I came to similar conclusion. My main concern is whether both can be reconciled somehow… at least in their dogmatic forms.I want to be clear that in continuing this discussion, I’m not trying to say the Latin formulation of the Immaculate Conception is wrong; In Latin theology it makes sense. I’m trying to explain (as @dochawk also has) that it just doesn’t make the same sense to the Eastern/Byzantine theological approach.
At this risk of putting words in his mouth (and I hope he corrects me if I’m wrong), but what I think he was saying (and what I am saying) is that it doesn’t make sense because the Theotokos’ holiness and sinlessness is so obvious from the hymnography in the various services related to feasts of the Theotokos, but we’re not going to go so far as to state Mary’s conception was (or had to be) unique from the rest of humanity; that her conception does not need to be unique for her to be “most holy, most pure” etc.What doc basically said is that dogma makes no sense because from Byzantine standpoint it is obviously true. I am now more under impression that while Orthodox approach makes sense, it isn’t necessarily clear whether or not Theotokos was born differently than all of us (and even East acknowledges that we were born with Original Sin).
That isn’t what dogma is about.it doesn’t make sense because the Theotokos’ holiness and sinlessness is so obvious from the hymnography in the various services related to feasts of the Theotokos
That is precisely what dogma says.we’re not going to go so far as to state Mary’s conception was (or had to be) unique from the rest of humanity
The East holds the Theotokos’ entire life was holy, sinless, pure, etc. The Immaculate Conception speaks to how she was these things, does it not?That isn’t what dogma is about.
So in your understand, there is no reconciling East & West?That is precisely what dogma says.
I am not sure. Either she was pure at conception or not there isn’t really circling around it. They seem irreconcilable but then that might be because of particular opinions that aren’t really dogmatic (for example is St. Gregory’s understanding dogmatic? And which part and in what form? What part of Original Sin and it’s applications to guilt are dogmatic? Etc etc) and because of terminology being used. “Inheriting death” is Eastern terminology while non-personal guilt is Western terminology. That all may play into why they seem irreconcilable to me but they might actually not be. As I stated above, St. Gregory said that “that which Christ did not assume He did not heal” but also said that Christ was “in every way born man, save sin”. If St. Gregory could reconcile those two statement then I am quite sure there is something I am missing out.So in your understand, there is no reconciling East & West?
Yes, but does “entire life” also mean conception? I get that focus of East isn’t exactly what West focuses on and vice versa, but underlying Truth must be in the very least not contain contradictions.The East holds the Theotokos’ entire life was holy, sinless, pure, etc. The Immaculate Conception speaks to how she was these things, does it not?
It means entire life. We don’t place special focus on one moment in time.Yes, but does “entire life” also mean conception?
Thank you. If that is the case and there is no focus on the opposite either, then that’s not really what would contradict this dogma. Part that Christ has not healed that which He hasn’t assumed is something that makes so much sense yet I don’t know how to reconcile that with this dogma at the moment. I am very intrigued by it.It means entire life. We don’t place special focus on one moment in time.