Orthodox View of the Immaculate Conception

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

I wasn’t aware that we have any view of the immaculate conception. This is not an Orthodox dogma. I don’t know of anything like that in the church. We say, together with all of the churches that use the creed, that Jesus Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. But I don’t know of anything about how St. Mary came to be, other than the traditional understanding that she was born of her parents Joakim and Anna, just as anyone is born of their own parents.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I wasn’t aware that we have any view of the immaculate conception. This is not an Orthodox dogma. I don’t know of anything like that in the church. We say, together with all of the churches that use the creed, that Jesus Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. But I don’t know of anything about how St. Mary came to be, other than the traditional understanding that she was born of her parents Joakim and Anna, just as anyone is born of their own parents.

No you guys were smart and left all the continued incessant arguing behind. But the nature of Christ through the Incarnation is fine. And that is the point we are discussing. How did this happen, I use our Saint to explain a good deal of it.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDYQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Ffathers%2F2802.htm&ei=rEGRVMKZCYS_ggT6toNQ&usg=AFQjCNH3pM8SQpYkllOH7NHHaVTgzmHbYw&bvm=bv.82001339,d.eXY

This is the point…

1. The Word, then, visited that earth in which He was yet always present ; and saw all these evils. He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life.

What is a spotless virgin? Here is some background info.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Farchive%2Fccc_css%2Farchive%2Fcatechism%2Fp122a3p1.htm&ei=NkORVPiALYyaNvbXgIgJ&usg=AFQjCNFII8Q8ZCsbHw-bZ03n0REykeA6kQ

 

[GaryTaylor]

What has been handed down to us is what we know to be authentic teaching.

No. The Orthodox Church never changed the Truth.

Sister, sister, sister, did you read through this thread? How is it possible this claim can be made when the truth you are following is a condemned teaching. In one sentence, it is not historic, not scriptural, it is a condemned apocryphal writing which is merely part of tradition. Obviously Rome cannot defend as absolute truth what it condemned. Its simply not needed. it is not the paradigm in which the entire truth is encapsulated, of which the EO is making claim to.

So what other proof do you have Mary died?

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

Huh. I guess that’s all fine. I don’t know. I only know the Orthodox doctrines, but this isn’t one of them. Of course we also say that the Teotokos St. Mary is pure and holy and all of these things. You can read these things in our theotokias (hymns for St. Mary), if you want to know the Orthodox beliefs about her. She is the greatest of the saints and the greatest intercessor for all Christians. We always ask for her first in all the intercessor’s prayers: “Through the intercessions of the holy Theotokos, St. Mary, o Lord grant us the forgiveness of our sins” (and then “through the prayers of…” all the other saints).

Pope Shenouda wrote a whole book on St. Mary and what she means to the Orthodox people and church. I don’t remember what the name is, but I have read it in English before. I remember because it said that in Ethiopia in the 13th century, the emperor had altars put in all the churches of his country that would be dedicated to St. Mary (so that there could be two altars in each church, since in Orthodox practice you can only have one liturgy on the same altar in one day; the Catholics are different than this, right? You can have more than one?). Also he called all heretics “enemies of Mary”, which is true.

Everything true and proper can be said of St. Mary more than any other saint. But we still don’t have the immaculate conception, I don’t think. I think it was too recent for us.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Huh. I guess that’s all fine. I don’t know. I only know the Orthodox doctrines, but this isn’t one of them.

If you don’t know, than how do you know? The liturgy and hymns don’t explain the Incarnation of the Word of God further defined at Council. All beautiful and certainly your a witness to this truth. But over here we are left to explain all this.

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

If you don’t know, than how do you know?

Because everything I can find about it says we don’t agree with it, but I’ve never asked anyone about it. We do not discuss other church’s in our church. But still I found things like these answers from a bishop in our church, which says that this is a Catholic doctrine only not an Orthodox one: suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?catid=203

The liturgy and hymns don’t explain the Incarnation of the Word of God further defined at Council. All beautiful and certainly your a witness to this truth. But over here we are left to explain all this.

