I did not refer to infallible or non-infallible. Defined does not necessarily mean dogma. The Church teaches that Mary was free from original sin and did not sin personally during her entire life. THAT is the point. It is irrelevant if it infallible or not. We are BOUND by this teaching.
I suppose the colloquial word “disbelieve” is confusing in the context of this discussion because it is not in the technical vocab used.
Mary’s perpetual sinlessness is a much older doctrine and one shared by both Catholic and Orthodox.
To me there is a huge difference between believing something I know to be infallible and those things that could be erroneous. Also, defined does mean dogma
In 2000 years there has never been a change due to error of any non-infallible teaching.
2 questions:
Mary couldn’t have been immaculate. She was afraid. A pure soul knows no fear. Fear is a consequent of sin.
Perhaps this is a testament to mans stubborn pride in himself.
How do we know what’s infallible if it hasn’t been deemed infallible by definition so that by a defined criteria we may judge a thing as such?
Man’s rejection of the truths dedined by God’s Church is a better testament to man’s pride.
Mary was “troubled” by an incredible grewting of an angel. That is perfectly healthy. Fear of God is healthy. Your last two sentences are baseless.
(1) It was appropriate that she who would bear God in her womb, who would serve as an ark of the new covenant for the true manna, true priest, and true law giver, be pure of sin. Why did God command that the ark be kept pure? Why was the tabernacle and the temple kept pure? Because they were holy because they were where the divine touched matter. Let’s not lose sight of the significance of that. Let’s not ever lose our awe of the divine. It is fitting that she shpuld be free from all sin and that she should be set apart for God.
From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott, p. 203:
Look again the angel never once says Mary was full of grace. The phrase “highly favored” and or "found favor with God " is a far cry from it saying full of grace in equivalence.
Some Catholic versions have “full of grace.”.
The English translations are not as precise as the Greek which uses kekharitomene, translated by St Jerome as gratia plena. Greek perfect tense refers to a state of being from a past action which has effects felt in the present.
Unproven assertions and faulty logic I suggest.
You drink shallowly. Everything about Mary’s actions would be perfectly normal human reactions in a fallen world…by a fallen creature. Reread genesis. Adam and Eve had no fear of, nor need to fear, God until after the fall. Fear itself is a useful tool in a fallen world. But to classify fear as healthy is a misunderstanding of the state man finds himself in. By analogy we may consider Doctors very useful in a world subject to unhealthy conditions. This does not mean it is healthy to have Doctors. The need for doctors are an indicator of the existence of our fallen state. If we deem Mary born in a sinless state, untainted by the stain of Adam and Eves sin then we should expect any consequences resulting from their transgressions to not be found in Mary’s pure soul. Fear most definitely being one of them. A soul in perfect communion with God has nothing to fear. This is the “basis” of what you called my “baseless” contentions.