Eastern, Oriental and Western understanding of Immaculate Conception

[yawsep1569]

I found the theory of ancestor purification culminated in Mary is interesting and I don’t find it is incompatible with the Latin dogma of immaculate conception.
The dogma is silent on how the grace works. It only state that in Mary, it was complete, the indwelling of the Spirit is perfect in Mary.

And I found it entertaining.
When the Latin defines the after effect of consecration in transubstantiation, the Orthodox said we define too much.
When the Latin defines the perfect indwelling of Spirit in Mary, someone out there yell we define too little.

Well one clear characteristic of Western tradition is the need to define as much as possible to be clear about the faith. Those of the Eastern traditions do not feel any such compulsion. I am not sure whether this can be attributed to the split off of Protestants since Aquinas is a great example and predated that period. This is my own theory anyway.

And though you may find this entertaining Alfonsus, I do not. The history of the Latin church judging the faith of others by their own particular definitions has left many sad and bitter memories.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Trebor,

Interesting. Thanks for this explanation.

I would indeed like to hear the Catholic response on these two issues.

Forgive me for not giving a more prompt response.

On the issue of the free will of Mary, I think brother Vico provided a sufficient response - Adam and Eve were created without Original Sin, and did not have concupiscence, but the lack of those did not positively destroy their free human will. Further, consider that it is a universal Catholic teaching that Grace requires a free will response to be effective. So just because Mary had Grace, even more than any other creature, it did not by any means affect her free will. She still needed to respond to that Grace given to her by her own volition.

On the issue of whether Mary’s conception was natural, as noted, the dogma of the IC does not touch upon the physical conception of Mary in any way, only the spiritual conception. This issue was settled way back in the 17th century by Pope Alexander VII, who affirmed that the dogma is in regards to the origin of Mary’s SOUL, not her body. The Pope was actually specifically responding to those who were claiming that the dogma meant that Mary did not have a natural physical conception from Sts. Joachim and Hannah. This interpretation was causing the doctrine of the IC to be maligned and questioned, especially in academic circles. He responded appropriately and even placed an interdict on those who would say otherwise in these words: “And therefore, against all and everyone of those who shall continue to construe the said Constitutions and Decrees in a manner apt to frustrate the favor which is thereby given to the said doctrine…we hereby decree that they be deprived of the authority of preaching, reading in public, that is to say teaching and interpreting”

I actually debated a fellow Copt on this issue last year. His concern was that he could not fathom separating the creation of Mary’s soul from the creation of her body. So, “natural conception” refers to both the creation of body AND soul, and if her soul was created in a different way than the rest of humanity, then her conception would be unnatural. I responded that he was confusing the creation of Mary’s soul with the blessing placed upon it during its creation. If he can distinguish the spiritual blessing at Baptism from the creation of the soul, then he should have no problem distinguishing the unique blessing Mary received at the instant her soul was created from the actual creation of her soul, because the blessing we receive at Baptism is no different from the blessing Mary received at her conception. The only difference is the time it was received (for us, it is after birth; for Mary, it was at her conception) and its effect (for us, it is a removal of the state of separation from God; for Mary, it was a preservation from that state of separation). So Mary receiving the Grace of salvation at a different time than you or me does not in the least make Mary’s creation/conception unnatural or any different from ours.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[yawsep1569]

the blessing we receive at Baptism is no different from the blessing Mary received at her conception. The only difference is the time it was received (for us, it is after birth; for Mary, it was at her conception) and its effect (for us, it is a removal of the state of separation from God; for Mary, it was a preservation from that state of separation). So Mary receiving the Grace of salvation at a different time than you or me does not in the least make Mary’s creation/conception unnatural or any different from ours.

