Immaculate conception

[PeaceInChrist]

You know, Every time I open my mouth on here about what the Roman church says, there is someone else who says different. I have heard so many people say so many different things about what the roman church is supposed to teach that I have pretty much turned off to all of them.

For the big doctrines, (espcially justification), I only go by the official sources which are supposedly infallible.

Here is what the ‘infallible’ source says:

Note: your words:
Trent’s words:

I am certainly glad that you think differently to Trent, but given that you call yourself Catholic, it is fair to ask: why do you think of yourself Catholic if you disagree with Rome? According to Rome, you are anathematised by default.

I presumed you were speaking of initial justification, in baptism, which is a completely free gift and we cannot merit it, as opposed to the merit of grace that may result in our sanctification and make us ‘more worthy’ of Christ’s promises (still justification, but not the same as meriting initial justification, or eternal life, itself).

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

I shouldn’t have presumed. I have heard many Protestants say that Catholics think we can literally ‘earn our way to heaven’, so I automatically jumped to that train of thought. Obviously, we do not believe that. We may merit increased grace and holiness (thus becoming more worthy of Christ’s promises than if we had not responded as fully to His grace), but not sanctifying grace and initial justification. A clear example is the saints: they merited far more grace than most, because of their extraordinary response to God’s grace, and were made more holy because of this. Those who do this will also be given a greater share of glory in Heaven

You should read the catechism link that I posted; it’s good stuff!

*and obviously if I contradict anything that the Church has proclaimed, I retract it. Though in this case, I was separating the worthiness of receiving the unmerited gift of divine life and the increase of our worthiness of Christ’s promises through our response to Him. Both, it seems, can be called justification, but sanctifying grace itself is unmerited.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I presumed you were speaking of initial justification, in baptism, which is a completely free gift and we cannot merit it, as opposed to the merit of grace that may result in our sanctification and make us ‘more worthy’ of Christ’s promises (still justification, but not the same as meriting initial justification, or eternal life, itself).

I shouldn’t have presumed. I have heard many Protestants say that Catholics think we can literally ‘earn our way to heaven’, so I automatically jumped to that train of thought. Obviously, we do not believe that. We may merit increased grace and holiness (thus becoming more worthy of Christ’s promises than if we had not responded as fully to His grace), but not sanctifying grace and initial justification. A clear example is the saints: they merited far more grace than most, because of their extraordinary response to God’s grace, and were made more holy because of this. Those who do this will also be given a greater share of glory in Heaven

You should read the catechism link that I posted; it’s good stuff!

*and obviously if I contradict anything that the Church has proclaimed, I retract it. Though in this case, I was separating the worthiness of receiving the unmerited gift of divine life and the increase of our worthiness of Christ’s promises through our response to Him. Both, it seems, can be called justification, but sanctifying grace itself is unmerited.

Have you not wandered into the crux of the problem between the Protestant and Catholics view of justification? Are not the Protestants 100% correct when they say justification is ny faith alone in the context of “initial” justification? At that point we have not had time to add works to the mix. And this is obviously what Paul is talking about. But in the larger picture, the Catholics are 100% correct, faith without works is dead. Show me your faith and I will show you my works which are evidence of my faith. Faith and works go together like the old song, Love and Marriage-- you can’t have one without the other, at least, not after the initial justification. I hate to say anyone is wrong, but in this respect, Protestants have failed to understand the context of Paul’s words, and in not looking at them in the larger picture, they have missed the boat on this one. This is and has always been the problem with private interpretation. The Bible must be seen in its entirety, not zeroing in on several verses and making them the whole of it. It also reinforces why Christ felt it necessary to seal His Church with the promise of inerrancy. No church could last to the end of time if this were not so, and Christ would have failed in His attempt to bring salvation to future generations by default.

*But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. * Notice that it says “leads to holiness,” not that you are already there. Or in the Douay rendering, *But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting. * And that fruit refers to the good works that sanctify us.

 

[tp3192000]

Furthermore, although not ‘required’ to be believed, Our Lady appeared to St’s Catherine Laboure, and Burnadette of Lourdes–and introduced herself as “Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception”:

frtommylane.com/homilies/years_abc/immaculate_conception2.htm

I think this response was a great answer to the question regarding the Immaculate Conception. The answer mentions two of the ten great signs given to the modern world, the Miraculous Medal and the Apparitions at Lourdes; both proclaiming the Immaculate Conception by Our Lady herself.