I don’t understand what this means. The liturgy and the hymns are what we believe. There is nothing that we believe that you cannot find in them. So I don’t know what you mean. I’m sorry. Can you explain, please? Thank you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Because everything I can find about it says we don’t agree with it, but I’ve never asked anyone about it. .

Right, its the same teaching further defined by need within Rome.

We do not discuss other church’s in our church.

But when you say you don’t agree with it, you are discussing other Churches.

But still I found things like these answers from a bishop in our church, which says that this is a Catholic doctrine only not an Orthodox one: suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?catid=203.

But the Catholic doctrine is the Orthodox doctrine to the point is was further defined in Rome in which the Churches were not united and this is completely understandable. But it doesn’t make what Rome is saying, not the truth.

I don’t understand what this means. The liturgy and the hymns are what we believe. There is nothing that we believe that you cannot find in them.

There is also nothing in the Creed we don’t believe, but there is further explained understanding of the Trinity, Incarnation, Baptism and so forth in the Church all which lead to the mysteries of the Gospel, which are in the Creed, Church. There is nothing to be in disagreement about here, its a blessing that people could can become Saints by following the way through exactly what you are talking about. Being part of the Church through the liturgical year.

Thank you.

Your welcome.

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

But when you say you don’t agree with it, you are discussing other Churches.

Yes, I am talking about it. Sorry, I meant that there is no idea in our church that since another church believes in something, we have to have some idea about it. Since a lot of other doctrines came into the Catholic Church after us, these are the Catholic doctrines, not the Orthodox doctrines. We didn’t have any part of them. So in that way we can talk about them (like the bishop does), but that is only because some people might wonder like the person who started this thread wondered what we might think of them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, I am talking about it. Sorry, I meant that there is no idea in our church that since another church believes in something, we have to have some idea about it. Since a lot of other doctrines came into the Catholic Church after us, these are the Catholic doctrines, not the Orthodox doctrines. We didn’t have any part of them. So in that way we can talk about them (like the bishop does), but that is only because some people might wonder like the person who started this thread wondered what we might think of them.

Right, for example in your link the first question is addressed in this thread.

The assumption of the body of St. Mary:
The belief in the assumption of the Holy Theotokos is ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary’s to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage.

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring St. Mary’s relics to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were none in Jerusalem and that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later was found empty.”

We know from tradition how St. Thomas was absent at the time of St. Mary’s departure and that on his way back to Jerusalem he saw angels carrying St. Mary’s pure body and ascending to heaven. When he arrived at the disciples’, after St. Mary’s burial, he insisted on having seen the body; and when the disciples took him to the tomb to uncover the body they did not find it.

St. Thomas told them about his vision; so they prayed and the Lord promised them that they would see her in flesh another time. On the 16th day of Mesori the promise was fulfilled when they saw her at the right hand of her Son and her Lord, surrounded by the angelic Host as David prophesied saying “At Your right hand stands the queen” (Ps 45:9).

In the eighth century, St. John Damascene, known for his sermons at the holy places in Jerusalem, stood at the Tomb of Mary

Of what historic or scriptural account does this come from in 451?

The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were none in Jerusalem and that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later was found empty.”

In the eighth century, St. John Damascene, known for his sermons at the holy places in Jerusalem, stood at the Tomb of Mary

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Immaculate Conception:
This concept is totally rejected by all the Orthodox churches because it is clearly against the teaching of the Holy Bible.

But Marys death is Biblical? What page?

Immaculate Conception means that St. Mary was born without the original sin.

The Incarnation means She was sanctified either way you look at it which btw is Biblical, unfortunately if fails to explain exactly when and is appears here they would like to but Rome declares “most fitting” at the IC.