Marduk,

From my understanding, Marth Maryam did not have even the stain of original sin, and so there is no concupiscence. Of course, this does not affect her free will (in fact, she experienced greater freedom) but this is a big difference from our condition. Also, I have read that since she was completely preserved from original sin, she was not necessarily mortal. She did not have to die, but she prayed to be allowed to do so (to conform herself more closely to God?) and gave up her spirit out of her own free will. Is this contradictory to Orthodox teaching? I don’t know if the idea that the Theotokos chose to die though she did not have to is acceptable. Perhaps it can be reconciled?

Peace and blessings,
yawsep

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yawsep,

From my understanding, Marth Maryam did not have even the stain of original sin, and so there is no concupiscence.

To be perfectly concise, the “stain of original sin” has nothing to do with concupiscence. The “stain of original sin” is a specific theological term used by the Latin Church to refer to the spiritual separation from God. Trent specifically uses this term in its teaching on Baptism, asserting that Baptism removes the “stain of orginal sin” from us, meaning that Baptism unites us to God.

Of course, this does not affect her free will (in fact, she experienced greater freedom) but this is a big difference from our condition.

I don’t think it is a huge difference. I think Latins generally understand concupiscence as “the tendency to sin.” So it may seem that this is a huge difference. But my own Coptic understanding is informed by St. Athanasius’ definition of concupiscence as the “disordered use of reason.” I think about how many people I’ve met who certainly have a greater use of reason than me, but I doubt they are any less of a sinner because of that. So Mary had a perfect use of reason. That does not mean she could not sin or lost the free will to be able to sin, which is what counts.

Also, I have read that since she was completely preserved from original sin, she was not necessarily mortal. She did not have to die, but she prayed to be allowed to do so (to conform herself more closely to God?) and gave up her spirit out of her own free will. Is this contradictory to Orthodox teaching? I don’t know if the idea that the Theotokos chose to die though she did not have to is acceptable. Perhaps it can be reconciled?

Well, I don’t think there is anything to reconcile. The idea that Mary was not mortal is merely a theologoumenon among certain Latins. I don’t think anyone would even count it on the level of doctrine. I don’t think a single Latin Catholic bishop would be caught dead teaching that Mary was not mortal. It is simply impossible that Mary was not mortal because if she was not mortal, Christ would not have a fully human nature. The Catholic Church explicitly teaches (according to Trent) that all men were subject to death, and that includes Mary. The only exception given to Mary was her preservation from the stain of Original Sin (which means spiritual separation from God).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[yawsep1569]

Dear brother Yawsep,

To be perfectly concise, the “stain of original sin” has nothing to do with concupiscence. The “stain of original sin” is a specific theological term used by the Latin Church to refer to the spiritual separation from God. Trent specifically uses this term in its teaching on Baptism, asserting that Baptism removes the “stain of orginal sin” from us, meaning that Baptism unites us to God.

I don’t think it is a huge difference. I think Latins generally understand concupiscence as “the tendency to sin.” So it may seem that this is a huge difference. But my own Coptic understanding is informed by St. Athanasius’ definition of concupiscence as the “disordered use of reason.” I think about how many people I’ve met who certainly have a greater use of reason than me, but I doubt they are any less of a sinner because of that. So Mary had a perfect use of reason. That does not mean she could not sin or lost the free will to be able to sin, which is what counts.

Well, I don’t think there is anything to reconcile. The idea that Mary was not mortal is merely a theologoumenon among certain Latins. I don’t think anyone would even count it on the level of doctrine. I don’t think a single Latin Catholic bishop would be caught dead teaching that Mary was not mortal. It is simply impossible that Mary was not mortal because if she was not mortal, Christ would not have a fully human nature. The Catholic Church explicitly teaches (according to Trent) that all men were subject to death, and that includes Mary. The only exception given to Mary was her preservation from the stain of Original Sin (which means spiritual separation from God).

