Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Immaculate Conception?

[Vico]

Grace is God. No classifications.

This isn’t a zero sum game. There can be grace along with sin, there can be grace without sin, there can be sin without grace.

St Paul said ‘where sin abounds, grace abounds even more’. What could he have meant by that? I think it is a message of hope. It means God does not abandon us.

I read in another forum where some Catholic priest was claiming that one’s prayers are not efficacious if one is not in a state of grace. Apparently he is a traditionalist.

But he seems to be saying that God will not even listen to you if you have any sin, if I follow the argument correctly. I don’t think most Roman Catholics will agree with that, but the idea is certainly out there, and circulating.

The reason I mention this is that I think we both can agree that the Holy Theotokos was born without sin, if we can agree that no one is born with sin. Orthodox do not assume that a baby is born with sin [it would be a theological opinion at best]. Roman Catholics generally do assume that a baby is born with sin, but cannot imagine that God would permit St Mary to have been born with it.

Remove the sin, and grace flows. This is in harmony with what the traditionalist priest mentioned above was saying.

The BVM born with sin?! Perish the thought! You born with sin? Of course!

So the Latin west (and most Protestants, following this line of thinking) assume that everyone is born with this blotch on their souls, and because of that there can be no grace. Wash the blotch out and the grace can come in.

Thus when they read ‘full of grace’ they assume that means no sin, which is fine because they don’t want the BVM to have any sin, ever. They don’t want to think of her that way.

But Orthodox do not think in these terms.

God goes where He wills, He is omnipresent. He works through saints and sinners alike.

God could have made Jesus out of a rock along the road, He could have dropped fully formed right out of the sky. He chose to be born of an ordinary woman in humble circumstances.

Fitting.

It must seem odd that Orthodox Catholics never addressed this idea of an immaculate conception for the Holy Theotokos, but the plain fact is the Christians of the east do not expect the unborn or the newly born to be damnable or punishable as they are, they are not automatically assumed to be ‘filthy’ or less worthy, and given time they can grow in God’s grace.

So to use your example:
An Orthodox Catholic would say for everyone “N +/- 0 = 0.”
A Roman Catholic would say for everyone “N - 1 = -1” until baptism, then “N - 1 + 1] = 0
A Roman Catholic would say for the BVM " N - 0 = 0”

It takes living a life in this wicked world, and making mistakes, that puts one’s soul in jeopardy. It has nothing to do with one’s conception.

For Roman Catholics to say the BVM must have been born immaculately is not strange in and of itself, it is just an admission that they have got the whole idea of original sin wrong to begin with. It’s a bug fix, a software patch.

Actually everyone is born the same way. What they do with their lives will make a big difference, and that is where living in the context of the church “the Body of Christ” i.e. receiving the sacred mysteries, worshiping together and making good life choices, can make all the difference.

That is what baptism is for, dying with Christ and rising with Him in a new life in His church. And from the very first day, the infant child is Confirmed and receiving Holy Communion to fortify him for the battles to come.

This is not Orthodox: An Orthodox Catholic would say for everyone “N +/- 0 = 0.”

“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.” – John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6.

 

[Cavaradossi]

This is not Orthodox: An Orthodox Catholic would say for everyone “N +/- 0 = 0.”

“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.” – John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6.

Curious, when you shift the emphasis back just one sentence, this statement seems to support what Hesychios was saying: that infants are not born in some state of sin which must be cleansed. Do you believe that the Virgin Mary was really given these gifts at conception (most curiously, the gifts of filial adoption and inheritance, even before the very existence of Christ in economy!), or that she needed these gifts to remain sinless?

 

[Vico]

Curious, when you shift the emphasis back just one sentence, this statement seems to support what Hesychios was saying: that infants are not born in some state of sin which must be cleansed.

The Catholic teaching is that infants are born without actual sin. What constitutes the stain of original sin is not actual sin, it is the depravation of gifts that Adam and Eve had been given. The Catholic teaching is in perfect harmony with St. John Chrysostom baptismal instruction quoted.

You wrote: “Do you believe that the Virgin Mary was really given these gifts at conception (most curiously, the gifts of filial adoption and inheritance, even before the very existence of Christ in economy!), or that she needed these gifts to remain sinless?”

