place in Orthodox worship. At the same time, Christ is refrred to as "the only sinless one" in every matins service.

The blessed Virgin inherits the result of original sin, which for the East is mortality. Hence her Dormition. "The wages of sin are death." This is exactly what Adam and Eve received for eating of the forbidden tree, they were kept away from the originally unforbidden tree of life. Its all in Genesis!

A sinless person would not die because they were created with the intention of everlasting life. So dieing is missing this mark, hence sinful.

But Christ was sent with the intention that he should die (see the Nativity icons in which he is already wrapped in a funeral shroud!). Had he not died (refused the bitter cup) that would have been sinful! But He loved us and was obedient to the will of the Father.

Usually, the fathers have not spent much time discussing any personal sins of the Theotokos. Some write that she had none. Others wrote that she had small persional sins. No one claims that she is guilty of "mortal" sin!

But her role eclipses these issues. It is her "let it be according to your will" that makes her for us (the East) the great example and not the great exception (the West), paraphrasing Schmemann.

In Christ.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him Forever!

Dear Andrew,

Thanks, for the info.

Adam

Dear Andrew,

I thought the Eastern Orthodox name Panagia "the All-Holy" is equivalent to the Roman Catholic "Immaculate Conception" and "full of grace"? If one is full of grace there is no room for sin since you are "full" of grace, likewise if the Blessed Mother is the "The All-Holy" then she is 100% holy, no room for any kind of sin. The Roman Catholic doctrine is like the flip side of the same coin, no? One side says Mary was concieved without sin (negating the negative) and the other says she is all holy (promoting the positive)!!

==============================================
From the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible on the Gospel of Luke (Introduction, Commentary, and Notes by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch), page 19, on Luke 1:28 we have:

full of grace: This is the only biblical instance where an angel addresses someone by title instead of a personal name. Two considerations help to clarify its meaning. (1) The expression full of grace is rooted in Catholic tradition and traced to St. Jerome's translation of this verse in the Latin Vulgate. Although fundamentally accurate, it lacks some of the depth of the Greek original. Luke could have described her with the words full of grace (Gk. pl�r�s charitos) as he did of Stephen in Acts 6:8, yet here he uses a different expression (Gk. kecharit�men�) that is even more revealing than the traditional rendering. It indicates that God has already "graced" Mary previous to this point, making her a vessel who "has been" and "is now" filled with divine life. (2) Alternative translations like "favored one" or "highly favored" are possible but inadequate. Because of the unparalleled role that Mary accepts at this turning point in salvation history, the best translation is the most exalted one. For God endowed Mary with an abundance of grace to prepare her for the vocation of divine motherhood and to make her a sterling example of Christian holiness (CCC 490-93, 722). � Gabriel's declaration points in the direction of Mary's Immaculate Conception. According to Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition Ineffabilis Deus, Luke's Annunciation narrative is an important indicator of Mary's lifelong holiness. God is her "Savior" (1:47) in the most perfect way possible: He sanctified Mary in the first instance of her conception and preserved her entirely from sin and even from the inclination toward sin that we experience.
==============================================

Andrew, I would like your thoughts on this; also, have you heard of Mary being described as being the "Ark of the New Covenant"? And in Genesis 3:15 Catholic commentators state that Mary is the "woman" and that there is complete and total enmity between the woman [Mary]and the serpent [the devil].

Yours in Christ Jesus and Mary Immaculate,

[Linked Image]

BradM

Orthodoxy and the the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos-- Unique to the modern Roman Church or ancient Eastern tradition?

http://www.cin.org/imconcep.html

I just found this...what do you all think?

BradM

[Linked Image]

"Chaire, kecharitomene!"

Dear BradM,

Restriction of time will not allow me to accurately or fully answer your posts today. Somewhere on the forum, we had an excellent discussion of all of this. Perhaps someone can enlighten us on how that thread was titled? Here are just a few salient points:

Differing ideas on what is original sin. East = condition of mortality. West = personal sin of Adam. Mary inherits Eastern original sin. We in the east don't have anyone inheriting the Western original sin.

anamartitos = sinless. It is used in reference to only one person in the entire eastern liturgical tradition, Jesus, the Christ. All of the other titles are fine and used throughout eastern worship: all holy, most pure, most holy.

The terms are poetic and not meant to be strict formulas for determining if there is any more room left inside for sin. Simple: were she sinless, she would never have died. (Some RC's affirm/affirmed that) But then what can Easterners do with the Feast of "the Dormition?" Can we just change the title and pretend that it was always called "the Assumption?" (I don't know any Easterners who affirm/affirmed that)

In Christ,
Andrew.

Dear Friends,

Rather than see her role as Mother of God and her All-Holiness as two things - one depends on the other always.

Again, when we speak of "sin" we don't always imply personal, mortal sins. It could mean an inclination to sin, a darkening of the mind and will as a result of Original Sin, or else the experience of the wages of sin which is death.

The Eastern Church has always celebrated the Conception of both the Mother of God and of John the Baptist.

Poetic language notwithstanding, it would not do this for poetry's sake alone . . .

The liturgical principle here is that only a Saint's day may be honoured and the language of the services for both days leaves no doubt as to the faith of the Church that both of these individuals were sanctified by the Spirit at their Conception - leaving aside the whole issue of what is meant by "Original Sin."

That Christ is the only "Sinless One" means that He is not only free of any sinfulness, concupiscence etc., but that He is also the Source of All Holiness within Himself as God the Word Incarnate.

Again, when we say "sin" there is often the "automatic" image of "personal sin" connected to it.

For the East, the "Conception of St Anne" which is the ancient title of this feastday ALREADY means that the Mother of God was sanctified by the Spirit from the very beginning of her existence in the womb of her mother, Anne. We do not need the "Immaculate Conception" title because of this and also because we have never accepted the Augustinian notion of the "inherited stain of Original Sin."

For the East as well, "Dormition of the Mother of God" is much more meaningful than "Assumption."

"Dormition" comes from the root word "to fall asleep."

And so the death of the Mother of God is likened not to the death we ourselves experience, but to a sweet falling asleep.

And why? This is owing to her exceedingly great Holiness, having been sanctified directly by the Spirit at her Conception, at her Annunciation, at Pentecost et al. - again related to her exalted role in the Incarnation of God the Word.

Yes, she did repose in death, but this was the lightest of deaths, a true "falling asleep."

For the East, this truth is more important to underline liturgically, because from it flows the consequence of her being taken, body and soul to Heaven, being glorified by Her Son there as Queen of Heaven and Earth where she has become our speedy intercessor and Holy Protection - something she especially manifests in her many miraculous icons and images and in her other miracles on earth.

So by its Marian dogmatic pronouncements, the West underscored what has always been the faith of the undivided Church, especially in the East from the very beginning.

But the terminology employed is wholly "Latin" and sounds quite foreign and even "unnecessary" to Eastern ears.

Alex

Regarding the West pronouncing what the East has always believed I offer this:

From Father Theodore Pulcini's "Orthodoxy and Catholicism: What are the differences?" from Conciliar Press, 1995:

"Orthodox react less negatively to the RC dogma of the Assumption than to the two others discussed. This dogma, which affirms that Mary, "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory," was defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950. The event is commemorated on August 15th of the catholic ecclesiatical calendar-the same day on which the Orthodox celebrate Mary's falling asleep, or Dormition (death), rather than her bodily assumption."

"To be sure, a strong and early tradition existed in both East and West that after Mary's death the Lord assumed her into heaven. In Psalm 45, a messianic psalm, the Church fathers interpreted the phrase, "At your right hand stands the queen" (v.9) as a reference to Mary's presence with the Lord now. But her assumption is not required belief for Orthodox, though it is a widely respected theological opinion. Why, the Orthodox wonder, should such a belief, hardly central to the Christian proclamation of salvation, be dogmatized and put on the same level as other truly central dogmas like the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and the two natures of Christ?"

In 1996 Fr. Pulcini was offered a position as a professor at St. Vladimir's Seminary, but declined it in order to return to the God-protected Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and open a new parish in Carlisle. Many years!

The Assumption is not a "required belief" in the East.

In Christ,
Andrew.

AMDG
Dear all,
I know this thread is very old, but I just want to say something about Romans 3:23.
It is important to keep in mind the context of St. Paul's letter--the statement that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" occurs in the midst of an exhortation to the Christian community in Rome, which had been suffering grave division between Gentiles and Jews. Hence, Romans also addresses meat sacrificed to idols, scandal, the Mosaic law, etc. St. Paul is trying to show the Romans that their Christian community should be united, and not divided into Gentiles and Jews. Thus, when he tells the Romans that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, he is NOT making a universal theological statment, in some kind of a vacuum, that every human being has sinned. On the contrary, he is telling the community that Gentiles and Jews were equals as Christians--despite the fact that the original promise came to the Jews. Why are they equals? Because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

Dear Andrew,
beloved Orthoox brother,

Discarding the ancient Orthodox belief of the bodily Assumption of our blessed Theotokos is becoming commonplace amongst U.S. Orthodox. I believe the reason for this, as does Bishop (Timothy) Kallistos Ware,(I guess I am in good company ) is ONLY because the West has dogmatized it. Infact, Bishop Ware finds this interesting, to say the least, because the West adapted the tradition of the Assumption from the East! In the past, before anti-Catholic polemics (no offense to my RC friends, but how else can the modernists become more like the Protestants?) and backroom modernism set into some Orthodox jurisdictions (like the Greek) in the U.S., this tradition was always revered with the proverbial capital 'T'.

