Topic: Inaccurate Understanding of the Immaculate Conception

[Mardukm]

St. Bernard...Ditto...Ditto...

Like I said:

No one rebutted my explanation of why the objections of 2 or 3 medieval Latin Fathers do not contradict the 19th century defintion of the teaching of the IC.

They simply pulled the rug under your claims of "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est" even in the bosom of the Vatican.  What more is necessary?  Explaining that problem away doesn't prop it back up.  In particular as you still haven't shown how your novel slant on the IC, that it only involves the soul of the Theotokos, contradicting your MAGISTERIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, jives with your "ensoulment" excuse for the Latin opposition to the IC.

I already quoted in the past the old Catholic Encyclopedia on the proper understanding of "conception" in the term "Immaculate Conception, as well as Pope Alexander's encyclical in the 17th century asserting that the belief in the IC refers to her ensoulment.  Like I said, nothing was stated in response.

Blessings

[ialmisry]

And as to brother Isa's claim that many delayed their baptism in the early Church --- SO WHAT?  That was the decision of individual Christians, not the teaching of the Church.  You see, in the early Church, the Sacrament of confession was normatively permitted only once in your life, or very rarely.  People were afraid that they might die without a chance to go to confession, and a person who is baptized would have a greater condemnation than one who was not.  Since Baptism was understood to remit sin, then people opted to wait.  But, once gain, this was the choice of individual Christians, but it was not the teaching of the Church that people should delay their baptisms.  So Isa's example was a departure from Christian practice, and never considered a norm, but may have been allowed by economy.

As regards to Catholic baptism, the Church teaches that babies are to be baptized ASAP with no unreasonable delay.

Hope to have a response from you soon.
Blessings,
Marduk

The Coptic Orthodox Church baptizes a son 40 days after birth, a daughter 80 days after.
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/1_baptism.htm
(btw, the Copts baptize with the formula "I baptize..." instead of "The servant of God is baptized...", but I believe this is purely from linguistic problems-Coptic has no passive voice-then similiarity to Latin theology).
I don't know what your "Oriental Tradition" does.  The Eastern Orthodox Church baptizes usually 40 days after birth.  That is the teaching and practice of the Church, and it has not changed.

Since the institution of the catechumenate, i.e. those Christians NOT baptized, was Christian practice from the earliest times (witness the Didache), you Latin accusation of delayed baptism as a departure from Christian practice fails again.  It was the norm, and delayed baptism was normal in the sense that it was very common.  I will agree that it was exaggerated.

It is always amuzing to see your explanations: can you point out how Confession "was normatively permitted only once in your life, or very rarely?"

[Irish Hermit]

as well as Pope Alexander's encyclical in the 17th century asserting that the belief in the IC refers to her ensoulment. 

Alexander VII in the 17th century had a take-it or leave-it attitude to the Immaculate Conception.

"Alexander VII, in 1671, declared that the devotion of honoring
the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is pious; yet prohibits censuring
those who do not believe her Conception immaculate."

http://www.cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/legalstatusoffeenyism.html

Again, as with Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas of Aquinas and the Dominicans,  we come back to the realisation that there was no preceding Tradition in the West that she was conceived immaculately.  If there were, there would be no possibility of denying it as a part of Tradition in the 17th century.

[ialmisry]

St. Bernard...Ditto...Ditto...

Like I said:

No one rebutted my explanation of why the objections of 2 or 3 medieval Latin Fathers do not contradict the 19th century defintion of the teaching of the IC.

They simply pulled the rug under your claims of "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est" even in the bosom of the Vatican.  What more is necessary?  Explaining that problem away doesn't prop it back up.  In particular as you still haven't shown how your novel slant on the IC, that it only involves the soul of the Theotokos, contradicting your MAGISTERIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, jives with your "ensoulment" excuse for the Latin opposition to the IC.

I already quoted in the past the old Catholic Encyclopedia on the proper understanding of "conception" in the term "Immaculate Conception, as well as Pope Alexander's encyclical in the 17th century asserting that the belief in the IC refers to her ensoulment.  Like I said, nothing was stated in response.

Blessings

Before I waste time on that, can we get a ruling on the "old Catholic Encyclopedia" and Pope Alexander's encyclical as magesterial documents?

Btw, would that be Alexander VII, elected as a reformer but who in consistory turned over the curia to his relatives and banned heliocentric theory
http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-iii-scriptural.html
or Alexander VIII who revived sinecure offices for his relatives, and used the Vatican's coffers to finance his native Venice's trade war with the Ottomans?

as well as Pope Alexander's encyclical in the 17th century asserting that the belief in the IC refers to her ensoulment.

Alexander VII in the 17th century had a take-it or leave-it attitude to the Immaculate Conception.

"Alexander VII, in 1671, declared that the devotion of honoring
the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is pious; yet prohibits censuring
those who do not believe her Conception immaculate."

http://www.cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/legalstatusoffeenyism.html

Again, as with Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas of Aquinas and the Dominicans,  we come back to the realisation that there was no preceding Tradition in the West that she was conceived immaculately.  If there were, there would be no possibility of denying it as a part of Tradition in the 17th century.

Ah, so it would be the Pope Alexander who had the leave it attitude to the heliocentric theory, and censured it.

[Mardukm]

And as to brother Isa's claim that many delayed their baptism in the early Church --- SO WHAT?  That was the decision of individual Christians, not the teaching of the Church.  You see, in the early Church, the Sacrament of confession was normatively permitted only once in your life, or very rarely.  People were afraid that they might die without a chance to go to confession, and a person who is baptized would have a greater condemnation than one who was not.  Since Baptism was understood to remit sin, then people opted to wait.  But, once gain, this was the choice of individual Christians, but it was not the teaching of the Church that people should delay their baptisms.  So Isa's example was a departure from Christian practice, and never considered a norm, but may have been allowed by economy.

As regards to Catholic baptism, the Church teaches that babies are to be baptized ASAP with no unreasonable delay.

Hope to have a response from you soon.
Blessings,
Marduk

The Coptic Orthodox Church baptizes a son 40 days after birth, a daughter 80 days after.
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/1_baptism.htm
(btw, the Copts baptize with the formula "I baptize..." instead of "The servant of God is baptized...", but I believe this is purely from linguistic problems-Coptic has no passive voice-then similiarity to Latin theology).
I don't know what your "Oriental Tradition" does.  The Eastern Orthodox Church baptizes usually 40 days after birth.  That is the teaching and practice of the Church, and it has not changed.

Since the institution of the catechumenate, i.e. those Christians NOT baptized, was Christian practice from the earliest times (witness the Didache), you Latin accusation of delayed baptism as a departure from Christian practice fails again.  It was the norm, and delayed baptism was normal in the sense that it was very common.  I will agree that it was exaggerated.

It is always amuzing to see your explanations: can you point out how Confession "was normatively permitted only once in your life, or very rarely?"

OOPS! Sorry.  Sometimes, when I write quickly, I do inadvertently use "Church" when I actually mean to say a particular Church.  In the instance you are referring to, I did mean to say "Latin Church." Sorry for the confusion.  In any case, my point stands that the non-immediate baptism of children is based NOT on a diminution of the importance of baptism for the sake of salvation, but rather as a reflection of the ancient Jewish practice of circumcision (as Scripture states that baptism replaces circumcision in the new law).

As far as the didache is concerned, I admit its been a while since I read it, but I don't recall anything about a general practice of delaying baptism, but rather that delay is conditioned upon proper catechetical instruction.  Upon such instruction, I don't think it was the practice to delay baptism.  Perhaps you can give me a quote supporting your understanding that delay was a normative practice (apart from satisfying the completion of the catechumenate). I certainly don't think that waiting until instruction is completed can properly be called a "delay" - rather it was the normal rite to have instruction and THEN be baptized.

As far as infrequent confession (you'll remember that much of what I write is from memory), all I can think of off the top of my head is St. Basil at the moment.  I will have to do research.  I'll get back to you on that.  But I do know that penance for certain sins was for such a tremendously long period of time that one would be inclined to believe that one was - just on a practical level - allowed access to the Sacrament quite infrequently.  Like I said, please be patient as I do research - though, admittedly, I might not get to this research until Monday.