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks for your response, Marduk! I have talked about this subject with my Orthodox cousins quite a bit and it has been difficult to establish agreement. Perhaps, I myself don’t understand the doctrine well enough or we just like to argue

Since death is an effect of original sin, it would appear that Maryam did not die (at least she did not have to). This is not to deny that she did not die, but she did not have to. I don’t think this is mere speculation and it follows naturally from the doctrine of IC. It does not seem possible to hold that Maryam experienced only the physical effects of original sin and not the spiritual ones because she was preserved from both! The possibility that the Theotokos did not have to die is not something Orthodox can accept, I think…

Also, didn’t death enter the world after human nature? If so, then it would appear that mortality is not something needed to have a fully human nature. Maybe.

Peace, brother.

 

[suissemissed]

Thanks for your response, Marduk! I have talked about this subject with my Orthodox cousins quite a bit and it has been difficult to establish agreement. Perhaps, I myself don’t understand the doctrine well enough or we just like to argue

Since death is an effect of original sin, it would appear that Maryam did not die (at least she did not have to). This is not to deny that she did not die, but she did not have to. I don’t think this is mere speculation and it follows naturally from the doctrine of IC. It does not seem possible to hold that Maryam experienced only the physical effects of original sin and not the spiritual ones because she was preserved from both! The possibility that the Theotokos did not have to die is not something Orthodox can accept, I think…

Also, didn’t death enter the world after human nature? If so, then it would appear that mortality is not something needed to have a fully human nature. Maybe.

Peace, brother.

If I may join in the discussion Yawsep, in your post above (in the bolded part), you stated that death is an effect of original sin. I would say that it is, but only in the Eastern definition of original sin. To us Latins, “original sin” means solely our spiritual separation from God (lack of sanctifying grace, concupiscence, etc.) It doesn’t refer to the state of our physical bodies. So when the Catholic Church defined the Immaculate Conception in the 1800’s, it defined it in the Latin sense. In fact, when defining Maryam’s Assumption/Dormition nearly a century later, Pope Pius XII intentionally avoided making any reference to whether she died or not. Now why would he do that? Because Catholics are just as free to believe that she died as they are to believe that she didn’t! The Catholic Church does not teach as dogma what you said in the green text above. The Church only teaches that Maryam was preserved from the negative spiritual effects of ancestral sin; she is silent as to the physical aspects.

As to your last question, I would say (but this is just my opinion!) that Adam and Eve’s immortal human nature was somewhat different than their nature after sin came along. Christ needed to born with a mortal body (and thus, Maryam’s body had to be mortal as well), so that through His death and Resurrection, He could break the bonds of death and make us immortal again. He took our mortal nature, and raised it up again to immortality through His rising from the tomb! But all this is just my opinion, I have no idea how sound it will turn out to be when tested against the great apologists on this forum

 

[Alfonsus]

And remember, the Latins too traditionally say that Mary died at a certain point. This is telling from Western art, where tomb of Mary is depicted. It is depicted in one panel in the Door of Death of St. Peter Basilica. There are festivals of Mary dormition, I think in Spain where a life size Mary statue lie in dormition is processed every year.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions dormition, citing it from Byzantine troparion.

CCC 966 “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.” The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.

The notion of Mary was never died, is actually a novelty. The official Latin teaching favor the dormition, as attested by the Catechism.

 

[Dollinger]

Adam and Eve were likewise full of Grace and “without Original Sin” from their conceptions, and look how that turned out!

So Mary is not the “great exception”, even according to the dogma. She is, rather, a model for what we can be when we cooperate fully with God’s Grace and don’t turn our backs on Him.

Mary is the great exception according to Ineffabilis Deus. Adam and Eve could not bear original sin anyway, becaure they were the first created, before the fall. So the analogy used to justify this dogma is rather weak.

Now, we need to quote ineffabilis Deus:

SUPREME REASON FOR THE PRIVILEGE: THE DIVINE MATERNITY

What is a privilege is not an exception? In the bull we read this:

---

Hence the words of one of our predecessors, Alexander VII, who authoritatively and decisively declared the mind of the Church: "Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul’s infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God

, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin. And in this sense have the faithful ever solemnized and celebrated the Feast of the Conception."*

**singular grace and privilege **granted by Almighty God

No exception right?