 

[tp3192000]

^^^follow up:

Patrick Madrid states it much better than I—here is an excerpt, with a link:

Thank you for posting this. It is a golden nugget of information that has been added to my store of treasure.

 

[Goya]

Thank you for posting this. It is a golden nugget of information that has been added to my store of treasure.

I think this response was a great answer to the question regarding the Immaculate Conception. The answer mentions two of the ten great signs given to the modern world, the Miraculous Medal and the Apparitions at Lourdes; both proclaiming the Immaculate Conception by Our Lady herself.

My pleasure, and thank you.

 

[Brandrewpaul]

How can anyone believe that Our Blessed Mother was not conceived Immaculatly. Her body had to be perfect to have our Lord Jesus Christ Immaculately placed in her womb.Just like man can’t enter Heaven without a pure soul, so is this issue of Mary.Plain and simple!

 

[JamesCaruso]

How can anyone believe that Our Blessed Mother was not conceived Immaculatly. Her body had to be perfect to have our Lord Jesus Christ Immaculately placed in her womb.Just like man can’t enter Heaven without a pure soul, so is this issue of Mary.Plain and simple!

It disturbed me once when I heard someone say that Mary was no big deal, that she was just a woman God had used for the purpose of Jesus being born. It may have been anti-Catholic sentiment, I don’t know, but it missed the mark by about a million miles. Apparently that person had no mental capacity of their own, or if they did, they failed completely to use it. It’s what you get with people who mindlessly sit under bad, and I mean bad, Christian teaching.

 

[Trebor135]

How can anyone believe that Our Blessed Mother was not conceived Immaculatly. Her body had to be perfect to have our Lord Jesus Christ Immaculately placed in her womb.Just like man can’t enter Heaven without a pure soul, so is this issue of Mary.Plain and simple!

Most of the Early Church Fathers arguably did not hold to the Virgin Mary’s immaculate conception. St. John Chrysostom actually believed that she sinned.

To this day, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox give her a high place indeed. At my church, references to the Mother of God in the Divine Liturgy are almost always, if not in every case, preceded by such glowing adjectives as “pure”, “all-holy”, and “glorious”. But I expect that one will find few in the congregation who accept her immaculate conception.

 

[Trebor135]

It disturbed me once when I heard someone say that Mary was no big deal, that she was just a woman God had used for the purpose of Jesus being born. It may have been anti-Catholic sentiment, I don’t know, but it missed the mark by about a million miles. Apparently that person had no mental capacity of their own, or if they did, they failed completely to use it. It’s what you get with people who mindlessly sit under bad, and I mean bad, Christian teaching.

Haha, this disturbs me as well. The Mother of God deserves our respect!

 

[JamesCaruso]

Most of the Early Church Fathers arguably did not hold to the Virgin Mary’s immaculate conception

Many did, however, and as time passed, I think it’s fair to say, more and more joined their ranks until finally it became generally accepted and a dogma was declared.

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

The fact is that, although many Fathers speak highly of the blessed virgin’s virtues, they never say she was immaculately conceived. A few esoteric patristics like Ephraim the Syrian might hint at it, but it is not obvious.

We do not endeavor to parse each doctrine. Either a man accepts the authoritative binding-and-loosing power of the Church, or he does not. The truths of the faith are demonstrated by a demonstration of the truth of the Church. This is the ultimate fact to get under our wings.

From an Orthodox perspective, the “binding and loosing” authority of the Church was, and is still the perogative of properly constituted Ecumenical Councils - of which there were only 7 before schism. All questions relating to the Most Holy Virgin were decided in a conciliar fashion, and not by any single Bishop.

The core problems the Orthodox have with the IC innovation of 1854, are basically no scriptural justification, no patristic support (or only dissenting implication) and a dichotomy between tradition and the Dogma.

Orthodox often point out Catholic brothers and sisters to the following key points:

1… The original sin of Adam and Eve did not confer ‘guilt’ onto mankind, but conferred the consequences of the original sin - the key one being ‘death’;
2… The Holy Theotokos physically died, and was assumed body and soul into Heaven (the Dormition and the Assumption);
3… The Theotokos proclaimed her personal need of a saviour (or salvation);
4… There was no logical need for the Theotokos to be an IC in order for her to immaculately conceive Christ - and if there was such a need - her mother St Anne and every female ancestor of hers, would also have to have been conceived ‘immaculately’.