Infact, if I were not so tired, I would dig up all the patristic quotes (and there are many, and they are quite clear) regarding the Assumption of our blessed Lady. I guess that you will just have to take my word for it, unless you want me to find them.

On my last trip to Greece, where Orthodox theology is fresh with brilliant contemporary theologians, yet, is still, thankfully, intact and devoid of U.S. modernism, I asked the well educated abbess at the Monastery which was set up by St. Nektarios on the island of Aegina about this. She responded most adamantly, that to not believe in the assumption of our Lady is nothing short of HERESY!

I don't mean to be argumentative, and I ask your forgiveness if I am offending you, but I will fight tooth and nail to save the Orthodox Church in the U.S. from continuing on its Protestant inflenced path. Remember that Martin Luther held all truths of Catholicism about our blessed Lady, but through the years, in order to go AGAINST Rome, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. I do not want to see the same exact thing happen to the Orthodox church in the United States.

In Christ, our Lord and Saviour,
Alice

Dear Alice,

No offense taken, sister in Christ.

I'll be going on vacation today and off of the ByzCath site for two weeks, so I will refer you to Fr. Daley's excellent synopsis of 500+ years of patristic thought regarding the Feast of the Dormition titled, "On the Dormition of Mary" published by SVS Press.

The main point that I would distill from it here is that the tradition has been very strong regarding her "translation to life" subsequent to her death. This is the same term used repeatedly for other saints.

This is not to denigrate her as Birthgiver and Mother of God, as our greatest saint, as all-pure, as most-holy, or as first in the Kingdom of Heaven. But to help remind us that there is but "one resurrection and He (ICXC) is the first fruits" of that resurrection, assuming that we hold scripture to inform our dogmata and patristic & liturgical tradition and not the other way around. A little test on this is to check the fathers and their quotations. They never quote liturgy or each other, but scripture!

The real question for theologians, and not a vital question at that, is what does "translated to life" really mean? I'm not sure that we have a clear answer other than to apophatically say that it is not the resurrection and it is not strictly sheol.

The very fact that the Assumption was never a dogma but a widely-held and highly-respected theologumen (opinion) should tell us its proper place amongst the varying Orthodox traditions regarding the Theotokos. These varying traditions have never spawned heresies in the east.

May she save us by her example!

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Andrew,

You stated on the Immaculate Conception thread and paraphrase again on this thread:"If born sinless and if not sinning during life, why would she die?" I think the correct response that is compatible with Eastern theology is she chose to follow her Son.

Although the East holds that sin=death, there are exceptions. I have never heard a tradition that stated St. Elias did not sin yet we know he did not die. Likewise Christ was sinless yet accepted death on our behalf. I don't think it is hard to accept that the Mother of God, while sinless, was subjected to the same natural laws, including death, that her Son subjected himself to.

And to say that the Mother of God is sinless is not to say she is with out need of a redeemer or savior. For to be preserved or forgiven sin is one thing, to be resurrected to new life and deified, as will occur at the Second Coming, is another.

Many Eastern Fathers hold that even if Adam and Eve had overcome temptation and remained sinless, it would have still been necessary for Christ to become man, in order for man to be deified and God's plan concenring man to be fulfilled. Even a sinless human is separated from the Trinity by an infinite chasm that can only be bridged by the incarnation of the Son. So I believe Eastern Christians can in truth say that Mary was sinless yet still in need of a savior, was subject to death yet not to corruption.

We also have the witness of the festal celebration of her conception in the liturgical calendar, which originated in the East, not the West. Only Christ and the St. John the Forerunner also have conception feasts. The fact that these feast exist point to something miraculous connected with these conceptions. With Christ it is obvious. With the Virgin and the Forerunner I believe it something more than the conception of children by barren mothers and points at the very least to their sanctification in the womb, although at different times for the Virgin and the Forerunner.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Dear Revered Subdeacon Lance,

I bow to your erudition, Sir!

Since Reader Andrew is on vacation, I'll just tell you here that I think Andrew's notion about "theologoumena" isn't exactly correct when it comes to the Mother of God.

The fact that the liturgical services celebrate her Holy Conception, Dormition and Assumption et al., as you've said, is ALREADY an expression of the Church's firm faith and piety with respect to the Mother of God.

Theologoumena are never celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church due to the "lex orandi, lex credendi" business (sorry for using Latin! Oops! ).

And I'm not going to bother with that book by that theologian that Andrew cites.

Just because one bird has sung does not mean that spring is here. Or so said John Damascus . . .

The Fathers did indeed quote from BOTH Scripture and other Fathers.

If I ever do decide to enter a seminary, I think I'll pass on St Vladimir's

Which one would you recommend?

Alex

Dear Fr. Dn Lance:

The day is young and you are not rid of me yet!

This treatise (and that excellent book to which I referred) should keep you busy while I'm gone.

We clearly have it that God does not will that we die, but that death entered the world through the sin of disobedience. As a viscious cycle, people knowing their own immediate mortality and ignoring their ultimate immortality (in heaven or hell) tend to proactively sin to "get in" on as much as they can during life.

God did will that his Son die so that death's captivating power and inducement toward sin (see above or, better yet, consult Romanides' brilliant exegesis of Paul and Sin) would be lessened in us knowing that Christ had gone first.

So you have mistakenly placed Christ under the inheritance of original sin (Eastern style) by saying that "I don't think it is hard to accept that the Mother of God, while sinless, was subjected to the same natural laws, including death, that her Son subjected himself to."

They weren't subject to the same laws.

Christ only died because the Father told him to die. Out of obedience did he choose to die, not out of desire [remember when he asked "If you would take this cup...."]. Yet he is immortal. Had he chosen not to die, that would have been sin.

For us mere humans, involuntary death is a sin. But especially having seen that God willed his Son to die FOR us, voluntarily choosing death over life is a grave sin when both are offered. [Don't take it from me, consult the canons.] Christians who proactively sought out Roman governors in order to witness to Christ in the hopes of being killed were severely admonished for their lack of respect for the gift of life. Several saints did this very thing, and they are commemorated for their zeal and endurance, but not for their wanton disregard for the gift of life.

If questioned, Christians are expected to confess Christ. But we are not to seek to be questioned so that we can be killed. We are not to seek death.

So if you are implying that the Theotokos only died because she chose to die (and I'm not sure that you are), you are way off from anybody's tradition, East or West!

The eastern concept of sin goes far beyond "original sin" as an inheritance of mortality because of Adam and Eve's disobedience and subsequent sequestation from the "Tree of Life." This is just part of it. It includes all sins (missing the mark) "voluntary or involuntary, in word or in deed, in knowledge or in ignorance, whether manifest or unseen." Sin is utterly all-encompassing anything that goes against God's will. The understanding of sin as ONLY something that we PERSONALLY AND CONSCIOUSLY have done in contradiction to the will of God just proves how westernized Byzantine Catholic & Eastern Orthodox Christians have become in their thinking.

"Sinless" necessarily means that a person never made any "mistake" whatsoever, if God would have it that they not have made that action. As I have said before, if we die we are in sin, for God wills life. Unknowingly step upon an insect that God would have had lived and we are in sin, for God wished that the insect live.

So a Buddhist monk may wear a fly screen across his mouth, lest an insect fly in and be crushed in his throat. Now he understands sin! [He doesn't have a redeemer for his sins so he is trying to make as few as possible in preparation for judgement. We can point to Christ as our expiator, but knowing that he will ask us that terrible question from Matthew 25.]

If the Theotokos or Adam & Eve were sinless, they absolutely would have needed no redeemer. They would have had no sins to be forgiven and they would have had life everlasting, since their access to the "tree of life" would not have been denied.

The best explanation that the apologists for a "sinless" (anamartitos) Mary can come up with is that the Theotokos had "original" but not "venial" or "mortal sins." To divide "sin" in this way into "original" and "venial" and "mortal" categories is western soteriology par excellance! And I urge us not to become trapped there.

So the conceptions of John the Forerunner and the Theotokos are miraculous, yes. But are they even great feasts? Do they even "out rank" the Great Feast of the Dormition or the strict fast of the Beheading of John? No, they are beautiful and significant, but minor by comparison. So the Church chooses to celebrate the deaths of the Theotokos and the Forerunner in a more significant way than their conceptions as the only sinless humans? I think not.

Explain why the Church established a perfect (read sinless) period of exactly 9 months between the Annunciation and the Nativity of the Lord, but for Mary and John the period between conception and birth are one day more than 9 months in one case and one day less than 9 months in the other case? Something not perfect with them in comparison to the model.

We really can't have it both ways: If Mary is sinless then Christ is not "the only sinless one." If Elijah didn't die, then Mary is not the "first in the kingdom of heaven." If anyone is resurrected from the dead and does not die again, for Lazarus surely died again, then Christ is not "the first-born of the dead" and the "first fruits of the resurrection." If scripture says that, "...Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin" nd that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," then we need to step back before crossing into unchartered waters of sinless humans.

God has given us language and words with which to understand what we can. We must try to be consistent in our application of those words, especially with the Word of God as we have it in scripture. We may indeed occasionally throw up our hands and say that we don't know everything, such as the precise meaning of "translated to life" as we joyfully sing in the liturgical hymns. But to assert contradictions such as the "sinlessness" of the Most Holy and All Pure Theotokos, begs a thorough and apophatic response.

With love in Christ,
Andrew


PS to Alex: Any seminary would do you some good.

Dear Alex,

...Same here, Alex!

All theologians are not saints.

In Christ,
Alice