The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin

So even until Aquinas it was denied, St Bernard of Clairveaux saw it as an inovation, but it was ever held as divinely revealed and contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation?

and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.

Can someone show us how this doctrine never ceased to be explained and taught at every age of the Church?

Indeed, considering the times and circumstances, the Fathers of Trent sufficiently intimated by this declaration that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from the original stain; and thus they clearly signified that nothing could be reasonably cited from the Sacred Scriptures, from Tradition, or from the authority of the Fathers, which would in any way be opposed to so great a prerogative of the Blessed Virgin.

What what what? Nothing from the Fathers could be opposed to the immaculate conception of the Theotokos? Wait a minute. Either Pius IX is lying, and this bull is invalid. Or Trent really said it and Trent is wrong and invalid. None can escape from this.

This is even denied by the Catholic encylopedia:

***Proof from Tradition
In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.

•Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ’s passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary’s soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, “In Luc. hom. xvii”).
•In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary’s soul (Epistle 259).
•St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew).
But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science. ***

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Saint Epiphanios of Cyprus (c. 315-403) writes that Mary “was a woman, not to be distinguished in nature at all from others. She was conceived by marital union and the seed of man…”[xxi] Moreover, “Mary is not God, and did not receive a body from heaven, but from the joining of man and woman; and according to the promise, like Isaac, she was prepared to take part in the divine economy.”
Against the Antidikomarionites; Maximovitch, p. 41.

The problem here is that Pius IX didnt say that this dogma was in progress and that it developed. He said nothing can be quoted from the Fathers that would go against this dogma:

**nothing **could be reasonably cited from the Sacred Scriptures, from Tradition, or from the authority of the Fathers, which would in any way be opposed to so great a prerogative of the Blessed Virgin

Finaly, we are told:

**Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart. **

Well sorry, we will reject it. If some want to believe the Theotokos was IC, good for them, if some dont, good for them too.

But we will not accept such falsehood as Ineffabilis Deus.

 

[GaryTaylor]

We already traveled this road with Patristics they date to the 1st century. There are two sides to the story, no doubt. I see no sense in debating this it doesn’t resolve this issue.

google.com/url?q=http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/03/immaculate-conception.html&sa=U&ei=59-BT97cMsbB0QGH79j-Bw&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=yYKG5QdQ_0bMWVk9PG2ymg&usg=AFQjCNFXbBesRSVK1Ca6ox_gBtuVZffY_w

I also can see where John the Baptist becomes relevant here, then also Sarah/Abraham, Samsons mother, and lets not forget Hannah. Genesis/Judges/Samual.

Or does the Visitation resolve John the Baptist? This becomes the point Elizabeth is “filled with the Holy Spirit” when she is Visited by Mary thus the Visitation, so we are to assume conceived without stain? Thus we have to resolve the above. Also “and he (John the Baptist) will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mothers womb” (Luke 1:15) The Visitation also confirms Mother of the Lord.

Now if this be the case, then this too resolves the OT. If not, I know not what to tell you with all this in mind.

Affirmative that Mary was a Virgin, She knew no man, this is affirmed in scripture. Thus the Incarnation, God could not, nor was not born into a fallen state of another being fully human and fully divine. This we can rest assure is heretical and impossible. Virgin with no relationship is a give, as is the Annunciation, thus Overshawdowed by the HS. Thus the Second person the Most Holy Trinity.

There is but “three” ways in logic this could have happened.

1. The Immaculate Conception
2. Mary was preserved at the moment of the Lords conception.
3. Mary was preserved sometime after her birth and before the Christs.

Must conclude here Bl Duns Scotus presents an interesting debate. “Panagia” confirms thus the office of Mary in Eastern Theology.

Course so too comes the issue of original sin and ancestral sin which in the prior case I believe we can conclude dates to either Augustine or Tertullian. I see nothing else in regards which dates earlier. Nor do see an issue here.