The Immaculate Conception Dogma of the RCC is a major departure from scripture, the fathers and apostolic tradition in the EOC perspective. It is a dogma that is superfluous to the essentials of the Apostolic Faith of the New Testament Church. It is a major stumbling block to unity also.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

From an Orthodox perspective, the “binding and loosing” authority of the Church was, and is still the perogative of properly constituted Ecumenical Councils - of which there were only 7 before schism. All questions relating to the Most Holy Virgin were decided in a conciliar fashion, and not by any single Bishop.

The core problems the Orthodox have with the IC innovation of 1854, are basically no scriptural justification, no patristic support (or only dissenting implication) and a dichotomy between tradition and the Dogma.

Orthodox often point out Catholic brothers and sisters to the following key points:

1… The original sin of Adam and Eve did not confer ‘guilt’ onto mankind, but conferred the consequences of the original sin - the key one being ‘death’;
2… The Holy Theotokos physically died, and was assumed body and soul into Heaven (the Dormition and the Assumption);
3… The Theotokos proclaimed her personal need of a saviour (or salvation);
4… There was no logical need for the Theotokos to be an IC in order for her to immaculately conceive Christ - and if there was such a need - her mother St Anne and every female ancestor of hers, would also have to have been conceived ‘immaculately’.

The Immaculate Conception Dogma of the RCC is a major departure from scripture, the fathers and apostolic tradition in the EOC perspective. It is a dogma that is superfluous to the essentials of the Apostolic Faith of the New Testament Church. It is a major stumbling block to unity also.

Greetings, my Orthodox brother! Your points are very interesting, but I have an observation and a question:

1. Mary did indeed need a Savior. She was conceived immaculately by the Blood of Christ, not in spite of Him. The grace from His death extends throughout eternity. If this were not true, those before Christ would be doomed.
2. If we are not guilty because of the transfering of Original Sin, then why is baptism necessary? Actually, why was the Incarnation, Death, and Ressurection necessary at all? If there is no guilt in Original Sin, wouldn’t that make the effects purely physical? I know that Augustine, and others, were unsure if children who died before baptism were allowed entry into Heaven. Why would the fathers think this if we are guiltless?

I am genuinely curious.

 

[JamesCaruso]

From an Orthodox perspective, the “binding and loosing” authority of the Church was, and is still the perogative of properly constituted Ecumenical Councils - of which there were only 7 before schism. All questions relating to the Most Holy Virgin were decided in a conciliar fashion, and not by any single Bishop.

The core problems the Orthodox have with the IC innovation of 1854, are basically no scriptural justification, no patristic support (or only dissenting implication) and a dichotomy between tradition and the Dogma.

Orthodox often point out Catholic brothers and sisters to the following key points:

1… The original sin of Adam and Eve did not confer ‘guilt’ onto mankind, but conferred the consequences of the original sin - the key one being ‘death’;
2… The Holy Theotokos physically died, and was assumed body and soul into Heaven (the Dormition and the Assumption);
3… The Theotokos proclaimed her personal need of a saviour (or salvation);
4… There was no logical need for the Theotokos to be an IC in order for her to immaculately conceive Christ - and if there was such a need - her mother St Anne and every female ancestor of hers, would also have to have been conceived ‘immaculately’.

The Immaculate Conception Dogma of the RCC is a major departure from scripture, the fathers and apostolic tradition in the EOC perspective. It is a dogma that is superfluous to the essentials of the Apostolic Faith of the New Testament Church. It is a major stumbling block to unity also.

Being a stumbling block is not always a bad thing. Christ crucified was a stumbling block to the Jews. What I am saying is there is zero chance of the CC changing its dogma of IC.

I don’t know whether the CC claims a logical need or not, but from my POV there does not need to be a logical need. But there does need to be logic. Mary was the perfect counterpart to Eve, sinless in her creation, which for me is logic enough. Also, how could Mary be pure and sinless for her entire lifetime without being free from concupiscence, and how could she be the perfect Mother to Our Savior? I am not studied in all the reasons the Church puts forth for the IC, but I am sure it provides logic enough. Also, the stumbling block to reunion is more fundamental than this dogma. There is little chance of reunion if the Orthodox does not accept Papal infallibility, and that infallibility is basis enough for believing this dogma of the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Is it not enough that the bible does not even mention these things in connection to justification?