Blessings,
Marduk

[Mardukm]

as well as Pope Alexander's encyclical in the 17th century asserting that the belief in the IC refers to her ensoulment. 

Alexander VII in the 17th century had a take-it or leave-it attitude to the Immaculate Conception.

"Alexander VII, in 1671, declared that the devotion of honoring
the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary is pious; yet prohibits censuring
those who do not believe her Conception immaculate."

http://www.cheetah.net/~ccoulomb/legalstatusoffeenyism.html

Again, as with Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas of Aquinas and the Dominicans,  we come back to the realisation that there was no preceding Tradition in the West that she was conceived immaculately.  If there were, there would be no possibility of denying it as a part of Tradition in the 17th century.

I'm not sure where the website you linked to is getting its information from.  Pope Alexander VII actually renewed the decrees and censures promulgated by his predecessors (Sixtus IV, Paul V, Gregory XV) against those who taught contrary to the teaching on the IC as promoted by the Pope's encyclical. 

[Mardukm]

Before I waste time on that, can we get a ruling on the "old Catholic Encyclopedia" and Pope Alexander's encyclical as magesterial documents?

Pope Alexander's encyclical was a claimed by him to be a ruling on the matter.  So it would be a magisterial document.  I could only find a Spanish version of the encyclical.  Here is a link, for those who can read spanish: www.mercaba.org/MAGISTERIO/sollicitudo_omnium_ecclesiarum.htm

And I would certainly trust the old Catholic Encyclopedia to explain a dogma of the Catholic Church before I waste time listening to a non-Catholic interpret it.

Blessings,
Marduk

[ialmisry]

Before I waste time on that, can we get a ruling on the "old Catholic Encyclopedia" and Pope Alexander's encyclical as magesterial documents?

Pope Alexander's encyclical was a claimed by him to be a ruling on the matter.  So it would be a magisterial document.  I could only find a Spanish version of the encyclical.  Here is a link, for those who can read spanish: www.mercaba.org/MAGISTERIO/sollicitudo_omnium_ecclesiarum.htm

And I would certainly trust the old Catholic Encyclopedia to explain a dogma of the Catholic Church before I waste time listening to a non-Catholic interpret it.

That's nice:

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact.

Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

[Mardukm]

Before I waste time on that, can we get a ruling on the "old Catholic Encyclopedia" and Pope Alexander's encyclical as magesterial documents?

Pope Alexander's encyclical was a claimed by him to be a ruling on the matter.  So it would be a magisterial document.  I could only find a Spanish version of the encyclical.  Here is a link, for those who can read spanish: www.mercaba.org/MAGISTERIO/sollicitudo_omnium_ecclesiarum.htm

And I would certainly trust the old Catholic Encyclopedia to explain a dogma of the Catholic Church before I waste time listening to a non-Catholic interpret it.

Sorry, folks. I tried the link I gave you, but for some wierd reason, it shunts to a Spanish translation of a sermon by St. Augustine.  The encyclical is indeed called "Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum" - as the link states - but it's leading to a different document.  I fooled around with the links, and I was actually able to get it to work when I pressed the google translate button.  Unfortunately, it gives a REALLY, REALLY bad and broken English translation from the Spanish.  Well, here is the link to the bad English translation anyway:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.mercaba.org/MAGISTERIO/sollicitudo_omnium_ecclesiarum.htm&ei=T4IqSsWoJ5SQswPUiIHfCg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DSollicitudo%2Bomnium%2Becclesiarum%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us

Hope it works.

Blessings

[Mardukm]

Before I waste time on that, can we get a ruling on the "old Catholic Encyclopedia" and Pope Alexander's encyclical as magesterial documents?

Pope Alexander's encyclical was a claimed by him to be a ruling on the matter.  So it would be a magisterial document.  I could only find a Spanish version of the encyclical.  Here is a link, for those who can read spanish: www.mercaba.org/MAGISTERIO/sollicitudo_omnium_ecclesiarum.htm

And I would certainly trust the old Catholic Encyclopedia to explain a dogma of the Catholic Church before I waste time listening to a non-Catholic interpret it.

That's nice:

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact.

Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Is this another one of your typical evasive tactics to try to get readers to focus on something else other than this discussion (since you are not being very successful at proving your points), or are you just frustrated that you are not proving your points.

Blessings

[ialmisry]

Before I waste time on that, can we get a ruling on the "old Catholic Encyclopedia" and Pope Alexander's encyclical as magesterial documents?

Pope Alexander's encyclical was a claimed by him to be a ruling on the matter.  So it would be a magisterial document.  I could only find a Spanish version of the encyclical.  Here is a link, for those who can read spanish: www.mercaba.org/MAGISTERIO/sollicitudo_omnium_ecclesiarum.htm

And I would certainly trust the old Catholic Encyclopedia to explain a dogma of the Catholic Church before I waste time listening to a non-Catholic interpret it.

That's nice:

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact.

Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Is this another one of your typical evasive tactics to try to get readers to focus on something else other than this discussion (since you are not being very successful at proving your points), or are you just frustrated that you are not proving your points.

Blessings

No, I never stated he taught it.  I said he believed it

Let me get this straight. In YOUR opinion, St Gregory Palamas believed the Latin understanding of the IC, but you do not offer any proof--perhaps you have access to a time machine. 

On the other hand, you say that he never taught it.

I believe I once read something you wrote saying that although Honorius believed his heresy--the fact he did not teach it means that  he was not a heretic.

No, just bringing out the difficulty of pinning you down for authoritative statements, and getting you to recognize the plain language of dogmatic statements (like the Magesterial Pronouncement of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: sorry, neither we nor the Vatican are the court of appeal from an Ecumenical Council), let alone the plain language of pronouncements on the IC.

[Mardukm]

Before I waste time on that, can we get a ruling on the "old Catholic Encyclopedia" and Pope Alexander's encyclical as magesterial documents?

Pope Alexander's encyclical was a claimed by him to be a ruling on the matter.  So it would be a magisterial document.  I could only find a Spanish version of the encyclical.  Here is a link, for those who can read spanish: www.mercaba.org/MAGISTERIO/sollicitudo_omnium_ecclesiarum.htm

And I would certainly trust the old Catholic Encyclopedia to explain a dogma of the Catholic Church before I waste time listening to a non-Catholic interpret it.

That's nice:

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact.

Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Is this another one of your typical evasive tactics to try to get readers to focus on something else other than this discussion (since you are not being very successful at proving your points), or are you just frustrated that you are not proving your points.

Blessings

No, I never stated he taught it.  I said he believed it

Let me get this straight. In YOUR opinion, St Gregory Palamas believed the Latin understanding of the IC, but you do not offer any proof--perhaps you have access to a time machine. 

On the other hand, you say that he never taught it.

I believe I once read something you wrote saying that although Honorius believed his heresy--the fact he did not teach it means that  he was not a heretic.

Oh.  THAT was your point.  Well, no, I've never claimed that Honorius was not condemned as a heretic, nor that Honorius was not a heretic.  The difference of opinion I've had with some EO is the REASON why Honorius was condemned as a heretic.

Blessings

[Mardukm]

No, just bringing out the difficulty of pinning you down for authoritative statements, and getting you to recognize the plain language of dogmatic statements (like the Magesterial Pronouncement of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: sorry, neither we nor the Vatican are the court of appeal from an Ecumenical Council), let alone the plain language of pronouncements on the IC.

Well, the "plain language" of the IC, if you want to debate it, should be interpreted according to the magisterial interpretations of the CC, not according to the whimsical interpretations of NON-Catholics, wouldn't you agree?  I'm sure you would not want me to critique an EO doctrine based on my own NON-EO point of view, but rather on what the EOC herself teaches, correct?

Blessings

[Dan-Romania]

The reason why Mary could not be IC is because it would refute the doctrine of Jesus being a human like us. He inherited his humanity from Mary , let`s not forget that. It would not be necessary for Mary to be IC so that she might give birth to Jesus. She was purified and cleansed at the moment of her pregnancy trough God`s work and grace.Mary is a handmaid of God , a servant of God , wich is above the cheruvims and seraphims , and because of her participation to God`s plan , she has been filled with grace and she stands now near Jesus and God.She does not proclaim any authority , her purpose is to serve God and accomplish the will of her Son and God. She is in the presence of God and a representative of christianity and christian requests . She is seen making continuoss intercession for humanity in front of God . She is representative for the Church wich is serving God continuasly . A honorable woman she is , but she must be understood in the spirit of humility , not as a ruler of the humanity , but as an advocate for the humanity , the ruler is Jesus our God , he is our king. The virgin by benefiting of a special service from God at her birth, she would automaticly be born above any consequence of human fall.Once she would have been extempt from any guilt of the original sin , she would  not be in a position of needing a Saviour , and she herself would have been a perfect being outside normal humanity.Kind of extraterestrial being.But we know as tradition teach us that the only perfect human was Christ without any kind of sin.Mary is terestral , and from Mary Jesus inherited his terestral nature.A text in NT says : "And woman shall be saved giving birth" .

[ialmisry]

No, just bringing out the difficulty of pinning you down for authoritative statements, and getting you to recognize the plain language of dogmatic statements (like the Magesterial Pronouncement of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: sorry, neither we nor the Vatican are the court of appeal from an Ecumenical Council), let alone the plain language of pronouncements on the IC.

Well, the "plain language" of the IC, if you want to debate it, should be interpreted according to the magisterial interpretations of the CC, not according to the whimsical interpretations of NON-Catholics, wouldn't you agree? 

How about the learned interpretation of Catholics not in communion with the Vatican, bases on your magisterial inerpratations?

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Seriously -- the fact that you do not actually read my response makes your claims lose all credibility.  I already stated, specifically, that the "stain" of original sin does not refer to any of the tactile effects of the Fall, but only to the spiritual effects.  I don't know how you can assume I claimed that death is not a consequence of the Fall.

Let me spell this out more slowly:

The Fall had two consequences for mankind - 1) tactile/physical effects which include bodily/emotional infirmities, corruption and death. 2) spiritual effects which include loss of sanctifying grace, loss of original justice, and concupiscence.

In the Decree on Original Sin at the Council of Trent, the Church defined that in Baptism, mankind is "made innocent, without stain, pure...beloved sons of God."

Do you see the word "stain" in the definition, Father?  Do you see the connection?  "Stain" refers to the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin, NOT the physical/tactile consequences (unless your innovative polemics are now going to claim that the Catholic Church teaches that Baptism means we can no longer die).

So when the dogma of the IC states that Mary was preserved from all STAIN of original sin, it is referring exclusively to the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin, and is not making any reference to the physical/tactile consequences.  In other words, the dogma of the IC is not claiming that the Graces Mary received at the moment of the Immaculate Conception somehow freed her from death, or physical/emotional infirmities, or bodily corruption, etc.

Your fine distinction in the IC are not found in Ineffibilus Deus.  Are they a refinement?

SUPREME REASON FOR THE PRIVILEGE: THE DIVINE MATERNITY

And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son -- the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart -- and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds.[1]

Nice inclusion of the error of the Filioque.

This of course, is the supreme problem for your read of the IC:Mary becomes Theotokos through her body.

The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin's supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind -- words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, "I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed"[13] -- taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.[14]

Based on the Vulgate's mistransaltion of Genesis 3:15 (something the IC believers by the score still ignore).

As if these splendid eulogies and tributes were not sufficient, the Fathers proclaimed with particular and definite statements that when one treats of sin, the holy Virgin Mary is not even to be mentioned; for to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely.[24] They also declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents, the giver of life to posterity; that she was chosen before the ages, prepared for himself by the Most High, foretold by God when he said to the serpent, "I will put enmities between you and the woman."[25] -- unmistakable evidence that she crushed the poisonous head of the serpent. And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.


They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.

This doctrine so filled the minds and souls of our ancestors in the faith that a singular and truly marvelous style of speech came into vogue among them. They have frequently addressed the Mother of God as immaculate, as immaculate in every respect; innocent, and verily most innocent; spotless, and entirely spotless; holy and removed from every stain of sin; all pure, all stainless, the very model of purity and innocence; more beautiful than beauty, more lovely than loveliness; more holy than holiness, singularly holy and most pure in soul and body; the one who surpassed all integrity and virginity; the only one who has become the dwelling place of all the graces of the most Holy Spirit. God alone excepted, Mary is more excellent than all, and by nature fair and beautiful, and more holy than the Cherubim and Seraphim. To praise her all the tongues of heaven and earth do not suffice.

And then, there is the problem of squaring your read of the IC with Munificentissimus Deus:

3. Actually God, who from all eternity regards Mary with a most favorable and unique affection, has "when the fullness of time came"(2) put the plan of his providence into effect in such a way that all the privileges and prerogatives he had granted to her in his sovereign generosity were to shine forth in her in a kind of perfect harmony. And, although the Church has always recognized this supreme generosity and the perfect harmony of graces and has daily studied them more and more throughout the course of the centuries, still it is in our own age that the privilege of the bodily Assumption into heaven of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, has certainly shone forth more clearly.

4. That privilege has shone forth in new radiance since our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the loving Mother of God's Immaculate Conception. These two privileges are most closely bound to one another. Christ overcame sin and death by his own death, and one who through Baptism has been born again in a supernatural way has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.

5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

6. Thus, when it was solemnly proclaimed that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, was from the very beginning free from the taint of original sin, the minds of the faithful were filled with a stronger hope that the day might soon come when the dogma of the Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven would also be defined by the Church's supreme teaching authority.

12. But those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God"(4) gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,"(5) affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.(6) Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth,(7) and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them. For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."( Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."(9)

14. Christ's faithful, through the teaching and the leadership of their pastors, have learned from the sacred books that the Virgin Mary, throughout the course of her earthly pilgrimage, led a life troubled by cares, hardships, and sorrows, and that, moreover, what the holy old man Simeon had foretold actually came to pass, that is, that a terribly sharp sword pierced her heart as she stood under the cross of her divine Son, our Redeemer. In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes. Actually, enlightened by divine grace and moved by affection for her, God's Mother and our own dearest Mother, they have contemplated in an ever clearer light the wonderful harmony and order of those privileges which the most provident God has lavished upon this loving associate of our Redeemer, privileges which reach such an exalted plane that, except for her, nothing created by God other than the human nature of Jesus Christ has ever reached this level.

17. In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."(11)

18. What is here indicated in that sobriety characteristic of the Roman liturgy is presented more clearly and completely in other ancient liturgical books. To take one as an example, the Gallican sacramentary designates this privilege of Mary's as "an ineffable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin's Assumption is something unique among men." And, in the Byzantine liturgy, not only is the Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption connected time and time again with the dignity of the Mother of God, but also with the other privileges, and in particular with the virginal motherhood granted her by a singular decree of God's Providence. "God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb."(12)

20. However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ's faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.

21. Thus St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. "It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God."(17)

22. These words of St. John Damascene agree perfectly with what others have taught on this same subject. Statements no less clear and accurate are to be found in sermons delivered by Fathers of an earlier time or of the same period, particularly on the occasion of this feast. And so, to cite some other examples, St. Germanus of Constantinople considered the fact that the body of Mary, the virgin Mother of God, was incorrupt and had been taken up into heaven to be in keeping, not only with her divine motherhood, but also with the special holiness of her virginal body. "You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life."(18) And another very ancient writer asserts: "As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him."(19)

26. Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers,(20) have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption. Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: "Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified"(21); and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord's temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven. Treating of this subject, they also describe her as the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer.(22) Likewise they mention the Spouse of the Canticles "that goes up by the desert, as a pillar of smoke of aromatical spices, of myrrh and frankincense" to be crowned.(23) These are proposed as depicting that heavenly Queen and heavenly Spouse who has been lifted up to the courts of heaven with the divine Bridegroom.

28. Thus, during the earliest period of scholastic theology, that most pious man, Amadeus, Bishop of Lausarme, held that the Virgin Mary's flesh had remained incorrupt-for it is wrong to believe that her body has seen corruption-because it was really united again to her soul and, together with it, crowned with great glory in the heavenly courts. "For she was full of grace and blessed among women. She alone merited to conceive the true God of true God, whom as a virgin, she brought forth, to whom as a virgin she gave milk, fondling him in her lap, and in all things she waited upon him with loving care."(26)

29. Among the holy writers who at that time employed statements and various images and analogies of Sacred Scripture to Illustrate and to confirm the doctrine of the Assumption, which was piously believed, the Evangelical Doctor, St. Anthony of Padua, holds a special place. On the feast day of the Assumption, while explaining the prophet's words: "I will glorify the place of my feet,"(27) he stated it as certain that the divine Redeemer had bedecked with supreme glory his most beloved Mother from whom he had received human flesh. He asserts that "you have here a clear statement that the Blessed Virgin has been assumed in her body, where was the place of the Lord's feet. Hence it is that the holy Psalmist writes: 'Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark which you have sanctified."' And he asserts that, just as Jesus Christ has risen from the death over which he triumphed and has ascended to the right hand of the Father, so likewise the ark of his sanctification "has risen up, since on this day the Virgin Mother has been taken up to her heavenly dwelling."(28)

30. When, during the Middle Ages, scholastic theology was especially flourishing, St. Albert the Great who, to establish this teaching, had gathered together many proofs from Sacred Scripture, from the statements of older writers, and finally from the liturgy and from what is known as theological reasoning, concluded in this way: "From these proofs and authorities and from many others, it is manifest that the most blessed Mother of God has been assumed above the choirs of angels. And this we believe in every way to be true."(29) And, in a sermon which he delivered on the sacred day of the Blessed Virgin Mary's annunciation, explained the words "Hail, full of grace"-words used by the angel who addressed her-the Universal Doctor, comparing the Blessed Virgin with Eve, stated clearly and incisively that she was exempted from the fourfold curse that had been laid upon Eve.(30)

31. Following the footsteps of his distinguished teacher, the Angelic Doctor, despite the fact that he never dealt directly with this question, nevertheless, whenever he touched upon it, always held together with the Catholic Church, that Mary's body had been assumed into heaven along with her soul.(31)

32. Along with many others, the Seraphic Doctor held the same views. He considered it as entirely certain that, as God had preserved the most holy Virgin Mary from the violation of her virginal purity and integrity in conceiving and in childbirth, he would never have permitted her body to have been resolved into dust and ashes.(32) Explaining these words of Sacred Scripture: "Who is this that comes up from the desert, flowing with delights, leaning upon her beloved?"(33) and applying them in a kind of accommodated sense to the Blessed Virgin, he reasons thus: "From this we can see that she is there bodily...her blessedness would not have been complete unless she were there as a person. The soul is not a person, but the soul, joined to the body, is a person. It is manifest that she is there in soul and in body. Otherwise she would not possess her complete beatitude.(34)

33. In the fifteenth century, during a later period of scholastic theology, St. Bernardine of Siena collected and diligently evaluated all that the medieval theologians had said and taught on this question. He was not content with setting down the principal considerations which these writers of an earlier day had already expressed, but he added others of his own. The likeness between God's Mother and her divine Son, in the way of the nobility and dignity of body and of soul - a likeness that forbids us to think of the heavenly Queen as being separated from the heavenly King - makes it entirely imperative that Mary "should be only where Christ is."(35) Moreover, it is reasonable and fitting that not only the soul and body of a man, but also the soul and body of a woman should have obtained heavenly glory. Finally, since the Church has never looked for the bodily relics of the Blessed Virgin nor proposed them for the veneration of the people, we have a proof on the order of a sensible experience.(36)

34. The above-mentioned teachings of the holy Fathers and of the Doctors have been in common use during more recent times. Gathering together the testimonies of the Christians of earlier days, St. Robert Bellarmine exclaimed: "And who, I ask, could believe that the ark of holiness, the dwelling place of the Word of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit, could be reduced to ruin? My soul is filled with horror at the thought that this virginal flesh which had begotten God, had brought him into the world, had nourished and carried him, could have been turned into ashes or given over to be food for worms."(37)

35. In like manner St. Francis de Sales, after asserting that it is wrong to doubt that Jesus Christ has himself observed, in the most perfect way, the divine commandment by which children are ordered to honor their parents, asks this question: "What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death if he could?"(38) And St. Alphonsus writes that "Jesus did not wish to have the body of Mary corrupted after death, since it would have redounded to his own dishonor to have her virginal flesh, from which he himself had assumed flesh, reduced to dust."(39)

36. Once the mystery which is commemorated in this feast had been placed in its proper light, there were not lacking teachers who, instead of dealing with the theological reasonings that show why it is fitting and right to believe the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven, chose to focus their mind and attention on the faith of the Church itself, which is the Mystical Body of Christ without stain or wrinkle(40) and is called by the Apostle "the pillar and ground of truth."(41) Relying on this common faith, they considered the teaching opposed to the doctrine of our Lady's Assumption as temerarious, if not heretical. Thus, like not a few others, St. Peter Canisius, after he had declared that the very word "assumption" signifies the glorification, not only of the soul but also of the body, and that the Church has venerated and has solemnly celebrated this mystery of Mary's Assumption for many centuries, adds these words of warning: "This teaching has already been accepted for some centuries, it has been held as certain in the minds of the pious people, and it has been taught to the entire Church in such a way that those who deny that Mary's body has been assumed into heaven are not to be listened to patiently but are everywhere to be denounced as over-contentious or rash men, and as imbued with a spirit that is heretical rather than Catholic."(42)

37. At the same time the great Suarez was professing in the field of mariology the norm that "keeping in mind the standards of propriety, and when there is no contradiction or repugnance on the part of Scripture, the mysteries of grace which God has wrought in the Virgin must be measured, not by the ordinary laws, but by the divine omnipotence."(43) Supported by the common faith of the entire Church on the subject of the mystery of the Assumption, he could conclude that this mystery was to be believed with the same firmness of assent as that given to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Thus he already held that such truths could be defined.

38. All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation. These set the loving Mother of God as it were before our very eyes as most intimately joined to her divine Son and as always sharing his lot. Consequently it seems impossible to think of her, the one who conceived Christ, brought him forth, nursed him with her milk, held him in her arms, and clasped him to her breast, as being apart from him in body, even though not in soul, after this earthly life. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, he could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God's law, than to honor, not only his eternal Father, but also his most beloved Mother. And, since it was within his power to grant her this great honor, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that he really acted in this way.

potuit, decuit ergo fecit all over again.

39. We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium,(44) would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.(45) Consequently, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and the final sign of this victory, so that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her divine Son should be brought to a close by the glorification of her virginal body, for the same Apostle says: "When this mortal thing hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory."(46)

40. Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination,(47) immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.(48)
44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

And then, what about the interpretation of those canonized by the Vatican, and those who teach with its authority?

I am afraid this is NOT an inaccurate understanding of the immaculate Comecption:

The Immaculate Conception and the Co-redemptrix       
Written by Mark Miravalle     
December 01 2007 
Page 1 of 6
On February 17, 1941, the "Property" of the Immaculata, Fr. Maximilian Kolbe, was arrested by the Nazi Gestapo, eventually leading to his martyrdom in Auschwitz. During the few hours before his arrest, Fr. Maximilian was inspired to write the heart of his unparalleled mariological ponderings regarding the "Immaculate Conception."

The following are excerpts from this last written testimony:

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION: These words fell from the lips of the Immaculata herself. Hence, they must tell us in the most precise and essential manner who she really is.

Since human words are incapable of expressing divine realities, it follows that these words: "Immaculate," and "Conception" must be understood in a much more beautiful and sublime meaning than usual: a meaning beyond that which human reason at its most penetrating, commonly gives to them . . . Who then are you, O Immaculate Conception?

Not God, of course, because he has no beginning. Not an angel, created directly out of nothing. Not Adam, formed out of the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7). Not Eve, molded from Adam's rib (Gen. 2:21). Not the Incarnate Word, who exists before all ages, and of whom we should use the word "conceived" rather than "conception." Humans do not exist before their conception, so we might call them created "conception." But you, O Mary, are different from all other children of Eve. They are conceptions stained by original sin; whereas you are the unique Immaculate Conception.

. . . Creatures, by following the natural law implanted in them by God, reach their perfection, become like him, and go back to him. Intelligent creatures love him in a conscious manner; through this love they unite themselves more and more closely with him, and so find their way back to him. The creature most completely filled with this love, with God himself, was the Immaculata, who never contracted the slightest stain of sin, who never departed in the least from God's will. United to the Holy Spirit as his spouse, she is one with God in an incomparably more perfect way than can be predicated of any other creature.

What sort of union is this? It is above all an interior union, a union of her essence with the "essence" of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells in her, lives in her. This was true from the first instance of her existence. It is always true; it will always be true.

In what does this life of the Spirit in Mary consist? He himself is uncreated Love in her; the Love of the Father and of the Son, the Love by which God loves himself, the very love of the Most Holy Trinity. He is a fruitful Love, a "Conception." Among creatures made in God's image the union brought about by married love is the most intimate of all (cf. Mt. 19:6). In a much more precise, more interior, more essential manner, the Holy Spirit lives in the soul of the Immaculata, in the depths of her very being. He makes her fruitful, from the very instance of her existence, all during her life, and for all eternity.

This eternal "Immaculate Conception" (which is the Holy Spirit) produces in an immaculate manner divine life itself in the womb (or depths) of Mary's soul, making her the Immaculate Conception, the human Immaculate Conception. And the virginal womb of Mary's body is kept sacred for him; there he conceives in time—because everything that is material occurs in time—the human life of the Man-God. (1)

In a 1933 Letter from Nagasaki, St. Maximilian explains further that in the name, "Immaculate Conception," the Mother also gives us the secret of her very nature:

In her apparition at Lourdes she does not say: "I was conceived immaculately," but "I am the Immaculate Conception." This points out not only the fact that she was conceived without original sin, but also the manner in which this privilege belongs to her. It is not something accidental; it is something that belongs to her very nature. For she is Immaculate Conception in (her very) person. (2)

The uncreated Immaculate Conception and the created Immaculate Conception. The Divine Spirit and the human spouse perfected in His grace are united by an interior, essential union. Uncreated love conceives and dwells within the depths of her soul, and she becomes His quasi-incarnation. (3) For this reason, as St. Maximilian tells us, Mary is also the Mediatrix of all graces and gifts of the Spirit:

The union between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit is so inexpressible, yet so perfect, that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse. This is why she is Mediatrix of all grace given by the Holy Spirit. And since every grace is a gift of God the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose. (4)

Does St. Maximilian go too far in speaking in this manner of the wonders of the Immaculate Conception? Or does he say too little? The Mariology disclosed by the saint of the Immaculata, generous and profound as it is, in no way exhausts the mystery of the Immaculate Conception. His unrivaled pneumatological discoveries prepare the way for a new comprehension of the inseparability of the Uncreated Immaculate Conception with the created Immaculate Conception. But the mystery continues. The brilliance of St. Maximilian's methodology in his return to Trinitarian Mariology specific to the Holy Spirit also propels us to ponder more deeply the other relationships of the Immaculata with her Triune God.

Perhaps least developed of these, from a Trinitarian perspective, is the relationship between the Immaculate Conception and the Heavenly Father. The Father-daughter relationship is one of the most precious of human relationships, and no other relationship captures more the love of the Creator for creation, and the appropriate reciprocal love of creation for the Creator than the relationship between the Eternal Father and Mary Immaculate. At the heart of this union of Perfect Daughter to Perfect Father, which represents and exemplifies how every creature should be united to its Creator, is the stainlessness and fullness of grace possessed by the Immaculate Daughter. This "stainless-fullness" is given to her by the Eternal Father through the Spirit and in view of the foreseen merits of the Son, which is the foundation of her perfect response of fiat-love to everything given to her and asked of her by her "Abba," God the Father of all mankind.

As the example of St. Maximilian makes clear, the dogmatic proclamation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 does not end its doctrinal development, but rather encourages more unveiling and more appreciation of its sacred mystery. Certainly Contemporary Mariology would do well to follow the example of St. Maximilian in striving to incorporate a more Trinitarian perspective and methodology in relation to the Blessed Virgin if we seek to be true to the full glory of Mary Immaculate....

http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/articles/general-mariology/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-co-redemptrix.html

Care to admit or deny Kolbe and Miravalle?

I'm sure you would not want me to critique an EO doctrine based on my own NON-EO point of view, but rather on what the EOC herself teaches, correct?

Claiming that the East taught the IC, you already critique EO dogma based on your Latin view on what Orthodoxy, EO and OO, herself teaches.

[Dan-Romania]

This has become again an contradictory discussion , we will not achieve anything like this. Instead of trying to elucidate this mystery , and putting at the table the common parts , and our agreements on the Mariology we focuss our energy trying to have right one in the detriment of other . This discussion must be kept in the spirit of meekness and not in contradictory speech , but with understanding and trying to elucidate all together , without insulting ones theology or Church , or opinion , not trying to have right but to elucidate this or to make it more clear.Let`s not in the purpose of having right , speak false things or accusations or etc. All this is just a waste of time.

[ialmisry]

The reason why Mary could not be IC is because it would refute the doctrine of Jesus being a human like us. He inherited his humanity from Mary , let`s not forget that. It would not be necessary for Mary to be IC so that she might give birth to Jesus. She was purified and cleansed at the moment of her pregnancy trough God`s work and grace.Mary is a handmaid of God , a servant of God , wich is above the cheruvims and seraphims , and because of her participation to God`s plan , she has been filled with grace and she stands now near Jesus and God.She does not proclaim any authority , her purpose is to serve God and accomplish the will of her Son and God. She is in the presence of God and a representative of christianity and christian requests . She is seen making continuoss intercession for humanity in front of God . She is representative for the Church wich is serving God continuasly . A honorable woman she is , but she must be understood in the spirit of humility , not as a ruler of the humanity , but as an advocate for the humanity , the ruler is Jesus our God , he is our king. The virgin by benefiting of a special service from God at her birth, she would automaticly be born above any consequence of human fall.Once she would have been extempt from any guilt of the original sin , she would  not be in a position of needing a Saviour , and she herself would have been a perfect being outside normal humanity.Kind of extraterestrial being.But we know as tradition teach us that the only perfect human was Christ without any kind of sin.Mary is terestral , and from Mary Jesus inherited his terestral nature.A text in NT says : "And woman shall be saved giving birth" .

for terrestial, do you mean "pamantesc?"  In that case, use "human." ("mortal" is also possible, but not really in this context).

It was not necessary for the Virgin to be a sinner for Christ to get human nature from her, because in essence human nature was not created sinful. But when He assumed human nature, He assumed it in history, i.e. disfigured by the Fall.  As St. Paul wrote, "He made Him Who knew no sin to become sin for us," (II Corinthians 5:21), silencing the sophism of "potuit, decuit, ergo fecit."  The IC tries to leap frog over that fact, making the Virgin a pole vault rather than bridge between OT and NT, heaven and earth.

[Deacon Lance]

Blessed Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus states: "The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin."

Which is to say, from the moment of her conception the Theotokos was in dwelt by the Holy Spirit.

[ialmisry]

Blessed Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus states: "The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin."

Which is to say, from the moment of her conception the Theotokos was in dwelt by the Holy Spirit.

which is to say that she had the Holy Spirit before He was given, which is the problem of the IC.

[Deacon Lance]

So if she remained sinless her entire life when do suggest the Holy Spirit began in dwelling her?

[ialmisry]

So if she remained sinless her entire life when do suggest the Holy Spirit began in dwelling her?

When she was baptized.

[ChristusDominus]

When she was baptized.

I wonder when that was...

[Deacon Lance]

So she was good enough for Christ but not the Holy Spirit before her baptism?  

The sayings of the prophets are now being fulfilled: the holy mountain is planted in the womb, the divine ladder is set up, the throne of the great king is ready, the God-inspired city is being adorned.  The Unburnable bush is beginning to bud forth, and the treasure house of grace is overflowing.  It is spreading over the rivers of unfruitfulness of the God-wise Anne whom we glorify in faith.
(3rd Stichon of Vespers for the Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne)

[Irish Hermit]

So she was good enough for Christ but not the Holy Spirit before her baptism?  

Catholics believe she was baptized? 

[Deacon Lance]

No.  That's your guy who thinks she didn't receive the Holy Spirit until she was baptized.  I was simply pointing out how illogical his statement was.

[ialmisry]

No.  That's your guy who thinks she didn't receive the Holy Spirit until she was baptized.  I was simply pointing out how illogical his statement was.

So, is that a magisterial statement, that the IC dispensed any need for baptism?  That the "full of Grace" means that she had no need of the grace of the sacrament?

Did she never commune?

btw, you didn't ask about her receiving the Holy Spirit, but in dwelling her.

[Deacon Lance]

I don't know if there is any official declaration about it, but certainly it would not have been necessary for her.  Whether she actually underwent it in order to follow her Son's example, I don't know, certainly possible.  But even if you don't belive in the IC, certainly you must believe she was indwelt by the Holy Spirit way before the Apostles would have started baptizing new believers following Pentecost. 

I am sure she would have communed.

Receiving/indwelling, what is the difference?

[ialmisry]

I don't know if there is any official declaration about it, but certainly it would not have been necessary for her. 

Why not?

Whether she actually underwent it in order to follow her Son's example, I don't know, certainly possible. 

So it was necessary (Matt. 3:15, potuit, decuit ergo fecit) for Christ, but not for the Virgin?

But even if you don't belive in the IC, certainly you must believe she was indwelt by the Holy Spirit way before the Apostles would have started baptizing new believers following Pentecost. 

Why is it necessary to believe so?

I am sure she would have communed.

What added grace did she get?  Indeed, according to the IC proof text interpretation of "full of grace," what further grace could she have receieved?

Receiving/indwelling, what is the difference?

The latter involves an ontological change.

[Deacon Lance]

Baptism remits sin and gives life in Christ by means of the Holy Spirit, she had no sin to remit and already had life by means of the Spirit.

It was not necessary for Christ in the sense that he needed it for himself but necessary so that he might grant life giving ability to water in baptism.

Don't know.  It couldn't hurt.  Do we of the East not state that theosis continues forever, grace following upon grace.

I believe both involve ontological change, or rather both are names for the same thing.

[Dan-Romania]

Mary was baptised trough the birth of Jesus.She had in her womb the one who is the water of baptism , the one who washes the sins of all humanity. So my opinion is that at the time of her conceivement she was baptised and became all-clean , by giving birth to the divine-human person of Jesus Christ. Having in her womb the water , wich cleaned her so that she would become the shaddow of the Holy Spirit.I`m of the opinion Mary was saved after the birth of Jesus.

[Mardukm]

Dearest Father Deacon Lance,

Blessed Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus states: "The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin."

Which is to say, from the moment of her conception the Theotokos was in dwelt by the Holy Spirit.

You have expressed it well.  A lot of detractors of the dogma don't seem to understand that being indwelt by the Holy Spirit does not change our nature, any more than baptism changes our nature.  The IC did not change Mary's nature, so the whole argument about being less human, or that this means Christ did not inherit our full human nature goes out the window.  Mary's nature was not changed (i.e., glorified) until her dormition/assumption.  Likewise, our natures will not be changed until the Resurrection.

Humbly,
Marduk

[Mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

It was not necessary for the Virgin to be a sinner for Christ to get human nature from her, because in essence human nature was not created sinful.

You're almost there.  Good job.  Thank you for providing the basis for refuting the senseless claim that the IC somehow makes Mary less or more than human just because her nature remained unsullied by any sin through the IC.  Sin/sinfulness is not part of human nature (though death and corruptibility is).  Rather, sin, as all the Fathers have taught, is a stain, or blemish, or a filth, on the soul or nature of humanity.  Human nature is basically good, not sinful.  That is why Scripture says that while sin is REMOVED or BLOTTED OUT or WASHED AWAY, in sharp distinction our corruptibility (our nature) will be CHANGED or TRANSFORMED to incorruptibility.  As the aphorism goes, what Christ did not acquire was not perfected.

The error of your arguments against the IC is that you think sinfulness is PART of human nature.  No Father ever taught that.  Every orthodox Father of the Church taught that human nature is basically good.  Though sin never touched the NATURE of the Theotokos (as St. Palamas taught), it did not detract from his belief that Jesus fully acquired human nature from His Mother (in fact, St. Palamas, like other Eastern saints before him believed that the fact of Mary's complete immaculateness was a NECESSARY precursor for the immaculate nature of Jesus Himself - though. of course, the dogma of the IC does not itself dogmatize that belief).

Blessings

P.S. I haven't read your REALLY long post yet.  Perhaps in a few days when I have more time.  Thanks for your patience.

[Mardukm]

Blessed Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus states: "The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin."

Which is to say, from the moment of her conception the Theotokos was in dwelt by the Holy Spirit.

which is to say that she had the Holy Spirit before He was given, which is the problem of the IC.

Whoa!  So you deny that God's active work in the world before Pentecost was the Holy Spirit?  So you deny that Sts. Jeremiah and John the Forerunner were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit as well?  It's amazing the lengths to which polemicists will go to try to refute a Catholic dogma.  The even of Pentecost does not mean that God could not give the Holy Spirit INDIVIDUALLY to whomever He willed.  The whole purpose of Pentectost was to allow the WHOLE WORLD GENERALLY to have access to the Holy Spirit.  That is such a basic teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Church - heck, a basic teaching of Christianity as a whole - that I am utterly surprised you could make a statement contradicting it.  And for what?  That's what happens when you go up against the Truth, brother Isa - you only end up multiplying your own errors.

Blessings

[Dan-Romania]

Not a sinner , but all born from man seed are equal and under the consequence of the fall , by inheriting the ancestral sin . For her to not inherit Ancestral Sin , would mean that she was above all people , above humanity , not terestral , as John the Baptist said : "who is from earth is earthly/terestral , but who comes from the sky is above all" ; Jesus said : " And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." She would not need to be a sinner to bear Jesus , but she would have to be born under the consequence of the ancestral sin , like all human beings , the only exception being Jesus.

[Dan-Romania]

Blessed Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus states: "The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin."

Which is to say, from the moment of her conception the Theotokos was in dwelt by the Holy Spirit.

which is to say that she had the Holy Spirit before He was given, which is the problem of the IC.

Whoa!  So you deny that God's active work in the world before Pentecost was the Holy Spirit?  So you deny that Sts. Jeremiah and John the Forerunner were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit as well?  It's amazing the lengths to which polemicists will go to try to refute a Catholic dogma.  The even of Pentecost does not mean that God could not give the Holy Spirit INDIVIDUALLY to whomever He willed.  The whole purpose of Pentectost was to allow the WHOLE WORLD GENERALLY to have access to the Holy Spirit.  That is such a basic teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Church - heck, a basic teaching of Christianity as a whole - that I am utterly surprised you could make a statement contradicting it.  And for what?  That's what happens when you go up against the Truth, brother Isa - you only end up multiplying your own errors.

Blessings

It says in this Great Sunday of Pentecost in the gospel : "And by saying that he refered to the spirit it will come to them .. cause the Holy Spirit hasn`t come , because the son of man was not praised yet". And with this i correct a post of mine some paragraphs upper , Mary was baptised trough her birth , but the Holy Spirit came on her on the pentecost .

[Irish Hermit]

Whoa!  So you deny that God's active work in the world before Pentecost was the Holy Spirit?  So you deny that Sts. Jeremiah and John the Forerunner were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit as well?  It's amazing the lengths to which polemicists will go to try to refute a Catholic dogma.  The even of Pentecost does not mean that God could not give the Holy Spirit INDIVIDUALLY to whomever He willed.  The whole purpose of Pentectost was to allow the WHOLE WORLD GENERALLY to have access to the Holy Spirit.  That is such a basic teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Church - heck, a basic teaching of Christianity as a whole - that I am utterly surprised you could make a statement contradicting it.  And for what?  That's what happens when you go up against the Truth, brother Isa - you only end up multiplying your own errors.

This is a very interesting question - the manner of action of the Holy Spirit in the world prior to His sending by the Saviour.   I was taught so many years ago that it was the teaching of the Fathers that prior to Christ's sending of the Spirit He (the Spirit) acted upon the Jews and upon all mankind in an external way and not interiorly.   This was said to be the reason that the most the Jews could hope to achieve was righteousness through the law.  Sanctity was not possible since it requires the indwelling of the Spirit.  Such a distinction still applies today between the baptized and the unbaptized.

Who's going to research this and see what the Fathers said?

[Mardukm]

No.  That's your guy who thinks she didn't receive the Holy Spirit until she was baptized.  I was simply pointing out how illogical his statement was.

So, is that a magisterial statement, that the IC dispensed any need for baptism?  That the "full of Grace" means that she had no need of the grace of the sacrament?

Did she never commune?

btw, you didn't ask about her receiving the Holy Spirit, but in dwelling her.

I already addressed this NUMEROUS times before, and not a single one could say a thing against my explanation.  The IC ITSELF gave Mary the same Graces that we ourselves receive at Baptism.  Likewise, Sts. Jeremiah and John the Forerunner also received these Graces in their mothers womb.  It's just that Mary received these Graces before even them, and, according to many Eastern Fathers, in view of her unique role.

Perhaps you will say, "Give us something from the Magisterium that says that."  Well, I already did, and I wish you would pay attention since all these arguments you are making have all been addressed earlier in the thread already.  All you have to do is read Trent's decree on Original Sin (which I quoted earlier) and compare it to the effects of the IC on Mary as defined in the Dogma, and you will find that the EFFECT of the Graces received at Baptism on Original Sin is identical to that of what occurred for Mary when she received the Grace of the IC at the moment of her Conception (i.e., the Stain of original sin is removed - of course, the IC was a prevention, not a removal - and one's soul becomes pure and spotless in God's eyes).

Another poster several pages ago made a comment about the lengthiness of this thread.  Here's a perfect example of why this thread is lengthy. Because certain EO here don't pay attention to what is being written and keep REPEATING the same arguments over and over, even though they have already been refuted. I mean, I'm sure the Catholics here don't mind defending the Faith as often as it is misrepresented.  I just don't want some to think that nothing has been resolved.  A LOT has been resolved - it's just that, as stated, some people either forget or just don't pay attention to what has been stated already, and repeat the same arguments that have already been refuted.

Blessings

[Mardukm]

Dear brother Dan,

Not a sinner , but all born from man seed are equal and under the consequence of the fall , by inheriting the ancestral sin . For her to not inherit Ancestral Sin , would mean that she was above all people , above humanity , not terestral , as John the Baptist said : "who is from earth is earthly/terestral , but who comes from the sky is above all" ; Jesus said : " And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." She would not need to be a sinner to bear Jesus , but she would have to be born under the consequence of the ancestral sin , like all human beings , the only exception being Jesus.

From what I know of the EO and EC concept of ancestral sin, it's primary effect is PHYSICAL death.  This is why the dogma of the IC does NOT contradict your defintion of ancestral sin because the dogma of the IC does not claim that she received the Grace of immortality/incorruptibility at the IC.  We claim - as you do - that she did not receive the Grace of immortality/incorruptibility until her Dormition/Assumption.  The dogma of the IC does not really affect your Byzantine understanding of ancestral sin.  It is couched, rather, in a Latin terminology and theology.

As I stated earlier, given this distinction, I personally believe that an EO or EC who states "Mary suffered the effects of Ancestral Sin" would be saying something different than a Latin who stated, "Mary suffered the effects of Original Sin." The difference in definitions of Ancestral Sin, on the one hand, and Original Sin, on the other, would NOT cause the first statement by the EO or EC to be condemned by the dogma, though the second statement by a Latin would indeed be condemned.

Blessings

[Mardukm]

Whoa!  So you deny that God's active work in the world before Pentecost was the Holy Spirit?  So you deny that Sts. Jeremiah and John the Forerunner were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit as well?  It's amazing the lengths to which polemicists will go to try to refute a Catholic dogma.  The even of Pentecost does not mean that God could not give the Holy Spirit INDIVIDUALLY to whomever He willed.  The whole purpose of Pentectost was to allow the WHOLE WORLD GENERALLY to have access to the Holy Spirit.  That is such a basic teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Church - heck, a basic teaching of Christianity as a whole - that I am utterly surprised you could make a statement contradicting it.  And for what?  That's what happens when you go up against the Truth, brother Isa - you only end up multiplying your own errors.

This is a very interesting question - the manner of action of the Holy Spirit in the world prior to His sending by the Saviour.   I was taught so many years ago that it was the teaching of the Fathers that prior to Christ's sending of the Spirit He (the Spirit) acted upon the Jews and upon all mankind in an external way and not interiorly.   This was said to be the reason that the most the Jews could hope to achieve was righteousness through the law.  Sanctity was not possible since it requires the indwelling of the Spirit.  Such a distinction still applies today between the baptized and the unbaptized.

Who's going to research this and see what the Fathers said

I believe many people were indwelt by the Holy Spirit before Pentecost (not just Mary).  St. Jeremiah, Isaiah, John the Forerunner, Micah, Amos, etc., etc.  Of course, being indwelt by the Holy Spirit does not automatically mean one receives ALL the Graces of the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul specifically taught us in Rom 12 and I Cor 12.  Each person who received the Holy Spirit bore fruit according to the purpose God had for them.

Humbly,
Marduk

[Mardukm]

Mary was baptised trough the birth of Jesus.She had in her womb the one who is the water of baptism , the one who washes the sins of all humanity. So my opinion is that at the time of her conceivement she was baptised and became all-clean , by giving birth to the divine-human person of Jesus Christ. Having in her womb the water , wich cleaned her so that she would become the shaddow of the Holy Spirit.I`m of the opinion Mary was saved after the birth of Jesus.

I believe St. Jeremiah and the Forerunner received the Graces of Baptism even before the advent of Christ/His death/Resurrection.  The Graces of Baptism which are empowered immediately and directly by the Holy Sacrifice of the Lamb are ETERNAL, and are not bound by time.  I truly believe that for His specific purposes, God could grant these ETERNAL Graces to whomever He willed even before the advent of Christ.

I, too, believe that Mary received an abundance of Graces at the Annunciation.  However, I also believe that the Graces Mary received at the Annunciation are different from the Graces she received at her IC.

I cannot agree with your position that she received the Graces of Baptism at the Annunciation.  The Graces of Baptism are what permits us to be sinless (as I think you'll agree).  But Mary was sinless ALL her life, even before the Annunciation.  Thus, she must have received the Graces of Baptism (i.e., the Grace to be sinless) even before the Annunciation.  Remember, the Angel himself admitted to Mary that she ALREADY had an abundance of Grace when he first greeted her.  To say she recieved the Grace to be sinless only at the Annunciation, while simultaneously admitting that she was sinless before then, would be the Pelagian heresy.

I am rather more sympathetic to the position of some Orthodox that she received these Graces at her birth.  At least that position would dispense with any notions of Pelagianism, though I would still have problems with that position from a patristic standpoint on other levels.

Blessings

[Irish Hermit]

[
I believe St. Jeremiah and the Forerunner received the Graces of Baptism

The Graces of Baptism which are empowered immediately

God could grant these ETERNAL Graces

I, too, believe that Mary received an abundance of Graces at the Annunciation. 

However, I also believe that the Graces Mary received at the Annunciation are different from the Graces she received at her IC.

I cannot agree with your position that she received the Graces of Baptism at the Annunciation. 

The Graces of Baptism are what permits us to be sinless (as I think you'll agree). 


Thus, she must have received the Graces of Baptism

I am rather more sympathetic to the position of some Orthodox that she received these Graces at her birth. 

What are "the Graces"?

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

Sorry but I'm late in responding. I must clarify my positions, especially on what I meant (but wrongly explained) when I said "natural grace".
"I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins"
As you can see, dear Marduk, baptism is not for the cleansing of original sin, but for the remission of sins. The Creed is here extremely explicit in affirming how being not in a condition of "full" grace - as the non-baptised infants are - doesn't mean you're fully disgraced and outside of God's friendship. Afterall, even your "souls of purgatory" are friends with God but still imperfect...
The RC extremely pessimistic position on original sin once implied that children were condemned to limbo, a region of hell, because of Adam's sin and not for their own sins. To stop this belief, Pope Benedict XVI had to invent the doctrine that God must give some extraordinary grace to the infants to prevent them from being condemned. Our position, on the contrary, stating that we have two major consequences of sin (death and concupiscence) which lead us automatically to sin, doesn't even touch the problem of children's destiny: we know God is their saviour too. Jesus himself says we must be as children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, showing that children are "pure enough" (but not perfect) to merit salvation from God's perspective.
Our interpretation of a non-total depravity of human nature at conception also explains why baptism of children is not only necessary, but even possible. They need baptism for the *future* sins they are bound to by concupiscence, and at the same time they *can* be baptised because they experience a natural orientation (which I wrongly called "natural grace" in my previous posts) to God. In a world (as yours) where infants are sinners, God can't be accepted by them, and baptism is imposed by the parents. On the contrary, in an Orthodox view parents just follow the natural orientation of infants to God, which is the seed of faith, when they have their children baptised.