Next is the original Greek Term which is assigned to Mary with Full of Grace. To save time here is this thinking.

google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm19.htm&sa=U&ei=ZVy-T_LGBqLw6AH46LlB&ved=0CBQQFjAB&sig2=nK4urUdn3AqqPI2yb7EqYQ&usg=AFQjCNFaZi4j5W9IMoq843tG0fUg3s1QdQ

Nevertheless the point here again becomes the salutation or Annunciation, Gabriel thus greets Mary in this manner before the Holy Sprirt overshadows Mary, this then indicates Mary already was in this state of Grace, in fact Full of Grace, would mean lacking none. Course then the rest becomes history.

Its an interesting debate in this area for then I believe we have to believe at the moment of the Christs conception would be void? This leaves but two alternatives.

Whats the answer? For sure we can say its most fitting to err on the side of the IC than to underestimate Gods Grace and Divine plan for Salvation.

Understood this requires much research and contemplation. Not so easy to dismiss the IC though.

 

[Dollinger]

Gary it does not really adress the issue. Piux IX says no patristic text can be quoted against the IC. Many texts can be quoted against it. So he is wrong, and his infaillible decree too.

And even in the link, no text from the 1st century talks about it, that is a lie.

 

[Vico]

Gary it does not really adress the issue. Piux IX says no patristic text can be quoted against the IC. Many texts can be quoted against it. So he is wrong, and his infaillible decree too.

And even in the link, no text from the 1st century talks about it, that is a lie.

The Apostolic Constitution is not irreformable, only the dogmatic definition given is. When the dogma of baptism was phrased at Trent it was given as “reatum originalis peccati remitti”, but the declaration was not applied to the Virgin Mary. As to that dogma and the later one on the Immaculate Conception, one needs to know the two Justinian legal terms pertinent for the consequence of an action:

1. Reatus culpa = culpability associated with the sentence
2. Reatus poena = penalty of the sentence

Adam and Eve had both 1 and 2, but we have only 2.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The baptism is for the remission of sin* (2). The Theotokos was excluded from the baptism dogma at Trent, but became the focus of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, conceived with the state of one baptized.

• St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6. (Ancient Christian Writers, p. 57)“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”
  books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&pg=PA581&lpg=PA581&dq=ancient+christian+baptismal+instructions&source=bl&ots=BsaK0-HWzv&sig=qzr0ByV4c89cbpTuO1pU7fxjdhI&hl=en&ei=fii_TtbJDM-1tge_75C8Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=ancient%20christian%20baptismal%20instructions&f=false

From 3:6:

1 remission of sins
2 sanctification
3 justice
4 filial adoption
5 inheritance
6 brothers of Christ
7 members of Christ
8 dwelling places for the Holy Spirit

“You are called faithful both because you believe in God and have as a trust from him justificaton, sanctity, purity of soul, filial adoption, and the kingdom of heaven.”

From 12:6:

9 purity of soul
10 kingdom of heaven

 

[Dollinger]

The Apostolic Constitution is not irreformable, only the dogmatic definition given is. When the dogma of baptism was phrased at Trent it was given as “reatum originalis peccati remitti”, but the declaration was not applied to the Virgin Mary. As to that dogma and the later one on the Immaculate Conception, one needs to know the two Justinian legal terms pertinent for the consequence of an action:

1. Reatus culpa = culpability associated with the sentence
2. Reatus poena = penalty of the sentence

Adam and Eve had both 1 and 2, but we have only 2.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The baptism is for the remission of sin* (2). The Theotokos was excluded from the baptism dogma at Trent, but became the focus of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, conceived with the state of one baptized.

• St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6. (Ancient Christian Writers, p. 57)“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”
  books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&pg=PA581&lpg=PA581&dq=ancient+christian+baptismal+instructions&source=bl&ots=BsaK0-HWzv&sig=qzr0ByV4c89cbpTuO1pU7fxjdhI&hl=en&ei=fii_TtbJDM-1tge_75C8Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=ancient%20christian%20baptismal%20instructions&f=false

From 3:6:

1 remission of sins
2 sanctification
3 justice
4 filial adoption
5 inheritance
6 brothers of Christ
7 members of Christ
8 dwelling places for the Holy Spirit

“You are called faithful both because you believe in God and have as a trust from him justificaton, sanctity, purity of soul, filial adoption, and the kingdom of heaven.”