The key concept is that the Theotokos was preserved from sin from the first moment of her conception. That does not mean she received every gift that Adam and Eve had been given. For clearly what is taught is the preventive Redemption by Christ due to his love and mediation which established that the Theotokos be preserved from sin. Duns Scotus provided that the preservation was not temporal but natural. Note that:

According, indeed, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in baptism everything that is really sin is taken away, and so, in those who are born anew there is nothing that is hateful to God.3 It follows that the concupiscence that remains in the baptized is not, properly speaking, sin.

3 Cf. Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin (DS 1515).

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCPULUTH.HTM

 

[Hesychios]

Thank you for replying, Hesychios. I appreciate your effort to compile such a well presented post. What I have quoted above is what catches my eye the most. This long-time debate about the efficacious quality of grace is argued even among scholastic groups in the Roman Catholic Church: Namely, the Dominicans and Jesuits.
Simply put, we cannot decide if graces are intrinsically different from each other (Thomistic) or if graces are intrinsically the same (Ignatian).I personally tend to lean towards the Thomistic view. To skim the surface, there are 8 basic systems of grace in western theology:
Thomism
Augustinianism
Molinism
Congruism
Syncretism
*Lutheranism
*Calvinism
*Jansenism

*Protestant

The two qualities of the scalar are divine sovereignty and free will. If you could make an ordered value chart out of it, it would look something like this:

… Pelagianism (Free-will Extremism, 100)

---

Molinism
Congruism
Syncretism
Thomism
Augustinianism

---

Lutheranism (45)
Calvinism
Jansenism

---

… Determinism (Divine Sovereignty extremism, 0)

Just to bring up some points-- it’s not all cut and dry as we’d like it to be.

I used to favor Molinism at one time myself, as an amateur opinion. What little I understood at the time. But it was all just a fancy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Catholic teaching is that infants are born without actual sin. What constitutes the stain of original sin is not actual sin, it is the depravation of gifts that Adam and Eve had been given. The Catholic teaching is in perfect harmony with St. John Chrysostom baptismal instruction quoted.

You wrote: “Do you believe that the Virgin Mary was really given these gifts at conception (most curiously, the gifts of filial adoption and inheritance, even before the very existence of Christ in economy!), or that she needed these gifts to remain sinless?”

The key concept is that the Theotokos was preserved from sin from the first moment of her conception. That does not mean she received every gift that Adam and Eve had been given. For clearly what is taught is the preventive Redemption by Christ due to his love and mediation which established that the Theotokos be preserved from sin. Duns Scotus provided that the preservation was not temporal but natural. Note that:

According, indeed, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in baptism everything that is really sin is taken away, and so, in those who are born anew there is nothing that is hateful to God.3 It follows that the concupiscence that remains in the baptized is not, properly speaking, sin.

3 Cf. Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin (DS 1515).

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCPULUTH.HTM

I am confused. So you agree that there is no actual sin at birth, and you also agree that the Immaculate Conception did not restore the Virgin Mary to a prelapsarian state. Why, therefore, must she have been Immaculately Conceived in order to be preserved from sin?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Grace come only from GOD. Roman Catholic view gives us a GODDESS who like GOD has no sin. That would mean she would not need salvation.

In all honesty, that seems like a dramatic oversimplification and, as some RC contributors have fairly noted, very much like a charge of Protestant origin and not a statement of Orthodox belief.

To suggest Mary did not need salvation would be to suggest that she were divine, not human. This is certainly not a Catholic belief.

I do think it would be helpful for some of our Orthodox contributors to comment on the basis of thought as to the Theotokos (Godbearer). By title and honor afforded her in the traditon, it is clear she holds a place of honor among above all others.

The OP, in spirit if not exact verbiage, asks this question fairly and in Christian charity. Thoughtful responses would work wonders in the minds and hearts of those who should zealously desire the unity of Christ’s Church, in fulfillment of His wish that we “all be as one”.

 

[Anthony_V]

I used to favor Molinism at one time myself, as an amateur opinion. What little I understood at the time. But it was all just a fancy.

Well don’t I feel like a dork for telling you something you already knew :hypno:
It must have been quite the ride from being a Roman Catholic to an eastern Orthodox. But I’m sure that’s a whoooole different story

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well don’t I feel like a dork for telling you something you already knew :hypno:
It must have been quite the ride from being a Roman Catholic to an eastern Orthodox. But I’m sure that’s a whoooole different story

If you want to educate anybody about that long list of -isms, I’m all ears, as I have no idea what many of those mean, apart from maybe Calvinism, Lutheranism and Augustinianism, and Thomism (and I have no idea what Augustinianism and Thomism assert about free will and determinism).