This in itself demolishes the whole basis of Christianity; for we believe that since Adam’s fall, everyone is born carrying that original sin, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

Either Mary was sanctified or she wasn’t by the same singular act of grace, at the, Incarnation, Annunciation, just before or at the IC. The Bible doesn’t specifically state, does the Coptic Church? Unless your saying Mary was a sinner beforehand. In which case I posted Athanasius “spotless virgin” so I doubt that be the case or point of disagreement. She was spotless, no-sin, stain, spot, and virgin.

If she was born without the original sin, then she would not need salvation. If so, why is she calling God her Savior?

I really wonder if anyone thinks before they type. If Mary was preserved at the IC, right after, the Annunciation or the Incarnation than you are left to explain your own question? uch:

And the answers of the questions correctly answered proceed in like fashion. Is there one in particular which is of concern?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, I am talking about it. Sorry, I meant that there is no idea in our church that since another church believes in something, we have to have some idea about it. Since a lot of other doctrines came into the Catholic Church after us, these are the Catholic doctrines, not the Orthodox doctrines. We didn’t have any part of them. So in that way we can talk about them (like the bishop does), but that is only because some people might wonder like the person who started this thread wondered what we might think of them.

Amen, in which case questions are expected. I just have one that isn’t big but its at odds kinda with New Advent.

Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring St. Mary’s relics to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were none in Jerusalem and that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later was found empty.”

but its stated here…

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

This will absolutely help clarify the points in contrast except for the minutes of the conversation at Constantinople. I’m assuming those can be supplied.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFwQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F15459a.htm&ei=GHmRVNfpBsaqggTOroGACA&usg=AFQjCNEhJJnK9uF8Jt729mSBfS5j7TTkXw

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F02006b.htm&ei=-XuRVI6gDI_iggSk04HgBQ&usg=AFQjCNFv34r6i2hZJqWXi6_bS8zpPmi1rw

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newworldencyclopedia.org%2Fentry%2FAssumption_of_Mary&ei=5XyRVLj4NcLvgwSKw4HYCg&usg=AFQjCNH-spvK_r5_1wQfMOhpLVdLylBGYg

Also as mentioned the age of Mary is also disputed in tradition. No-one even knows how old she was when all this supposedly happened. Some claim she lived past 72.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The ancient Dormition traditions, a collection of narratives recounting the end of the Virgin Mary’s life, first emerge into historical view from an uncertain past during the fifth and sixth centuries. Initially appearing in Syro-Palestine and Egypt, these legends rapidly spread throughout the Christian world, resulting in over 60 different narratives from before the tenth century preserved in nine ancient languages. The first half of this dissertation largely concerns the organization of these diverse traditions. The search for the “original” tradition has led many previous interpreters to attribute their diversity to a process of unilinear dogmatic development. According to such interpretations, the various narratives types were adopted in succession to suit changes in Christian belief. Nevertheless, evidence for either an “original” tradition or such a process of unilinear development is lacking. In light of this, I argue that we should dispense with the search for origins and such developmental models, replacing both with an acceptance of the various extant Dormition traditions as independent, rival accounts of the end of Mary’s life.

        The second half of this study considers the contribution of these legends to Mary’s emergence during late antiquity as a locus of “orthodox” Christian identity.  Although many of the earliest narratives associate the Virgin with a variety of heterodox opinions, in the course of transmission these were either eliminated or gracefully reshaped, removing these obstacles to the Virgin’s identification with Christian orthodoxy.  Certain other features of these legends, however, were more congenial to the needs of early Byzantine “orthodoxy.”  During this age, the discourse of Christian orthodoxy provided vital ideological cement for an empire composed of culturally and linguistically diverse peoples.  The Virgin Mary, who was by this time a widely-revered figure, often featured prominently in this discourse of Christian truth.  Consequently, the concerns for religious truth and social cohesion that lie at the heart of the early Byzantine discourse of orthodoxy are likewise manifest in the contemporary traditions concerning the end of the Virgin’s life, particularly in their polemics against Jews and other religious non-conformists.

pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/texts/dormindex.htm

pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/abstract.htm

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpages.uoregon.edu%2Fsshoemak%2FCV.htm&ei=TomRVLq4BMGZNrLkgqAK&usg=AFQjCNHo46iG7GmCywcidEqKHekcJuvrNA

His research [he is Eastern Catholic] agrees with Professor Jaroslav Pelikan[E-Orthodox] in his dating and time table of fifth and sixth centuries-Dormition. Both excellent reads.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What has been handed down to us is what we know to be authentic teaching. When you’re full immersed in truth, it’s really easy to notice what’s been changed, whether added to or removed.

The Arians and the Nestorians would say the same thing. This is the circularity of Orthodox thinking: those who are in Church know what the Church teaches because they are in the Church. As an Orthodox website admits:

Such reasoning is circular, because whoever accepts an authentic teaching is therefore inside the Church, but any who reject it are outside. In other words, such teachings are authentic essentially because those who hold to the teaching declare themselves exclusively to be the Church.

orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils

No Bishop has the authority to change the Truth. What Jesus gave, they protect and teach.

And not Catholic Bishop has ever change (contradicted) what Jesus taught. If you disagree, please explain so that we can investigate the matter.

If any Bishop in the Orthodox Church did invent some new teaching, like Arius did, it & he would be condemned.

There doesn’t need to be a formal definition. Tradition is clear that the Theotokos, a human being and is Panagia.

The blatant error in the Pope’s definition is claiming the Panagia isn’t human like us, but by “singular grace” was created as a unique creature alone not affected by Ancestral Sin passed down from Adam & Eve, not a human being like us. We know this idea is not true because a. It’s a new teaching .

It was known to the Fathers, so new as of when?

Hippolytus (AD 235)

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Origen (AD 244)

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]).

Ephraim the Syrian (AD 361)

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).

“My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate.” (ibid.)

Ambrose of Milan (AD 387)

Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin (ut incorrupta sit virgo, sed virgo per gratium ab omni integra labe peccati)." (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22-30 [A.D. 387])

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Augustine (ca. AD 415)

Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins,—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say again, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer? …if they had been so questioned, would they not have declared with a single voice: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us!”? (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

b. Facts get in the way - Mary suffered while on earth and we know she died prior to being taken bodily by Christ 3 days later And both of these things, suffering and death, are proof she inherited Ancestral Sin

Jesus suffered and died. Is that proof that He, too, inherited Ancestral Sin?

Adam and Eve were human like us. They didn’t begin their lives with “original sin”, either.

Did God create man with sin already within him? If not, then simply reflects humanity as it was intended, as we were all intended, to be.

 

[wynd]

Hippolytus (AD 235)

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Origen (AD 244)

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]).

Ephraim the Syrian (AD 361)

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).

“My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate.” (ibid.)

Ambrose of Milan (AD 387)

Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin (ut incorrupta sit virgo, sed virgo per gratium ab omni integra labe peccati)." (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22-30 [A.D. 387])

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Augustine (ca. AD 415)

Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins,—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say again, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer? …if they had been so questioned, would they not have declared with a single voice: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us!”? (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Sounds like Orthodox liturgical worship!

youtube.com/watch?v=tpRyYWnzCvQ

 

[pablope]

Ws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope View Post
Well…this brings up several questions.

First, how do you determine what is false and what is not false teaching? And who gets to decide, in the Orthodox Church, what is false and what is not false?

What has been handed down to us is what we know to be authentic teaching. When you’re full immersed in truth, it’s really easy to notice what’s been changed, whether added to or removed.

But you still did not answer the question…how do you shift the real tradition that has been handed down?

And who decides?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope View Post
Wait a minute…I thought the Orthodox consider the bishop be in charge of his flock/diocese. If our bishop decided to define it officially for Latins…who are you to argue what is to be officially defined or not?