From 12:6:

9 purity of soul
10 kingdom of heaven

What is your point? I didnt talk about the apostolic constitution.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And even in the link, no text from the 1st century talks about it, that is a lie.

Definition of “Immaculate” is “without spot of stain.” Conception is a give, unless you believe this is a lie …Mother of God.

So who “lied” the Apostle Mark, James or Andrew? All from what century…umm the 1st? And the patristics continue each and every century.

As to other patistric quotes on this thread, if you bothered actually reading the link you will see many contrary by the exact same Saints mentioned “above” also. Such as St. John Chrysostom’s etc.

Oh, Origen was also quoted? Here’s a contrary quote from him since the link provides none.

Origen - “This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one” (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Early Church Fathers changing there thinking with age and education is really “nothing new”. Those who were “mistaken” God corrects them upon arrival at the judgement.

As to the Pope Pius comment, you as a Catholic who somehow concludes the IC is a lie. Perhaps you can explain how you reconcile this with “required” belief as a Catholic? Then perhaps you can explain the Birth of Christ in your view. Would love to hear this.

Eastern/Western terminology is irrelevant with sin, one is Augustine-West and the other is Athanasius-East. Then of course we have the Apostle Paul and his Epistles/Letters. Personally I go with the Apostle Paul on this.

 

[Dollinger]

Definition of “Immaculate” is “without spot of stain.” Conception is a give, unless you believe this is a lie …Mother of God

To say she is immaculate does not tell anything about her conception.

So who “lied” the Apostle Mark, James or Andrew? All from what century…umm the 1st? And the patristics continue each and every century.

Not Mark, nor James, nor Andrew talked about her conception, sorry.

As to other patistric quotes on this thread, if you bothered actually reading the link you will see many contrary by the exact same Saints mentioned “above” also. Such as St. John Chrysostom’s etc.

You mean the same st John Chrysostom who said:

•St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew).
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

?

Oh, Origen was also quoted? Here’s a contrary quote from him since the link provides none.

Origen - “This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one” (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Nothing about her conception. But your roman catholic encylopedia says:

•Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ’s passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary’s soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, “In Luc. hom. xvii”).

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Early Church Fathers changing there thinking with age and education is really “nothing new”. Those who were “mistaken” God corrects them upon arrival at the judgement.

You have proof that they changed their mind, or is it like St Palamas who, in the mind of the Vatican, changed his mind on the vatican’s heresies?

As to the Pope Pius comment, you as a Catholic who somehow concludes the IC is a lie.

I dont even say it is a lie. I clearly said in an earlier post, if you could read properly:

Well sorry, we will reject it. If some want to believe the Theotokos was IC, good for them, if some dont, good for them too.

Is it hard to understand?

Perhaps you can explain how you reconcile this with “required” belief as a Catholic?

Yes i can. Leave the vatican and join the only Catholic Orthodox Apostolic Church.

Then perhaps you can explain the Birth of Christ in your view. Would love to hear this.

The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness
Ex Cathedra statement of Pope st Leo the Great newadvent.org/fathers/3604028.htm

Eastern/Western terminology is irrelevant with sin, one is Augustine-West and the other is Athanasius-East. Then of course we have the Apostle Paul and his Epistles/Letters. Personally I go with the Apostle Paul on this.

Wonderfull, you’re then ready to leave old Rome for new Rome. Cheers

As far as Augustinian western terminology is concerned:

§8. ***But Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that He was conceived and born without original (sin).1 Moreover the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original (sin), but not born (in it). ***
1 In this reckoning St. Thomas erred, by not considering that for the most perfect redemption it is proper to have a most perfect redeemed, and this not only after contracting sin, from conception, but even before contracting it, in conception. Cf. Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX. Thomas Aquinas franciscan-archive.org/bvm/salut.html

 

[loko]

Gary it does not really adress the issue. Piux IX says no patristic text can be quoted against the IC. Many texts can be quoted against it. So he is wrong, and his infaillible decree too.