Of course, that might be a discussion more appropriate for a PM or another thread.

 

[Vico]

I am confused. So you agree that there is no actual sin at birth, and you also agree that the Immaculate Conception did not restore the Virgin Mary to a prelapsarian state. Why, therefore, must she have been Immaculately Conceived in order to be preserved from sin?

By prelapsarian, you are referring to the state of Adam and Eve before they sinned, called Original Justice. It was the simultaneous possession of the gift of sanctifying grace, with its right to enter heaven, and the preternatural gifts.

The dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception does not include any statement about the preternatural gifts, only the sanctifying grace, the deprivation of which is the “stain of original sin”, not actual sin. The teaching given in the Modern Catholic Dictionary (Fr. John Hardon, S.J.) for Original Justice is that “Sanctifying grace is restored at justification, but the preternatural gifts are returned only as capacities (such as the ability to overcome concupiscence) or only eventually (such as bodily immortality after the final resurrection).”

From the Council of Trent:"Justification is the change from the condition in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam into a state of grace and adoption among the children of God through the Second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior” (Denzinger 1524)
The Theotokos was conceived justified. Sources are the Gospels which recount the grace of the meeting of her parents Joachim and Anne, celebrated in the Traditional feast of Anne’s conception accepted by the Church. And (from the Catechism) “many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the *Protoevangelium *as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”.” – Genesis 3:15

 

[GaryTaylor]

By prelapsarian, you are referring to the state of Adam and Eve before they sinned, called Original Justice. It was the simultaneous possession of the gift of sanctifying grace, with its right to enter heaven, and the preternatural gifts.

The dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception does not include any statement about the preternatural gifts, only the sanctifying grace, the deprivation of which is the “stain of original sin”, not actual sin. The teaching given in the Modern Catholic Dictionary (Fr. John Hardon, S.J.) for Original Justice is that “Sanctifying grace is restored at justification, but the preternatural gifts are returned only as capacities (such as the ability to overcome concupiscence) or only eventually (such as bodily immortality after the final resurrection).”

From the Council of Trent:"Justification is the change from the condition in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam into a state of grace and adoption among the children of God through the Second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior” (Denzinger 1524)
The Theotokos was conceived justified. Sources are the Gospels which recount the grace of the meeting of her parents Joachim and Anne, celebrated in the Traditional feast of Anne’s conception accepted by the Church. And (from the Catechism) “many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the *Protoevangelium *as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”.” – Genesis 3:15

Tied this in nice, coming into focus now.

 

[Marybeloved]

You certainly did not bring up the accusations of Pelagianism. Perhaps it was overreacting on my part to suggest you planned it out, nontheless you left a distinct impression that you were not asking the question in good faith.

Actually, Nine, I did bring up pelagianism- look at it again, it’s post #3 on page 1. I can’t speak about the impression I left, since it’s what it is- I can’t say that a person has not been impressed by my words a certain way or not, what they say goes.

“I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”
Which you contradicted in post 64 (as I said you did it twice, but I’m not going to find the other place, although it was before that) when you said, “The same old polemics- baptism of the infant in CC is the beginning of eternal life/sanctifying grace- not the forgiving of sins.”

Does remission of sins necessarily equal forgiveness of sin? I think babies suffer the stain (absence of sanctifying grace) which we refer to often as “sin” and this certainly is removed at baptism by the infusion of sanctifying grace.

While you may be correct about the semantic difference, that you would express it as you did, I hope you see in hindsight, is bound to step on toes. Additionally you never showed this to be the case. Such accusations require great evidence. Not just the writing of a local council that you are interpreting in a non-standard way. Additionally I admit I’m just tired of Catholics telling us what we believe in order to enforce the fiction that there are no divides.

I’m not one who insists that there are no divides.

I don’t believe, and my faith does not teach, that “saved” is an event.

Of course not- we are not protestants . However the dying to sin and the world and rising to the new life in Christ must have a beginning- it’s an event we call justification in the West. Of course, it does not encompass the whole of salvation.

She had grace, what more do we need? The fact that she had it means grace itself is not linked to Christianity or any of its rituals

So what do you personally believe was the whole point of God becoming man and dying on the cross? What is the point of the church or the sacraments/mysteries in your own view?

(my own interpretation of the anathematizing of Pelagius would be that you need Grace just to come to Christ in the first place, meaning everyone who becomes Christian must already have been granted it).

Yes, you must be enabled by God to even want and seek him. But there is a grace to seek communion, and then there’s grace that is itself the communion. This latter is what many of us are talking about with regards to salvation/justification/new life.

Sometimes you seem to provide the most thoughtful posts, and then there are times like in this thread where you seem to write before thinking it through.

I wont object to this because I’ve gotten myself in trouble here two/three times before (you’re the second person to threaten me with the unknown ignore list). Perhaps I have a problem with my delivery or perhaps like you say, I sometimes type without thinking the proper manner of saying something until it’s too late and the other side is looking like this red guy here … Hopefully I’ll improve on this in future. But I rarely set out to annoy or offend- sometimes I just see things as black and white and get into a detached mood where the point I’m making is the focus (very narrow) and not the person I’m conversing with.

I’ll admit that may well be the case with my own posts, and perhaps I was over-reacting, but at the same time it seems my last post did result in the desired reaction from you.

Believe me, despite all appearances to the contrary, I’m all for fraternal correction . I hate discovering that a discussion/debate I’ve had has had the result of completely alienating the other side.

I suppose part of the problem is text is such an impersonal medium.

Yes- The temptation to forget you’re conversing with actual people and not the electronic box in front you is quite high.

 

[Marybeloved]

So what you’re saying is that God needed both recompense from the Paschal Sacrifice of Christ apart from just one’s sanctification?
I’m misunderstanding your wording here. I put emphasis on the part I don’t understand. If you could describe it in a time-line type organized format, that would help greatly. Gasping this concept of predestined original sin interfering with free will is making my head spin.

Wow, Anthony! I’ll let you in on a secret- Sometimes I look at my posts at CAF and I think I could possibly pretend to be a theologian. I’m not! I know very little technical stuff and philosophy. So there’s questions you’ve asked and things you’ve said here that go right past my head!

The parallel of roles as directing sin (as a negative entity) makes sense.The parallel of Adam as a priest or a null anointed one figure does not make sense to me, though.

What I meant was that Adam was acting for us all. His obedience would have benefited us all, and his sin (obviously) ruined us all!

Yes. I accept synergeia, and that is the root of what you said. However, I do not believe that being able to obtain grace by one’s nature is intrinsically pelagian. If God gives the creature a said nature, then God is still the first mover. As far as the nature of Grace, I tend to learn more towards Thomistic scholasticism than Jesuit scholasticism. We’re still awaiting the answer of the Holy See on that dispute. It would definitely help us define what is pelagian and what is [o]rthodox. I was actually researching this very matter the other day.

This is one example of what I said before- I don’t know what this term “synergeia” is…:shrug:You lost me at “being able to obtain grace by one’s nature” and I have no idea what this fight is between Jesuits and Thomists…Personally, I’d root for the Thomists- St. Thomas’ thought is truly impeccable .

We still run into a dead end here. Mary’s immaculate nature was not conferred on her by choice, but by God being the first mover. Such could also be the case for my nature and your nature; we have the natural desire to search for happiness.

Let me explain my thought in my own language to express what I understand- Hopefully you’ll be able to get my meaning. Babies are not baptized by choice either, and Grace, even when given to an adult who says Yes to it, is still a gift. Why? It’s God’s own life! Think about it- How could any creature “by it’s nature” give itself God’s life? Think about it like your most private feelings, your most subjective experience of your own life- How could I give it to myself unless you freely shared them with me? Does it make sense? Only if you freely chose to share them with me would I gain some access to your private experience. That’s a type of grace- A sharing with others (freely), out of love, of something that is strictly your own. Sanctifying grace is God’s own life- Who can give himself this life unless God freely shares it with them? Saying that Our Lady had this grace by nature, seems to me to be saying that she is a member of the Blessed Trinity . What she has by nature is her own private/individual existence, her creaturely life, if you will. Grace is an absolutely unmerited gift. Only the God-man could strictly “merit” or “earn” it- Why? He gave a type of “grace” or self-gift in love to God that was equal to God (He was the God-man), and God answered it with equal love, that is: self-gift/his own life aka Sanctifying Grace. To me, the only persons who possess this Grace by nature are God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Also, this “by nature” talk implies that Our Lady, of her very nature, had to be graced- Does this mean that she could not loose this Grace? After all, nature is nature- it does not depend on choices you make, so if her nature is immaculate/graced, then she cannot be fallen, even by choice- This would be erroneous to think this. The Grace does not belong to Mary’s nature, it’s a gift that she can loose like Adam and Eve or the fallen angels, but she made the choice of the Good angels, so she’s Holy forever.

Regardless, we are still disposed to to choose right and wrong. Mary, however, was not disposed to choose right and wrong. She was immaculate by her nature. That’s the reason I posted a while back on my hypothesis that Mary was not restricted by her free will, regardless:

I don’t understand what you mean by the dispositions to chose right/wrong. I know that per Latin understanding, beyond the official definition of the IC, Our Lady had the same nature as Adam and Eve before the fruit- So obviously her disposition was one of obedience- But that’s the “natural” state of all creatures who are not fallen- Is that what you’re referring to? However she was perfectly free, like Adam and Eve to disobey God and loose her Grace and the Divine indwelling in her soul.

 

[Ubenedictus]

The problem is you seem (and most of the Catholics here, though not all) are using “grace” and sinless interchangably. Yes she was born without sin, but so is everyone else. She was never “made sinless”, she simply was sinless.
As to when she received Grace, that isn’t an issue.

As for the line in scripture, first it is in Luke, and therefore written in Greek, not Aramaic, and the word is in the Present Perfect, which means it is something that has already been completed (i.e. she has already been filled with grace), but it is not a term that makes any indication of beginning.

I hope this helps sort out your confusion.

Thanks for correcting me, it was truly greek and the word kecharitomene are in the perfect pasive paticiple. It truly does not mean ‘from the begining’, but it does mean ‘completely, perfectly and enduringly endowed with grace’. I don’t think this is the problem the problem is WHEN do our orthordox brothers think she was endowed with such full grace? Catholic (consistent with apostolic tradition) say from the very begining. I can’t speak for the orthodox. What is original sin? It is not guilt or actual sin, it is the consequence of adams sin ‘a fallen nature’: the absence of santifying grace, a stain (according to tradition). It means i am not born a ‘child of God’ i was born with a rift between man and God A STAIN (according to tradition). This same tradition says mary is ‘stainless’, ‘spotless’, ‘immaculate’. 1+1=2 if she is without stain and ancestral sin is a stain she is ‘stainless’ s means she didn’t any stain even the original stain. The only way this will be proven wrong is to prove trddition wrong.
Ubenedictus.

 

[Fox]

Baptism is the way in which a person is actually united to Christ. The experience of salvation is initiated in the waters of baptism. Christ clearly states the need for a spiritual Baptism. Induction into the Christian church was and is accomplished by Baptism, the spiritual birth that complements the physical birth.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Baptism is the way in which a person is actually united to Christ. The experience of salvation is initiated in the waters of baptism. Christ clearly states the need for a spiritual Baptism. Induction into the Christian church was and is accomplished by Baptism, the spiritual birth that complements the physical birth.

No doubt, Amen, I believe I’ve already typed a complete post just on the supernatural virtue of Baptism on this thread through God. However you mention…“no-one” and include yourself and the human race, with St Mary.

“sin is transmitted to the human race in accordance with the Universal Law of Original Sin” Trent

Now what exactly are you saying about “SIN”. Be it Original or Ancestrial sin, you seem to fail to mention Baptism is also for the remission of sins inherited to all of us from Adam.

St. Mary isn’t in that equation also as per Trent, you and I are.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No doubt, Amen, I believe I’ve already typed a complete post just on the supernatural virtue of Baptism on this thread through God. However you mention…“no-one” and include yourself and the human race, with St Mary.

“sin is transmitted to the human race in accordance with the Universal Law of Original Sin” Trent

Now what exactly are you saying about “SIN”. Be it Original or Ancestrial sin, you seem to fail to mention Baptism is also for the remission of sins inherited to all of us from Adam.

St. Mary isn’t in that equation also as per Trent, you and I are.

The East sees sin as a sickness rather than an offense. The result of The Fall has wounded our nature and baptism heals this wound so that we can receive the Holy Spirit from God. In the West because of the legalistic view of sin, we see that the gravity of sin is determined by one’s knowledge of the gravity of sin and intent. So a baby raised to be a child warrior in some part of the world is not guilty of murder because he was raised that way and brainwashed to believe what he is doing is good. In the East we pray for forgiveness of our offenses, both voluntary and involuntary. We believe our nature to be defective and that is why we continued giving Communion even to babies because they need the Sacramental grace as much as adults.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

We have the sign of Jonah. No other miracles or signs are needed. They come, and we give acknowledgement to them, but they do not influence the faith. Either they are consistent with the faith and reveal nothing new to us, or they are from demons.

Scripture reveals and Jesus informs his Church that signs and wonders will confirm the Word they preach and teach with accompanying signs.

Jesus teaches during His commisioning of His Church that signs and will also accompany those who believe;

Many of the wonders and signs have come to us since apostolic times in forms of biblical writings and witnesses of apostolic apparitions, conversion of sinners and “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved”.

Sign of Jona is only given to those who do not accept Jesus and His teachings.

Miracles and tongues are for non-believers.

These miracles never negate the fact that Jesus remains our physician, Wonder-Counselor, God -Hero. Jesus works always reveal the finger of God has come upon us.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hesychios;8795797]Thus when they read ‘full of grace’ they assume that means no sin, which is fine because they don’t want the BVM to have any sin, ever. They don’t want to think of her that way.

Jesus is full of Grace and Truth, the Blessed Virgin is “full of grace”, christians are “parted grace” via our sacraments as our first installment of our inheritance as son’s of God, we are given the Spirit to drink.

The Holy Spirit espoused to the Blessed Virgin Mary, thus legally bonified her conception of Jesus from her fiat to conceive Jesus from the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

The blessed Virgin is full of grace, although she still had a free will to sin, to reject the word of God in her life as the first Adam and Eve did. Mary chose to say “Yes” to God.

Grace never means that one is incapable of sinning. The reason God graced the blessed Virgin “full of grace” was to fulfill His word (protoevangelium) so that she becomes the “Woman” who conceives the Word of God from her seed (virginity), to be able to give birth without any birth pains see Isaiah 66:7

But Orthodox do not think in these terms.

God goes where He wills, He is omnipresent. He works through saints and sinners alike.

God could have made Jesus out of a rock along the road, He could have dropped fully formed right out of the sky. He chose to be born of an ordinary woman in humble circumstances.

And God created a Woman with enmity from the serpent (sin) full of Grace. Scripture reveals God did this.

Fitting.

It must seem odd that Orthodox Catholics never addressed this idea of an immaculate conception for the Holy Theotokos, but the plain fact is the Christians of the east do not expect the unborn or the newly born to be damnable or punishable as they are, they are not automatically assumed to be ‘filthy’ or less worthy, and given time they can grow in God’s grace.

Catholics don’t either because we baptize our infants. The Immaculate conception does not deal with the nature of Jesus, revealed by Theotokos, the Immaculate conceptioin deals directly with the revelation of God’s saving Grace without constraints to time and mercy which are eternal.

For Roman Catholics to say the BVM must have been born immaculately is not strange in and of itself, it is just an admission that they have got the whole idea of original sin wrong to begin with. It’s a bug fix, a software patch.

Wrong??? Immaculate Conception reveals that sin entered the world originally by our first Adam. This original sin still exists in mans fallen nature before God’s grace saves man, and the result of original sin remains by concupisence after grace. Just because baptism removes all sin and actual punishment of sin, does not mean that man does not sin.

Jesus is known as the second Adam, to deliver us from the sin of the first Adam that separated man from communion with God.

What this original sin is and when it is removed? I don’t think has been discussed enough here to conclude anyone has got it wrong?

Baptism parts to us God’s saving grace from sin and punishment due to sin. This does not mean that man ceases to be able to sin. To be “full of Grace” applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary who Mothered God incarnate. No other Christian or creature in heaven or earth can make this claim. So Mary is distinct from all Christians from her obedience, yet saved by God’s grace as all Christians are, Mary distinctively by God from her Immaculate Conception.

 

[dcointin]

Would I be wrong in saying that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is based on theological extrapolation rather than tradition? Are there any patristic quotations in support of the dogma?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Would I be wrong in saying that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is based on theological extrapolation rather than tradition? Are there any patristic quotations in support of the dogma?

Its based on the Western tradition of doing theological extrapolation on everything