So then those verses are not essentials, yes?

That is what you are telling us here?

I just want to be sure that I’m clear, and that you’re clear, about what you’re proposing.

 

[Trebor135]

PRmerger–the Bible doesn’t mention the trinity as pertaining to justification, and St. Paul doesn’t hand down any anathemas against those who deny it. So, the trinity must not be essential.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

1… The original sin of Adam and Eve did not confer ‘guilt’ onto mankind, but conferred the consequences of the original sin - the key one being ‘death’;
2… The Holy Theotokos physically died, and was assumed body and soul into Heaven (the Dormition and the Assumption);
3… The Theotokos proclaimed her personal need of a saviour (or salvation);
4… There was no logical need for the Theotokos to be an IC in order for her to immaculately conceive Christ - and if there was such a need - her mother St Anne and every female ancestor of hers, would also have to have been conceived ‘immaculately’.

Let me try correcting some of the points here, one by one.

1. The original sin of Adam and Eve did not confer ‘guilt’ onto mankind, but conferred the consequences of the original sin - the key one being ‘death’

I think it is the misconception that the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin “adds” something to fallen man that we have to address here. I think this is because of the words “stain” or “guilt” that has often accompanied the term “original sin”, including the document that formally defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus:

Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully.

newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

And yet even from the above that is not the case: “possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity”. So from this point on let me show all of us what the “guilt of original sin” is from one of the most authoritative councils the Church had: the Council of Trent.

1. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

In other words, the “stain” of original sin is actually a deprivation, not an adding, onto the nature of man: “the guilt of original sin” is that all men and women born into this world are spiritually dead, among other consequences. Well, all aside from Jesus and the Virgin Mary.

2… The Holy Theotokos physically died, and was assumed body and soul into Heaven (the Dormition and the Assumption)

That poses no difficulty for us, as we all know Jesus also physically died.

3… The Theotokos proclaimed her personal need of a saviour (or salvation)

Again, that poses no difficulty for us, as PeaceInChrist pointed out.

1. There was no logical need for the Theotokos to be an IC in order for her to immaculately conceive Christ - and if there was such a need - her mother St Anne and every female ancestor of hers, would also have to have been conceived ‘immaculately’.

It is true there is no logical need the Immaculate Conception; however, there is, as Ineffabilis Deus pointed out, an “appropriateness” for it. Even those who denied the Immaculate Conception such as St. Thomas Aquinas found the appropriateness of wiping the guilt of original sin from Mary sometime after her conception before Jesus’ Incarnation.

Cannot anybody see how inappropriate it is for Jesus to be Incarnated and stay for nine months in a spiritually dead woman, when even the Ark of the Covenant, the early vessel of God in the Old Testament, was made from the purest materials and made according to exact dimensions?

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

Greetings, my Orthodox brother! Your points are very interesting, but I have an observation and a question:

1. Mary did indeed need a Savior. She was conceived immaculately by the Blood of Christ, not in spite of Him. The grace from His death extends throughout eternity. If this were not true, those before Christ would be doomed.
2. If we are not guilty because of the transfering of Original Sin, then why is baptism necessary? Actually, why was the Incarnation, Death, and Ressurection necessary at all? If there is no guilt in Original Sin, wouldn’t that make the effects purely physical? I know that Augustine, and others, were unsure if children who died before baptism were allowed entry into Heaven. Why would the fathers think this if we are guiltless?

I am genuinely curious.

Dear Catholic Brother,

Thanks for your question - it’s an important one, and although I am no theologian, I will try to give you an Orthodox perspective.

The Apostles understood the salvific nature of Christ’s sacrifice in a very specific way as they came from a largely Greco-Hibraic world (and not a western european one). I think this point is crucial in understanding the concept of original sin, baptism, the incarnation and the ressurection.

1… The early Church taught that the disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was the original sin not because of the knowledge imparted to them by eating the forbidden fruit - but because of their personal disobedience to God. The EOC have always held to the original Apostolic teaching that humanity do not carry PERSONAL responsibility for their sin, but have inherited the consequences of their original sin (chiefly death, the inclination towards sin and other things…). The concept of personal responsibility through inherited sin was never a jewish concept, or a concept accepted by the early Church. Such a concept was however, a core feature of many pagan creeds - particularly in the west of europe (but not exclusively).