And even in the link, no text from the 1st century talks about it, that is a lie.

And why would we believe you over exalted theologians such as Pius IX and St Thomas Aquinas?

None of your posts support your flimsy arguments against Immaculate Conception. You ignored Vicos post because you didn’t read it fully and understand it.

If you are not a believer of Immaculate Conception, take the Capital c out of your faith icon. You are not Catholic.

 

[Dollinger]

And why would we believe you over exalted theologians such as Pius IX and St Thomas Aquinas?

Actualy, Aquinas disagrees with Pius IX:

**§8. But Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that He was conceived and born without original (sin).1 Moreover the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original (sin), but not born (in it). **
1 **In this reckoning St. Thomas erred, by not considering that for the most perfect redemption it is proper to have a most perfect redeemed, and this not only after contracting sin, from conception, but even before contracting it, in conception. Cf. Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX. **
franciscan-archive.org/bvm/salut.html

I side with facts, you can side with Pius IX.

None of your posts support your flimsy arguments against Immaculate Conception.

Prove it.

You ignored Vicos post because you didn’t read it fully and understand it.

I read it fully, but i didnt understand it.Just like you with my post i guess? And just like most of the roman catholics with their own dogmas?

If you are not a believer of Immaculate Conception, take the Capital c out of your faith icon. You are not Catholic.

I’m a Catholic, you’re a Vaticanist.

 

[GaryTaylor]

To say she is immaculate does not tell anything about her conception.

Oh I’m sorry I didn’t supply the simple math for you?

The “Bible” tells of her Conception, she was is the Mother of God. Eastern/Western and all the Apostolic Church, Ecumenical Councils…PERIOD. The patristics of Three Apostles state “Immaculate” you do the math…One plus One=TWO.

I’m done with the patistrics game. The proof is already supplied. You just either can’t see it or refuse to.

Still waiting to hear how the Christ was Conceived in your Theology.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St Thomas Aquinas is another non-issue. Read, Thomas Aquinas on the Immaculate Conception at…the-pope.com

 

[Cavaradossi]

And why would we believe you over exalted theologians such as Pius IX and St Thomas Aquinas?

None of your posts support your flimsy arguments against Immaculate Conception. You ignored Vicos post because you didn’t read it fully and understand it.

If you are not a believer of Immaculate Conception, take the Capital c out of your faith icon. You are not Catholic.

Thomas Aquinas didn’t believe the Immaculate Conception. Perhaps he is not Catholic either.

 

[Dollinger]

The “Bible” tells of her Conception, she was is the Mother of God.

That she is the Mother of God is about the birth of Jesus from her. The IC dogma is about the conception of the Theotokos from Joachim and Anna. What’s wrong with you?

Apostolic Church, Ecumenical Councils…PERIOD. The patristics of Three Apostles state “Immaculate” you do the math…One plus One=TWO.

Nothing about her conception here. Aquinas believed she was immaculate, but refuted that she was IC.

I’m done with the patistrics game. The proof is already supplied. You just either can’t see it or refuse to.

Patristic is not a game. Yes, proof is not on your side, sorry. Yes, i refuse error.

Still waiting to here how the Christ was Conceived in your Theology.

Council of Ephesus: “We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place.”

Thomas Aquinas, citing Saint John of Damascus: "On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): ‘At the very instant that there was flesh, it was the flesh of the Word of God, it was flesh animated with a rational and intellectual soul.’ "
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q. 33, A. 2

That has nothing to do with the Theotokos conception. And as said st Leo the Great in an ex cathedra statement:

The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness
Ex Cathedra statement of Pope st Leo the Great newadvent.org/fathers/3604028.htm