No Bishop has the authority to change the Truth. What Jesus gave, they protect and teach.

So can you show how making the IC dogma changes the truth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope View Post
Would an Orthodox bishop do the same…let us say your bishop decided to do the same…would you be obligated to follow what your bishop decided or not?

When Bishop Arius began teaching a new idea as truth, the Church followed the example of the Apostles and the Emperor Constantine convened a Council for all the Bishops to come together to discover clearly what Bishop Arius’ new teaching was and to condemn it & him.

If any Bishop in the Orthodox Church did invent some new teaching, like Arius did, it & he would be condemned.

I am not asking about Arius. I am asking…Let us say your bishop decided to do the same…would you be obligated to follow what your bishop decided or not?

What is your response to the question above?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope View Post
Well…what is the accurate definition, according to you? And what is wrong with the Pope’s definition?

There doesn’t need to be a formal definition. Tradition is clear that the Theotokos, a human being and is Panagia.

Okay…in the definition of the IC, where does it claim or can you point to the statement that the Theotokos was proclaimed as not a human being?

The blatant error in the Pope’s definition is claiming the Panagia isn’t human like us,
but by “singular grace” was created as a unique creature alone not affected by Ancestral Sin passed down from Adam & Eve, not a human being like us.

Well…do you think it is beyond God to do what what He wanted with Mary?

Do you have a window to God’s mind that He did not do this? How do you know?

We know this idea is not true because a. It’s a new teaching b. Facts get in the way - Mary suffered while on earth and we know she died prior to being taken bodily by Christ 3 days later And both of these things, suffering and death, are proof she inherited Ancestral Sin

How does this prove what you are saying? Jesus had no original sin, but He still chose to die on the cross…

Can you provide proof that Jesus also inherited the Ancestral sin?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope View Post
And vice versa to…don’t you think the same can be said of you…you are making a point of contention too…isn’t it?

No. The Orthodox Church never changed the Truth. History shows it was the Catholic Pope, in the 1800s, that made the change in the belief about the Theotokos.

Again, how does making the belief in the IC dogma change the truth or belief?

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

Sounds like Orthodox liturgical worship!

youtube.com/watch?v=tpRyYWnzCvQ

:bowdown:

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

But you still did not answer the question…

Yes, I did answer your question. Perhaps you mean here that my answer wasn’t what you wanted or expected it to be?

how do you shift the real tradition that has been handed down?

Orthodox don’t “shift” tradition. I’m not familiar with that concept of “shifting” tradition. We live it, we pray it and we cherish it. We don’t allow it to be corrupted.

And who decides?

Jesus Christ decided & taught the Apostles what Christian Truth and Tradition is. It’s been passed down generation after generation since then. We can look at our Liturgies, our Prayers, our Synaxiaries to see what the unchanging Truth and Traditions are and always have been.

Orthodoxy is a lived and experienced religious Tradition, not a religion of academia. We pray what we believe and believe what we pray.

So can you show how making the IC dogma changes the truth?

I already did. For a quick recap: The Theotokos is human being, conceived after Ancestral Sin infected the human race, and all of creation And she is Panagia, All Holy.

I am not asking about Arius. I am asking…Let us say your bishop decided to do the same…would you be obligated to follow what your bishop decided or not?

I gave my answer and even gave an historical example, the example of Bishop Arius, on how the Orthodox Church deals with a rogue Bishop who teaches something different than the Teachings & Traditions Christ gave us. He & his new teaching would be condemned by the Church.

What is your response to the question above?

It’s been answered twice now. I’m a busy working parent and literally don’t have time to continue answering the same questions over and over.

Okay…in the definition of the IC, where does it claim or can you point to the statement that the Theotokos was proclaimed as not a human being?

If you don’t believe the quote I already gave in answer to this question, please read it for yourself. Read what the Pope actual said when he created the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It’s probably available off the Vatican’s website.