2… The salvific sacrifice of Christ upon the cross was necessary to pay a ‘ransom’ to Satan who brought to mankind the ‘consequences’ of sin by encouraging them to disobey God, as he had done. The ransom concept is quite distinct from the RC and Protestant concept of atonement - or making a sacrifice to an angry God in exchange for forgiveness. This too, was a foreign concept to the Greco-Hibraic Apostles, and was a popular pagan theology.

3… The original act of forgiveness was the incarnation. In itself it was not salvific. The Theotokos was not saved because of the incarnation of God into Man (fully Divine and fully Human). The Theotokos act of obedience to God in agreeing to the incarnation enabled God to become fully human with all of the consequences of that, including physical death. In order for this to happen, God not only needed her obedience, but he needed her humanity in the fullest sense. If the Theotokos was herself the Immaculate Conception, she would not be fully human, and she would not require salvation.

4… The EOC refer to the Theotokos as the second Eve, and Christ as the second Adam, precisely because they were obedient to God in their humanity - thereby breaking Satan’s hold over mankind through disobedience leading to death. When Christ died on the cross, he did not immediately join the Father in Heaven, as his salvific mission was not fully completed. He (like Adam and Eve) was held prisoner by Satan in Hell for three days… Christ preached there, informing all present that the ransom had been paid by his death upon the cross - and Satan had to acknowledge this ‘legality’ when Christ broke the gates of Hell, and was ressurected on the third day.

5… Baptism is a Holy Mystery (Sacrament) of the Church because Christ told us it was necessary for salvation. He did not ever tell us Baptism was necessary to remit or forgive the original personal sin of Adam and Eve. In effect, he required Baptism as a sign that the individual was a part of His Church on Earth - and therefore one of the ‘ransomed’.

For the first 1000 years of the Church - this was the understanding, and arguably for longer in the early post schism period. This understanding is at the core of EOC objections to the recent dogma of the Immaculate Conception - because it has implications for the full humanity of Christ, through his mother the Theotokos, and for the way in which his salvific sacrifice works.

Hope this helps

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

+JMJ+

Let me try correcting some of the points here, one by one.

1. The original sin of Adam and Eve did not confer ‘guilt’ onto mankind, but conferred the consequences of the original sin - the key one being ‘death’

I think it is the misconception that the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin “adds” something to fallen man that we have to address here. I think this is because of the words “stain” or “guilt” that has often accompanied the term “original sin”, including the document that formally defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus:

Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully.

newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

And yet even from the above that is not the case: “possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity”. So from this point on let me show all of us what the “guilt of original sin” is from one of the most authoritative councils the Church had: the Council of Trent.

1. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

In other words, the “stain” of original sin is actually a deprivation, not an adding, onto the nature of man: “the guilt of original sin” is that all men and women born into this world are spiritually dead, among other consequences. Well, all aside from Jesus and the Virgin Mary.

2… The Holy Theotokos physically died, and was assumed body and soul into Heaven (the Dormition and the Assumption)

That poses no difficulty for us, as we all know Jesus also physically died.

3… The Theotokos proclaimed her personal need of a saviour (or salvation)

Again, that poses no difficulty for us, as PeaceInChrist pointed out.

1. There was no logical need for the Theotokos to be an IC in order for her to immaculately conceive Christ - and if there was such a need - her mother St Anne and every female ancestor of hers, would also have to have been conceived ‘immaculately’.

It is true there is no logical need the Immaculate Conception; however, there is, as Ineffabilis Deus pointed out, an “appropriateness” for it. Even those who denied the Immaculate Conception such as St. Thomas Aquinas found the appropriateness of wiping the guilt of original sin from Mary sometime after her conception before Jesus’ Incarnation.

Cannot anybody see how inappropriate it is for Jesus to be Incarnated and stay for nine months in a spiritually dead woman, when even the Ark of the Covenant, the early vessel of God in the Old Testament, was made from the purest materials and made according to exact dimensions?

Dear Catholic (Brother or Sister),

Hope you are enjoying your vacation.

An interesting post, which is not so much as a ‘correction’ to mine, as a justification for recent Catholic innovation of Mariology which departs from the Apostolic Faith of the Fathers as expressed through the first 7 Ecumenical Councils which in our view were authoritative.

1… Your Mariology has consequences for your Christology. The EOC rejects the concept that the Theotokos was not capable of sin. Such a teaching makes her less than human (or by nature super human), and in turn damages the core theology of the Apostolic faith that Christ was fully man, and fully God.

2… The Council of Trent was not an authoritative Ecumenical Council. from our perspective, it is not authoritative at all because it propounded dogma and teaching which departed from the the faith of the Apostles.

3… The physical death of the Theotokos does present a huge problem for Catholic innovation (the IC), Mariology and Christology. If she died, she cannot possibly have been the Immaculate Conception because she would necessarily by your own dogma be free of the consequences of original sin. That is why the RC Church does not dogmatically proclaim the Dormition of the Virgin… because it proves she died. You have conveniently left this as an open question, in contradiction to the Church Fathers and the Traditions of the Apostolic Church. The Theotokos had no choice in her human death - Christ did. It was his mission through obedience to God which led to his death.

4… The Theotokos cannot possibly have had a need for Christs salvific death upon the cross if as you say she was Immaculate and not only free of sin (original) - but incapable of it. This is also self evident - the IC dogma, necessarily means she was already perfect, sinless and saved. This is a huge problem for the RC Church to explain.

5… The Bishop of Rome and you might think the dogma of the IC is appropriate. From the EOC perspective it is not only superfluous to the faith, but not true. It does not reflect the faith the Apostles taught - and it does not reflect the Church Fathers teaching.

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

Being a stumbling block is not always a bad thing. Christ crucified was a stumbling block to the Jews. What I am saying is there is zero chance of the CC changing its dogma of IC.

I don’t know whether the CC claims a logical need or not, but from my POV there does not need to be a logical need. But there does need to be logic. Mary was the perfect counterpart to Eve, sinless in her creation, which for me is logic enough. Also, how could Mary be pure and sinless for her entire lifetime without being free from concupiscence, and how could she be the perfect Mother to Our Savior? I am not studied in all the reasons the Church puts forth for the IC, but I am sure it provides logic enough. Also, the stumbling block to reunion is more fundamental than this dogma. There is little chance of reunion if the Orthodox does not accept Papal infallibility, and that infallibility is basis enough for believing this dogma of the Catholic Church.

Dear Catholic Brother,

If as you say, there is no chance of re-unification of our Churches, then the two “lungs” of the Christian Church (East and West) are destined to disappoint Our Lord in his wish for a single Holy and catholic Apostolic Church…

In order for us to re-unite, we must understand our differences, how they arose, and be prepared to humbly submit ourselves to the guideance of the Holy Spirit in settlement of the reasons of schism.

All too often I am confronted in these forums by those Brothers and Sisters who say - if the Orthodox wish to join us, they are welcome to do so. But we Orthodox are keenly aware that because of the innovations of the Bishop of Rome (infallibility in theology, filioque, IC, original sin, the Eucharist etc…) we are being offered an ultimatum rather than an invitation. An ultimatum requiring us to abandon the Apostolic Faith of the first seven Councils of which we were a part - to do so. Is it not also incumbent upon our beloved Catholic brothers and sisters to consider returning to the faith of our common Apostolic heritage and Church Fathers?

With love.

 

[KyivanPatriarch]

Dear Catholic Sister / Brother, you ask:

" Cannot anybody see how inappropriate it is for Jesus to be Incarnated and stay for nine months in a spiritually dead woman, when even the Ark of the Covenant, the early vessel of God in the Old Testament, was made from the purest materials and made according to exact dimensions?",

I simply gasp in amazement and concern at this statement.

The concept that mankind since Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God is “spiritually dead” as you put it has NO basis in the Gospels or the Old Testament. None whatsoever.

The consequences of the original sin were many - but they did NOT include “spititual death”. God in his wisdom spoke with Moses, Abraham, Ezekiel and others… and covenants were agreed.

Full Humanity has always included the propensity to sin and disobey God. Always.

Even the Angels have that choice - and about 1/3 did sin.

What made the Most Holy Theotokos special in the eyes of God was not her gifted ‘immaculacy’ but her self determined human OBEDIENCE - having other choices!!! The fact that she successfully resisted sin in her lifetime was her human choice - and the highest example all Christians have of “Theosis” or “Deification”.

In a spirit of Apostolic love, and concern, I ask you to reflect upon this statement about Mankind’s ‘gift’ to God - the Most Holy Theotokos. Through her free human choice she enabled God’s greatest gift to man to be born… Our Lord Jesus Christ!

With love.