LoneThinker:
I thank you…but if you answered my question directly then I don’t think I understood your answer. (The structure of the reply, a succession of run-on sentences, does make that a bit difficult!)
My question asked someone to explain what difference is supposed to exist between the Eastern-Orthodox view of man before and after the fall, and the view of the Catholic church, in relation to Mary as the New Eve, her sinlessness, and her Immaculate Conception.
Specifically I wanted to know what assumptions were different which would allow anyone to argue the (seemingly preposterous) position that the Catholic view implies Mary could not have sinned even if she chose to…or rather, could not have chosen to sin.
That, I gather, is why the Orthodox claim the Immaculate Conception is wrong: That it would make Mary incapable of choosing to sin. But since the Catholic view is that the Immaculate Conception means that Mary was born without the stain of original sin, and thus in the same state as Eve was when Eve was first created with Original Grace, the Catholic view implies not that Mary could not have sinned, but rather that she could have chosen to do so, but (enabled by God’s grace) chose not to do so: That Mary passed the test which Eve had failed.
Thus Mary’s sinlessness is not something Pelagian she achieved on her own, nor is it something Calvinistic in which she had no role but to be an automaton directed by God like some remote-control car. But she did have the benefit of Original Grace, as Eve did…and she made better use of that benefit than Eve did.
That, at least, is my understanding (I am open to correction by anyone who can show me that I have somehow misunderstood some detail of the teaching of the Church).
If I have stated the Catholic view correctly, then let me say that it seems perfectly reasonable and logical and in no way to require that Mary is an automaton. But if that is the Orthodox critique—that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception makes Catholic doctrine crypto-Calvinist—then it seems a singularly silly critique.
But I doubt that the Eastern Orthodox are “silly”: It would be out-of-character for them.
So, I wonder if, instead, I have misunderstood their critique. Still, dixibehr said, “Some Orthodox theologians, among them St. John Maximovitch of San Francisco, believe that [the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception] puts her in a position where it was impossible for her to have sinned.” It was that notion I found surprising, and asked someone to explain.
Now, LoneThinker, in reading your replies, I see that you say a lot, but I don’t see that it clearly answers my question.
You say: “REPLY TO RC; I wrote above.” Are you saying that you already answered the question I asked? Where? I don’t see such an answer anywhere “above” your last comment.
You say: “We recall the old understanding of the Garden Myth, as in sacred story, not fake/imagined in the popular sense….” I presume that “we” here means the Catholic Magisterium?
You say, “...physical death was prevented by Original Grace.”
I don’t question that; though I wonder about its particulars. It certainly means that Adam couldn’t be physically harmed against his will, but does it mean Adam was incapable of allowing himself to be physically harmed by choice?
If Jesus is “the second Adam” we should expect the first Adam’s ability-to-be-harmed to be either (a.) the same as, or (b.) some kind of foreshadowing, of Jesus’ pre-Resurrection status. And while Jesus clearly couldn’t be killed against His will, He was able to lay His life down.
I speculate that a person who, while in a state of Fullness-Of-Grace, physically incurred enough bodily damage to cause their heartbeat and brain activity to cease, could be called “dead” in a physical sense…but their spirit would remain fully alive, aware, and even in possession of their body rather than ejected from it. Would they therefore be “dead?” The body-damage would say yes, but the state of the soul would say no. It seems to me that the word “death” would be deprived of its sorrow and power.
It seems to me that they would be so spiritually alive (so filled with the Holy Spirit who is the Giver Of Life) as to be able, at will, to heal that body and rise up again. They’d be none the worse for wear. They could, of course, opt to keep scars from the earlier damage, but they wouldn’t have to do so. And it seems to me that a person so united to God would only receive damage to their body if they allowed it for some reason, and opted not to instantaneously heal it. If they opted to feed a tiger their arm because the tiger was hungry, they could grow it back again, or physically die and rise again a day later, or maybe even decorporalize, spend ten thousand years in the presence of God, and recorporealize on Earth for a visit when desired. A lot of people seem to picture the Garden of Eden as existing in a world without tsunamis; I would rather expect it was a world in which human beings, because of the miraculous infilling of divine grace, could safely surf on tsunamis.
But that is speculation on my part. It seems to me to have explanatory power and to fulfill everything the Catholic Magisterium requires us to believe about preternatural gifts of pre-fallen man. But of course if the Catholic Church says otherwise, I submit to the Church.
You say: “...a test that [if] A and E passed the test, every human after would live physically forever, and we would not lose Grace.”
Yes, right. Although one wonders about the potential population problem. If humans multiply without death, this seems inevitable. On the other hand, if my speculation is accurate, perhaps most unfallen humans would opt, sooner or later, to allow their physical body to cease functioning (a voluntary act, not “death”; not something which they can’t help), in order to rise and take on a spiritual body such as the Resurrected Christ now has. And in that case they could leave the earth to the physically-bodied unfallen humans who had not yet matured to that step, and alleviate the population problem by worshiping in Heaven’s Throne Room for awhile…or by making a pilgrimage to Alpha Centauri, for all I know. But, again, that’s speculation: And subject to the Church’s correction in all ways.
You say: “It is obvious that since Jesus was sinless, why did He not escape physical death….” Well, He specifically told us that nobody TOOK His life from Him; He laid it down of His own accord. Nobody MADE Him suffer, He allowed the actions of others to wound Him. I suspect that had He opted, He could have just let whips bounce off His skin like bullets bouncing off Superman’s chest; I suspect that had He opted, He could have endured all kinds of blood loss and stab-wounds and suffocation on the cross and just Kept On Breathing. After all, if the Holy Spirit, coming upon a mere wafer of bread, can make that bread literally a “living sacrifice,” then I suppose the Spirit of God can make a human body stay alive, no matter how damaged.
You say: “...if He was obedient unto death - 2 PHIL 6-11, was He actually free as a Man to say no.” Of course. No argument there!
You say, “Same for Mary…Mary had to be free as a normal human to sin, regardless of how or when she was cleansed of sin.” Well, naturally. But again, my original post was asking about the Orthodox critique of the Catholic understanding of all this. For the Catholics say that their view does not make Mary an automaton incapable of sin, anymore than the same state made Eve an automaton incapable of sin. If, therefore, there are some Orthodox who say that the Catholic view implies that Mary was an automaton, I wonder where they could possibly get such a notion?
Thanks.