Well…do you think it is beyond God to do what what He wanted with Mary?

God created everything and everyone “Good” - Genesis chapter 1. When Adam and Eve personally sinned, they brought into the world & all future generations, not the guilt of sin, but the consequences - Genesis 3 - physical death, sickness, deformities, knowledge of good and evil, pain, cursed ground in our labors, toil, sweat, thorns, thistles, sickness and tendency towards sin. No human being is exempt from the consequences.

The Theotokos experienced these also, yet, unlike everyone else, she from her own free choice Never sinned. But, I’m repeating myself again.

Do you have a window to God’s mind that He did not do this? How do you know?

How do I know the Catholic Pope definition of the Immaculate Conception in the 1,800s isn’t correct is because Tradition has taught is that The Theotokos is human, not that she’s created differently from the rest of the human race. She’s NOT Goddess, but she is a human being who has been deified and elevated above the angels.

How does this prove what you are saying? Jesus had no original sin, but He still chose to die on the cross…

There are only two people who ever walked this earth that “had” Original Sin: Adam and Eve. The only ones who committed the original sin.

The rest of us, who all came after, were born into a world that experiences the consequences of that original sin - Genesis 3. And, while many people born have died without committing sin themselves due to age upon death or lack of mental capacity, Only Two People Freely Chose to Not Sin ever during their life time: Mary and Jesus.

Can you provide proof that Jesus also inherited the Ancestral sin?

Don’t Catholics believe that in addition to having a Divine Nature that Jesus also has a Human Nature? Only that which He took upon Himself did He purify - He took on Himself a “fallen” (affected by Ancestral Sin) Human Nature & purified it and elevated it Hebrews 2:10-18 & 1 Peter 1:3-5, opening the door of theosis to each of us 2 Peter 1:2-4.

Again, how does making the belief in the IC dogma change the truth or belief?

Briefly, IC Dogma as defined by a Pope in the 1,800s makes Mary an exception to the Human Race, rather than a perfect EXAMPLE of what the Human Race can/should be.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Briefly, IC Dogma as defined by a Pope in the 1,800s makes Mary an exception to the Human Race, rather than a perfect EXAMPLE of what the Human Race can/should be.

She is an exception, and she is the perfect example of what we would have been if not for the Fall of Adam and Eve.

Not sure why that bothers you, but I gave you a boatload of Church Fathers (some Eastern) who say that Mary never sinned.

 

[Nektarios_Lady]

She is an exception, and she is the perfect example of what we would have been if not for the Fall of Adam and Eve.

Not sure why that bothers you, but I gave you a boatload of Church Fathers (some Eastern) who say that Mary never sinned.

Orthodox believe she was Human, not an exception to the Human Race.

And we, Orthodox, believe the Panagia (All Holy) has never sinned. I’ve repeatedly stated that.

I think the underlying problem or difference is that some Catholics, maybe all?, believe that to be a Human, that is to be conceived into a world with the affects of Ancestral Sin, IS a Sin that each baby conceived is personally guilty of the sin our human Ancestors personally did in the garden of Eden.

Orthodox don’t share this misunderstanding.

But if Catholics do have this misunderstanding then it would make sense that it would be necessary for Catholics to come up with a new dogma about Mary that she’s unlike the rest of the human race in her conception in order for her to be considered truly Sinless, which is exactly what happened about 1,800 years after the Resurrection of Jesus.

Orthodox don’t confuse the Sin itself with the Consequences of the Sin. Only the Sinner has sinned, the others who are affected by the sin are still totally innocent of the sin.

 

[RyanBlack]

She is an exception, and she is the perfect example of what we would have been if not for the Fall of Adam and Eve.

Not sure why that bothers you, but I gave you a boatload of Church Fathers (some Eastern) who say that Mary never sinned.

Randy,

The Orthodox almost universally believe that the Theotokos never sinned. However, they don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception.