Orthodoxy and the Immaculate Conception

[Maxentius]

Hello SPL

If Mariam was immaculately conceived, then she was the only human other than Christ to be so conceived. This gives her human *nature* a super-human dimension - It is not just a matter of there being extraordinary grace in her blessed life.

Adam and Eve were both immaculately created. Thusm your argument fails.

Being conceived and being created are not the same thing. God created Adam out of dust and Eve out of Adam--neither was conceived, i.e. "born of a woman" whereas Jesus and Mary were.

Now, George stated that if Mary was born without Original Sin then she is the only one besides Jesus to be conceived without Original Sin. It seems perfectly consistent to me and is not a failed argument at all.

[Mark_S]

I'm still struggling to figure out why Mary had to be immaculately conceived.

Can someone enlighten me?

[CatholicXian]

Christ was immaculately conceived.

If Mariam was immaculately conceived, then she was the only human other than Christ to be so conceived. This gives her human *nature* a super-human dimension - It is not just a matter of there being extraordinary grace in her blessed life.

I don't see how the Immaculate Conception makes one "super human"... would not she merely be rather "super graced"?

Otherwise, were Adam and Eve "super human"??

You see, Christ came to save post-fall Adamic man, and to do so, he had to assume into his body everything that was OF man, [except the committing of sin]. It is this fully human nature that the God-birther [=Theotokos] gave to our Lord. To say that she was somehow *conceived* as pre-fall Adam, or somehow *conceived* outside the fall, from which Christ came to save us, then what she gave to Christ to heal was what was not ill, for Adam needed no salvation until he sinned. He needed and would receive divinization whether he sinned or not, but salvation came into necessity because of his turning away from God and becoming obedient to the serpent.

One Orthodox writer put it something like this: "What Christ assumed in his body, He healed. What is not assumed is not healed." This means that if He did not assume our FALLEN nature from the Theotokos, then He did not heal it in His incarnation... And this is why to affirm the theory of the IM is to deny Christ's incarnation...

Is this starting to make more sense?

Yes and no. I've heard the phrase, "what is not assumed is not saved" which I assume is rather similar to your phrase. However, are there two human natures? If our fallen nature is so radically different that it's not the same human nature, then how did this occur with Adam and Eve? Are we sub-human in our fallen nature?
Also, I think perhaps because we may differ in what precisely Original Sin is, there is a bit of confusion on my part... if I were to say that Christ took on a fallen human nature, then I would be confessing that he took on a sinful nature (and thus would have been partly sinful)-- but there is no sin in Christ, thus, I cannot confess such a thing.
Furthermore, the reason I would say it's reasonable and Scriptural to suggest that the Immaculate Conception extends to Mary (though it does NOT deify her... Christ was divine (God) because He had a Divine nature and a human nature, and thus was human and divine) is the protoevangelium, Genesis 3:15. In many old translations it was the woman who crushed the head of the serpent--though, it doesn't really matter who actually does the crushing of the head (though, I agree it is more fitting to have the seed of the woman (Jesus) crushing the head)-- but the enmity God places in the passage speaks volumes, for it is the SAME enmity between the woman and the serpent as exists between the seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent. If Mary was partly sinful, then she would be partly with Satan and wouldn't possess the enmity that Genesis 3:15 speaks of.
Hopefully that didn't just make everything more confusing.

Oh yes - And Good Morning!

Thank you, and good afternoon, now!

Christ is RISEN!!

Amen!

[CatholicXian]

I'm still struggling to figure out why Mary had to be immaculately conceived.

Can someone enlighten me?

Mary did not HAVE to be immaculately conceived. But it is appropriate for the Theotokos to be preserved from all stain of sin. (I think this was somewhat addressed earlier with Maxentius)

[Maxentius]

Interesting discussion so far.

I see where you are coming from here, however, I still tend to disagree on the basis of Luke 1:28 "full of grace" (or, more precise "kekaritomene"). Kekaritomene is a perfect participle in the Greek and as such denotes a completed, past action.

Then why did David sin? See my signature below. David trusted in God while still in his mother's womb, he was "full of grace" if you will. I don't think I would then conclude that David was not full of God's grace because he later sinned.

If Mary was cleansed at the Annunciation, would not the Angel Gabriel have said "you who are being filled with grace" or something similar to it being a present gracing? According to the Greek, it seems as though the Angelic greeting would best be read "Hail, you who have been perfected in grace"--and the reason for bringing up this completed, past action of grace would be the content of Gabriel's message to Mary--to be Theotokos.

And God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were even born, so Jacob was full of grace too. This has to be by God's grace no? And God is not stingy with his grace, he always gives the fulness of grace to his people. So, was Jacob sinless? No, he was not. You are "full of grace" too, because you are a baptized child of God, yet I bet you still sin. You are trying to peer into God's private councils here. His private councils are hidden from us and it is best not to try and peer into them. Mary being full of grace means that she was called while still in the womb, it does not imply she is without original sin, just like David and Jacob were not without original sin.

Ordinations and Sacraments are not the entirety of the Church. To be Catholic is more than just having valid orders and Sacraments. Even among the different rites of Catholicism, the only differences are traditions (small 't'), and cultural customs-- doctrinally, all is the same. This is not so with the Orthodox, we differ in varying degrees on aspects of doctrine and until these are resolved on both sides there will be schism.

OK, but I still don't see how one can have valid sacraments outside the catholic Church. As a Lutheran I certainly don't think there are any valid sacraments outside the catholic Church.

It depends on how you define thin grounds. All doctrine is represented in Scripture (at least implictly), Tradition (big 't'), and the Magisterium. These dogmas are not just flimsy "might-have" or "could-have" beens... they are things that always were, and were believed, to a greater or lesser extent, in the early church.

OK, if you want to submit to the Bible, Tradition and Magesterium that is fine, but that is a Roman was of determining dogma. In other words, your argument is one based on authority, so those outside the circle of authority are not likely to believe e.g. the Immaculate Conception unless they first buy into the sources of authority, like Papal Infallibility. You believe the dogma because the Church inthe person of the pope has infallibly stated it is so, and you see passages like the Magnificat through that lense. It is not my lense, nor is it an Orthodox lense. So Lutherans, and I bet Orthodox too, will see a lot of speculation piled on speculation because we don't believe the hidden premise: if the Pope says it is dogma, it is dogma.

I'm not sure I fully understand the Orthodox perspective on Original Sin, however, if sinfullness comes from mortality, then Adam and Eve would not have been able to sin.

Not really, they believe that Adam and Eve became mortal by an act of their will--they did so when they rebelled. Now we are not stained with their sin but we carry their mortality inside us. Because of this mortality we sin because we are ruled by our passions instead of by the Spirit of God. Mind you, I don't think this view is wrong, just incomplete.

[Paul]

This is blantantly untrue. If it were even remotely true, then the Fall would have never happened in the first place as Adam and Eve would also have been unable to sin.

The state that Adam and Eve were in pre-Fall is not the exact same state as the state that Mary was in. It is the same with respect to the absence of original sin but it is not the same with respect to certain other things. For example, Mary's state was holier than the state that Adam and Eve were in pre-Fall. In Ineffabilis Deus which is the Bull containing the definition of the Immaculate Conception, Pope Pius IX teaches:

http://www.ewtn.com/LIBRARY/PAPALDOC/P9INEFF.htm

Above all creatures did God so love her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight. 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.

It is also not the same with respect to the capability of sinning, keeping in mind that the incapacity to sin is compatible with true freedom as when endowed with the beatific vision in heaven and rendered incapable of sinning, we do not become less but rather more free. From pages 159-160 of The Catholic Catechism by the eminent catechist Fr. John A Hardon, SJ (my emphases):

Was the Blessed Virgin free from stain because she did not offend God, or because she was impeccable and incapable of sin? The latter is common teaching in Catholic Tradition, while distinguishing it from the impeccability enjoyed by Christ. His may be called absolute and derived from the union of his human nature with the divinity. He could not sin because he was God, and God is infinitely holy. Mary could not sin by reason of an inherent quality, which some place midway between the state of souls in the beatific vision and that of our first parents before the fall.
Concretely this quality may be identified with perseverance in grace as regards grave sin, and confirmation in grace for lesser sins. In either case, however, her incapacity for sin differed radically from that of Christ. Where his was based on the fact that he is a divine person, hers was an added prerogative. It was absolutely necessary that he could not sin, since God is sinless. It was a free gift of God's mercy that Mary could not sin, but only because she was protected by divine favor.

Not only is the incapacity to sin compatible with true freedom but it is also compatible with merit since:

1. Being incapable of sinning doesn't mean that one isn't capable of choosing when faced with two goods, either good, where one good is better than the other. For example being incapable of sinning wouldn't mean that you couldn't choose between marriage and giving up marriage in favor of life as a celibate priest or religious or consecrated virgin. Marrying isn't a sin and neither is becoming a celibate priest/religious/consecrated virgin a sin. Yet it can be meritorious to give up marriage (a great good) for an even greater good ("the sake of the kingdom of heaven")

2. Merit just means something that is for one reason or another, in one way or another, worthy of a reward or perhaps in clearer terms: right to be rewarded. It's not the same concept as the concept of "earning." So for example while it is proper to say that we merit our heavenly reward; it would not be proper IMO to say that we earn our heavenly reward. We merit our heavenly reward not because we have independently made ourselves worthy of it but rather because God has made us worthy of it with our co-operation. Thus fundamentally we are meritorious by reason of grace.

I hope that clarifies things and assuming it did, I'll let all of you continue on with your interesting discussion

[Maxentius]

Yes and no. I've heard the phrase, "what is not assumed is not saved" which I assume is rather similar to your phrase. However, are there two human natures? If our fallen nature is so radically different that it's not the same human nature, then how did this occur with Adam and Eve? Are we sub-human in our fallen nature?

Here is a quote from the Book of Concord:

Epitome of the Formula of Concord

I. Original Sin.

STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
The Principal Question in This Controversy.

1] Whether original sin is properly and without any distinction man's corrupt nature, substance, and essence, or at any rate the principal and best part of his essence [substance], namely, the rational soul itself in its highest state and powers; or whether, even after the Fall, there is a distinction between man's substance, nature, essence, body, soul, and original sin, so that the nature (itself] is one thing, and original sin, which inheres in the corrupt nature and corrupts the nature, another.

Affirmative Theses.
The Pure Doctrine, Faith, and Confession
according to the Aforesaid Standard and Summary Declaration.

2] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man's nature, not only as he was originally created by God pure and holy and without sin, but also as we have it [that nature] now after the Fall, namely, between the nature [itself], which even after the Fall is and remains a creature of God, and original sin, and that this distinction is as great as the distinction between a work of God and a work of the devil.

3] 2. We believe, teach, and confess also that this distinction should be maintained with the greatest care, because this doctrine, that no distinction is to be made between our corrupt human nature and original sin, conflicts with the chief articles of our Christian faith concerning creation, redemption, sanctification, and the resurrection of our body, and cannot coexist therewith.

4] For God created not only the body and soul of Adam and Eve before the Fall, but also our bodies and souls after the Fall, notwithstanding that they are corrupt, which God also still acknowledges as His work, as it is written Job 10, 8: Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about. Deut. 32, 18; Is. 45, 9ff; 54, 5; 64, 8; Acts 17, 28; Job 10, 8; Ps. 100, 3; 139, 14; Eccl. 12, 1.

5] Moreover, the Son of God has assumed this human nature, however, without sin, and therefore not a foreign, but our own flesh, into the unity of His person, and according to it is become our true Brother. Heb. 2, 14: Forasmuch, then, as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. Again, 16; 4, 15: He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, yet without sin. 6] In like manner Christ has also redeemed it as His work, sanctifies it as His work, raises it from the dead, and gloriously adorns it as His work. But original sin He has not created, assumed, redeemed, sanctified; nor will He raise it, will neither adorn nor save it in the elect, but in the (blessed] resurrection it will be entirely destroyed.

7] Hence the distinction between the corrupt nature and the corruption which infects the nature and by which the nature became corrupt, can easily be discerned.

8] 3. But, on the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a slight, but so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt has remained in man's body or soul, in his inner or outward powers, but, as the Church sings:

Through Adam's fall is all corrupt,

Nature and essence human.

9] This damage is unspeakable, and cannot be discerned by reason, but only from God's Word. 10] And [we affirm] that no one but God alone can separate from one another the nature and this corruption of the nature, which will fully come to pass through death, in the [blessed] resurrection, where our nature which we now bear will rise and live eternally without original sin and separated and sundered from it, as it is written Job 19, 26: I shall be compassed again with this my skin, and in my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold.

© source where applicable

(http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.h...Original%20Sin.)

Note two things:

Human nature itself is not sinful, but sin has corrupted our natures so that we are sunful by nature, that is from birth, and only God can heal us of this sin.

So, Jesus Christ assumed human nature, the same one we have, but without the stain of original sin.

[CatholicXian]

Interesting discussion so far.

I agree, I am learning a lot.

Then why did David sin? See my signature below. David trusted in God while still in his mother's womb, he was "full of grace" if you will. I don't think I would then conclude that David was not full of God's grace because he later sinned.

And God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were even born, so Jacob was full of grace too. This has to be by God's grace no? And God is not stingy with his grace, he always gives the fulness of grace to his people. So, was Jacob sinless? No, he was not. You are "full of grace" too, because you are a baptized child of God, yet I bet you still sin. You are trying to peer into God's private councils here. His private councils are hidden from us and it is best not to try and peer into them. Mary being full of grace means that she was called while still in the womb, it does not imply she is without original sin, just like David and Jacob were not without original sin.

EXCEPT, the large difference here is that there is not a perfect, past participle to describe David, Esau, or myself. Yes, I may be "full of grace"-- but am I perfected in grace? No, as evidenced by the fact that I still sin. One can take "full" in more than one way (oh geez, now I sound like St. Thomas Aquinas!!).. but I can be full in that my capacity for grace at this moment in my life is fulfilled (I also have to be open and accepting), or I can be full in that my soul is overflowing...
It is the perfect, past Greek participle that IS specified in the Scriptures that makes the difference.

OK, but I still don't see how one can have valid sacraments outside the catholic Church. As a Lutheran I certainly don't think there are any valid sacraments outside the catholic Church.

This is going to get really confusing... And I'm not a canon lawyer, so I don't know that I am best qualified to detail this here.

To my understanding, a valid Sacrament has proper form and matter (and intention, but Ecclesia Supplet when priests are screwy.. "the Church provides").. that's all it needs to be VALID. The Orthodox have proper form, matter, and intention (as far as I can think of... but again, my knowledge is limited), and thus have valid Sacraments. Licitness, however, would be another question, as perhaps the Orthodox Sacraments are considered valid, but illicit in the Catholic Church. Other than that, I'd have to do some reading in the Code of Canon Law, or ask my spiritual director.

OK, if you want to submit to the Bible, Tradition and Magesterium that is fine, but that is a Roman was of determining dogma. In other words, your argument is one based on authority, so those outside the circle of authority are not likely to believe e.g. the Immaculate Conception unless they first buy into the sources of authority, like Papal Infallibility. You believe the dogma because the Church inthe person of the pope has infallibly stated it is so, and you see passages like the Magnificat through that lense. It is not my lense, nor is it an Orthodox lense. So Lutherans, and I bet Orthodox too, will see a lot of speculation piled on speculation because we don't believe the hidden premise: if the Pope says it is dogma, it is dogma.

Not necessarily here. Papal Infallibility (only one sense of infallibility) was one of the last things I accepted. Scripture and Tradition can stand by themselves. Papal Infallibility cannot (it needs both Scripture and Tradition). Papal declarations only confirm what is already present (through doctrine) in Scripture and Tradition.
Secondly, the Pope does not (and can't, for it wouldn't work too well) just willy-nilly create dogmas because that's how he feels when he wakes up in the morning. It's not something arbitrary, as though I just say, "well, the Pope says it, therefore it must be true!"-- that's not how Papal Infallibility works, it has very specific criteria.

Not really, they believe that Adam and Eve became mortal by an act of their will--they did so when they rebelled. Now we are not stained with their sin but we carry their mortality inside us. Because of this mortality we sin because we are ruled by our passions instead of by the Spirit of God. Mind you, I don't think this view is wrong, just incomplete.

That still doesn't make much sense to me. If we sin because of mortality, then mortality must carry with it some sort of sinfulness (through, quite frankly, I'm not so sure I see what mortality has in common with sinfulness--OTHER than the fact that sin is the cause of death(/mortality), but how is it vice versa?).
I'm confused.

[Maxentius]

EXCEPT, the large difference here is that there is not a perfect, past participle to describe David, Esau, or myself.

It matters what you mean by "perfected". David and jacob were perfected just like we are at our Baptism--by God's Word. Today I am perfect as touches my place in Jesus Christ I received at my Baptism, yet I am imperfect as the old Adam still tries to wrest me away from my Savior and so I still sin. The Incarnation is a good illustration of this dynamic: Jesus Christ, one Person, was immortal as touches his godhead, but mortal as touched his manhood, but we still say "God died for our sins" because Jesus Christ is one Person, just like we are. And so I am perfect as touching my place in Christ, but a sinner as touches my present corrupted flesh, which will pass away and be reborn in accordance with my relationship to Christ. We may speak of Christians in both ways here on this earth. It is the same way as we believe the Church is blameless, even though we see sins within the Church every day, yet despite all appearances she really is the Bride of Christ, perfect and blameless.

So, Mary may be "perfected" yet still sin, just like e.g. David may be perfected and still sin.

Not necessarily here. Papal Infallibility (only one sense of infallibility) was one of the last things I accepted. Scripture and Tradition can stand by themselves. Papal Infallibility cannot (it needs both Scripture and Tradition). Papal declarations only confirm what is already present (through doctrine) in Scripture and Tradition.

But the doctrine of IC was promulgated in such a way, wasn't it?

Secondly, the Pope does not (and can't, for it wouldn't work too well) just willy-nilly create dogmas because that's how he feels when he wakes up in the morning. It's not something arbitrary, as though I just say, "well, the Pope says it, therefore it must be true!"-- that's not how Papal Infallibility works, it has very specific criteria.

That is a subject for another thread. The fact is that the Orthdox and Protestants believe the Pope did just such a thing (not that there is an identity between Orthodoxy and the Protestants).

That still doesn't make much sense to me. If we sin because of mortality, then mortality must carry with it some sort of sinfulness (through, quite frankly, I'm not so sure I see what mortality has in common with sinfulness--OTHER than the fact that sin is the cause of death(/mortality), but how is it vice versa?).
I'm confused.

We sin because we are mortal. We are mortal because we are children of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were not by nature mortal but we are. The did not need to sin but we cannot stop ourselves.

Anyway, I don't know enough about Orthodox theology to get much deeper.

[Rusty T]

I don't know if its an Orthodox teaching that Adam and Eve were 'by nature' immortal. They were immortal by nature of their perfect communion with God. By their free will, this communion with God was broken and this brokenness became the world's inheritance. Christ, by becoming broken, became the communion between God and man.

Not speaking for the Orthodox Church,

rusty

[CatholicXian]

It matters what you mean by "perfected". David and jacob were perfected just like we are at our Baptism--by God's Word. Today I am perfect as touches my place in Jesus Christ I received at my Baptism, yet I am imperfect as the old Adam still tries to wrest me away from my Savior and so I still sin. The Incarnation is a good illustration of this dynamic: Jesus Christ, one Person, was immortal as touches his godhead, but mortal as touched his manhood, but we still say "God died for our sins" because Jesus Christ is one Person, just like we are. And so I am perfect as touching my place in Christ, but a sinner as touches my present corrupted flesh, which will pass away and be reborn in accordance with my relationship to Christ. We may speak of Christians in both ways here on this earth. It is the same way as we believe the Church is blameless, even though we see sins within the Church every day, yet despite all appearances she really is the Bride of Christ, perfect and blameless.

So, Mary may be "perfected" yet still sin, just like e.g. David may be perfected and still sin.

I mean perfected in the sense of a perfect past participle. Very precise. (that's why I somewhat like the Greek and Hebrew.. though, I am by no means proficient in either). It's still a different sense of perfect (a more "perfect" sense of perfect, if you will.. forgive the pun). A perfect past participle is very precise, our english language can not always convey it as well.

But the doctrine of IC was promulgated in such a way, wasn't it?

Without Scripture and Tradition? Of course not.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was taken from the implicit Scriptural references-- namely, Luke 1:28 & Genesis 3:15, and from several early typologies of the Blessed Theotokos in the early church. During the 1-4th centuries the idea of Mary as the New Eve--she is compared to Eve in her pre-fallen state (I think the fathers looked to for this mostly were St. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) is studied more closely. Mary is called in these centuries, "all holy", "all pure", "most innocent", "miracle of grace", "more pure than the angels", "all together without sin" (though not specifying from moment of conception) .St. Ephraim (d. 373) says that Mary & Eve created utterly equal (free from sin from creation) and St. Ambrose (d. 378) says that Mary is "free from all stain of sin". Though, none of these explicitly state from conception as I noted before, none of them exclude it either. Severus (538) was the first to say that Mary was free from all sin & immaculate (sine macula (immaculate)= without stain). St. Andrew of Crete (740) called Mary the entirely immaculate Virgin. Theognostes (9th cent) said Mary is free from sin from conception. And in the 11th century, Pope Sixtus IV approved Mass & office of Immaculate Conception. Thus, the 5th-11th centuries were looked upon as a time of growing explicit belief (more definining/understanding as sinless from conception).
So, the latest one could opine the thought of the Immaculate Conception would've been the 9th century... which is a far cry from 1854 when it was declared dogma. The Church claims to have always believed in the Immaculate Conception at least implicitly (just as she believed Mary to be Theotokos before it was defined at Ephesus).

That is a subject for another thread. The fact is that the Orthdox and Protestants believe the Pope did just such a thing (not that there is an identity between Orthodoxy and the Protestants).

Fair enough, but is that because they reject the Scriptural and Traditional elements used, or is it because they are unaware of them?

We sin because we are mortal. We are mortal because we are children of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were not by nature mortal but we are. The did not need to sin but we cannot stop ourselves.

I still do not understand how sinfulness flows from mortality? What is it about the nature of mortality that makes us sin? This is what does not make sense to me.
To say that we are mortal because we sinned, makes sense, "for the wages of sin is death". However, I'm not sure that we can turn that around and say that we sin because we are mortal-- Adam and Eve sinned before they were mortal-- they lost immortality.

[George Blaisdell]

"I don't see how the Immaculate Conception makes one "super human"... would not she merely be rather "super graced"? Otherwise, were Adam and Eve "super human"??

Do you agree that Christ was immaculately conceived?

And if so, then do you think that Mariam was conceived the same way?

And because they were not, but Christ was conceived in Mariam's womb without seed, and Mariam was concieved in Anna's womb with seed, then there is a fundamental difference.

Of course there was an abundance of grace, yet this abundance is not immaculate conception. It is the theotokos who brought to the incarnation of the Christ the whole of the fallen human condition in his immaculately conceived body. If Mariam was immaculately conceived, then she did NOT have the fallen human body to bring to Christ's incarnation, and the whole point of the incarnation is lost...

I'm out of time - God bless you!

Christ is RISEN!!

TRUELY He is risen!!

Arsenios

[Maxentius]

Hello Again,

I mean perfected in the sense of a perfect past participle. Very precise. (that's why I somewhat like the Greek and Hebrew.. though, I am by no means proficient in either). It's still a different sense of perfect (a more "perfect" sense of perfect, if you will.. forgive the pun). A perfect past participle is very precise, our english language can not always convey it as well.

I agree that English does not always give the full sense of the Greek words used in Scripture. But I think yuo are reading too much into "you are blessed". As I pointed out, there are quite a few ways to see that and not require an Immaculate COnception, since the Church, you and I etc. are highly blessed also, yet we are not without sin. For instance, in Epg. 5, St. paul says the Church is without blemish today. Yet there are obvious sins in the Church today.

Without Scripture and Tradition? Of course not.

Again, many groups would say otherwise.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was taken from the implicit Scriptural references-- namely, Luke 1:28 & Genesis 3:15, and from several early typologies of the Blessed Theotokos in the early church. During the 1-4th centuries the idea of Mary as the New Eve--she is compared to Eve in her pre-fallen state (I think the fathers looked to for this mostly were St. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) is studied more closely. Mary is called in these centuries, "all holy", "all pure", "most innocent", "miracle of grace", "more pure than the angels", "all together without sin" (though not specifying from moment of conception) .

Lots of things were said by the early Church Fathers, some of them would be considered heretical opinions later in Church history. Nonetheless, if you argue from Tradition as an authority you must account for the different beliefs of the Orthodox, unless you are arguing from papal authority. In that case, you have to show why your authority is better than another's.

Fair enough, but is that because they reject the Scriptural and Traditional elements used, or is it because they are unaware of them?

Both Protestants and Orthodox reject notions of papal supremacy--it is one of the few points of genuine agreement. In the East and in the past in the West, the pope was seen as a sort of tyrant and not the vicar of Christ. And keep in mind that the Orthodox have "Tradition" and "tradition" too, and make claims similar to the RCC claims of being the true Catholic Church and use many of the same arguments.

FWIW, I disagree with the present pope, and moreso with john Paul II, but I do admire him.

Gotta go!

[CatholicXian]

I agree that English does not always give the full sense of the Greek words used in Scripture. But I think yuo are reading too much into "you are blessed". As I pointed out, there are quite a few ways to see that and not require an Immaculate COnception, since the Church, you and I etc. are highly blessed also, yet we are not without sin. For instance, in Epg. 5, St. paul says the Church is without blemish today. Yet there are obvious sins in the Church today.

But yet, grammar is very precise (perhaps a redeeming quality to the english language). I am following the rules of grammar, not reading into the text.
I can agree that we can be highly blessed, but it is in a sense different from the way in which Mary was blessed. Her role as Theotokos demands this difference. And furthermore, her blessedness is described with a very specific word whose grammatical construction reveals its true meaning. The same cannot be said of the Scriptural passages which speak of David, Jacob, or the believers in Christ.

Again, many groups would say otherwise.

Yes, I know that well. But at the same time, we cannot always view the "other side" with our own lenses. The lense of Truth is universal, but occasionally we are only looking through one small part.
For instance, a false argument can be logically correct, but nonetheless it is still false. Thus, the condemning false premise must be found to show the logically correct argument false (and in some cases the false premise needs to be explained).
In this particular case, I am more than willing to go back and examine the Greek, or examine the Greek (or Hebrew) of other passages as well to gain a fuller understanding, but to my knowledge no one else was the recipient of grace under the grammatical structure of a completed past action-- the perfect sense of perfect.
(Of course, Jesus Christ was perfect, but He is He who IS perfection because He is God... Mary was made immaculate by grace, Christ was by nature immaculate).

Lots of things were said by the early Church Fathers, some of them would be considered heretical opinions later in Church history. Nonetheless, if you argue from Tradition as an authority you must account for the different beliefs of the Orthodox, unless you are arguing from papal authority. In that case, you have to show why your authority is better than another's.

Again, very true, yet the still present an honest picture of the faith-- for the early church was not lacking in its swift correction of those in fault. Perhaps if you could find condemnations of the church fathers writings which I posted, I would be more than willing to examine them further.
Though I ascribe to papal authority, I am not a blind follower. Countless times I have been shown other interpretations of Scripture, some more convincing than others, but I've yet to find a convincing interpretation irreconcilable with the one presented by the Church (for authority is not merely limited to the Roman Pontiff).

Both Protestants and Orthodox reject notions of papal supremacy--it is one of the few points of genuine agreement. In the East and in the past in the West, the pope was seen as a sort of tyrant and not the vicar of Christ. And keep in mind that the Orthodox have "Tradition" and "tradition" too, and make claims similar to the RCC claims of being the true Catholic Church and use many of the same arguments.

Yet, the Orthodox and Protestants differ greatly on their treatment of the Blessed Theotokos. There are many Orthodox on board for the proclamation of the fifth (and final) Marian dogma, including Russian Orthodox scholar Dr. Vladimir Zelinskya, members of the St. Serge Institute in Paris (i.e., Sergius Bulgakov), and Patriarch Bartholomew issued a 1998 Lenten encyclical on the role of the Mother of God in salvation.
A definition of the dogma means nothing to neither Protestants nor the Orthodox, but, one has to remember that dogma is elevated doctrine. A Pope declaring dogma is not something brand new, it's a doctrinal practice that is being given more certainty. Thus, (to use the example I began with, the fifth Marian dogma being petitioned) Mary's roles as CoRedemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate are already a part of Catholic doctrine and thus a real part of the Catholic faith.

FWIW, I disagree with the present pope, and moreso with john Paul II, but I do admire him.

Understandable, but cool. I was rather excited at Pope Benedict XVI's election... I am hoping that he will pull the Church back on a liturgical course that is more traditional, and more in-line with the actual documents of the Second Vatican Council.
By the way, I have to say, this is definitely a new "messageboard experience" for me... I GREATLY appreciate your (and the others with whom I've begun to dialogue) charity and respect, even for those with which you disagree-- it is truly refreshing and Christian. And as well I think I am learning quite a bit.

[CatholicXian]

Do you agree that Christ was immaculately conceived?

I would say that Christ IS immaculate and was conceived miraculously.

And if so, then do you think that Mariam was conceived the same way?

No, the Theotokos was not conceived in the same way as Christ.

And because they were not, but Christ was conceived in Mariam's womb without seed, and Mariam was concieved in Anna's womb with seed, then there is a fundamental difference.

Of course there was an abundance of grace, yet this abundance is not immaculate conception. It is the theotokos who brought to the incarnation of the Christ the whole of the fallen human condition in his immaculately conceived body. If Mariam was immaculately conceived, then she did NOT have the fallen human body to bring to Christ's incarnation, and the whole point of the incarnation is lost...

Here again I am confused. Human nature is human nature. The fallen human nature we inherit from our parents is not a separate human nature, but a deprived (though not totally, for I am not a Calvinist). Yes, Christ redeemed a fallen human nature, but not because He Himself possessed a fallen human nature (for then He would possess depravity, which does not make sense). To say that Christ had a perfect human nature does not leave the rest of humanity with a fallen nature unredeemed. Human nature is still human nature. To lack the supernatural gifts of an unfallen human nature does not make one unhuman. Man is still man, a fallen man, but man nonetheless.
Did that help to explain my question to you?


(and the same thanksgiving as extended to Maxentius is extended to you... I am truly learning a great deal, and I firmly appreciate your charity and patience with me!)