Hope this helps,
In Christ,   Alex

[Mardukm]

Dearest Father Ambrose,

[
I believe St. Jeremiah and the Forerunner received the Graces of Baptism

The Graces of Baptism which are empowered immediately

God could grant these ETERNAL Graces

I, too, believe that Mary received an abundance of Graces at the Annunciation. 

However, I also believe that the Graces Mary received at the Annunciation are different from the Graces she received at her IC.

I cannot agree with your position that she received the Graces of Baptism at the Annunciation. 

The Graces of Baptism are what permits us to be sinless (as I think you'll agree). 


Thus, she must have received the Graces of Baptism

I am rather more sympathetic to the position of some Orthodox that she received these Graces at her birth. 

What are "the Graces"?

GRACES are any and all manifestations of the Divine Energy in this created world (I'm writing that only for the benefit of our Latin brethren who might be reading our discussion, not for our Eastern and Oriental brethren who need no lessons in that definition).  There are many different Graces of the same Spirit, as Scripture and the Fathers have taught us.  The Graces of Baptism are those Graces which aid in attaining sinlessness.  Every Grace of sinlessness has its Source in only one thing - the Holy Sacrifice of Christ.  Like most other Graces, there must be a free will response to these Graces of Baptism (note: I'm not talking about Baptism, but the Graces one receives at Baptism).  Grace does not make us automations.

The Graces Mary received at the Annunciation are different - these particular Graces affected her very body SO THAT SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO BEAR THE FULLNESS OF DIVINITY.  IMO, the Grace to remain a Virgin despite child-bearing and parturition was also among the Graces she received at the Annunciation.

As an aside, the Graces Mary recieved at her Dormition/Assumption are, again, different from the Graces she received at the beginning of her life, on the one hand, and at her Annunciation, on the other.  The Graces Mary received at her Dormition/Assumption were the Graces of Immortality and Incorruptibility.

Humbly,
Marduk

[ialmisry]

Blessed Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus states: "The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin."

Which is to say, from the moment of her conception the Theotokos was in dwelt by the Holy Spirit.

which is to say that she had the Holy Spirit before He was given, which is the problem of the IC.

Whoa!  So you deny that God's active work in the world before Pentecost was the Holy Spirit?  So you deny that Sts. Jeremiah and John the Forerunner were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit as well?  It's amazing the lengths to which polemicists will go to try to refute a Catholic dogma.  The even of Pentecost does not mean that God could not give the Holy Spirit INDIVIDUALLY to whomever He willed.  The whole purpose of Pentectost was to allow the WHOLE WORLD GENERALLY to have access to the Holy Spirit.  That is such a basic teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Church - heck, a basic teaching of Christianity as a whole - that I am utterly surprised you could make a statement contradicting it.  And for what?  That's what happens when you go up against the Truth, brother Isa - you only end up multiplying your own errors.

It says in this Great Sunday of Pentecost in the gospel : " John 7:39 Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive, who believed in him: for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.". And with this i correct a post of mine some paragraphs upper , Mary was baptised trough her birth , but the Holy Spirit came on her on the pentecost .

I just replaced your excellent use of scripture with the Douay-Rheims version, the Biblia de la Bucharest for English speaking followers of the Vatican.  (If you don't mind, I'm going to hold off on your other comment so I can focus on our IC friends).

This is a very interesting question - the manner of action of the Holy Spirit in the world prior to His sending by the Saviour.   I was taught so many years ago that it was the teaching of the Fathers that prior to Christ's sending of the Spirit He (the Spirit) acted upon the Jews and upon all mankind in an external way and not interiorly.   This was said to be the reason that the most the Jews could hope to achieve was righteousness through the law.  Sanctity was not possible since it requires the indwelling of the Spirit.  Such a distinction still applies today between the baptized and the unbaptized.

Who's going to research this and see what the Fathers said?

Send me! Send me!

Ver. 39. “But this spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive; for the Holy Ghost was not yet given.”

[2.] How then did the Prophets prophesy and work those ten thousand wonders? For the Apostles cast not out devils by the Spirit, but by power received from Him; as He saith Himself, “If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?” ( Matt. xii. 27.) And this He said, signifying that before the the Cross not all cast out devils by the Spirit, but that some did so by the power received from Him. So when He was about to send them, He said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” ( c. xx. 22 ); and again, “The Holy Ghost came upon them” ( Acts xix. 6 ), and then they wrought miracles. But when He was sending them, the Scripture said not, that “He gave to them the Holy Ghost,” but that He gave to them “power,” saying, “Cleanse the lepers, cast out devils, raise the dead, freely ye have received, freely give.” ( Matt. x. 1, 8.) But in the case of the Prophets, all allow that the Gift was that of the Holy Spirit. But this Grace was stinted and departed and failed from off the earth, from the day in which it was said, “Your house is left unto you desolate” ( Matt. xxiii. 38 ); and even before that day its dearth had begun, for there was no longer any prophet among them, nor did Grace visit their holy things. Since then the Holy Ghost had been withheld, but was for the future to be shed forth abundantly, and since the beginning of this imparting was after the Crucifixion, not only as to its abundance, but also as to the increased greatness of the gifts, (for the Gift was more marvelous, as when It saith, “Ye know not what Spirit ye are of” ( Luke ix. 55 ); and again, “For ye have not received the Spirit of bondage, but the Spirit of adoption” ( Rom. viii. 15 ); and the men of old possessed the Spirit themselves, but imparted It not to others, while the Apostles filled tens of thousands with It,) since then, I say, they were to receive this Gift, but It was not yet given, for this cause he addeth, “The Holy Ghost was not yet.” Since then the Lord spoke of this grace the Evangelist hath said, “For the Holy Ghost was not yet,” that is, “was not yet given,” “Because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.iv.liii.html

The end brings up another question: if the Theotokos is full of grace as the Vatican says, such that all graces in dwell in her and therefore she is immaculate, as the "infallible Pope" says (never really get a straight explanation how Ineffibilus Deus is ex cathdra when it was pronounced before Vatican I, but in any case, here is his language:)

When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace (Luke 1:28) by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." (Luke 1:42)

then it would follow that she had the grace to impart the Holy Spirit, i.e. chrismate/confirm, as St. John Chrysostom points out the Apostles had this grace.  Indeed, who could withhold the grace to confect the eucharist-to use the Vatican's terms-as she was the one from whom the Word took flesh in the first place?  But that would involve the grace of the priesthood: can we withhold it from she who "is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit?"  Maybe those for women's ordination have a point.....

Ah, the lesson of the IC:Silly solutions to nonexistent problems yield sillier questions, and the multiplication of errrors.  I see that no one has approached Kolbe's answers to the question:

I am afraid this is NOT an inaccurate understanding of the immaculate Comecption:

The Immaculate Conception and the Co-redemptrix        

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION: These words fell from the lips of the Immaculata herself. Hence, they must tell us in the most precise and essential manner who she really is.

Since human words are incapable of expressing divine realities, it follows that these words: "Immaculate," and "Conception" must be understood in a much more beautiful and sublime meaning than usual: a meaning beyond that which human reason at its most penetrating, commonly gives to them . . . Who then are you, O Immaculate Conception?

What sort of union is this? It is above all an interior union, a union of her essence with the "essence" of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells in her, lives in her. This was true from the first instance of her existence. It is always true; it will always be true.

and so we see the IC leads to Co-redemptrix.

To continue with St. John Ch.:

Furthermore, lest the Apostles should say, How shall it be possible for us to live among wicked and bloody men, they so many in number, we so few and contemptible, observe how He does away their fear and distress, by these words, “But wait for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of Me.” (v. 4.) You will say, When had they heard this? When He said, “It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you.” (John xvi. 7.) And again, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter, that He may abide with you.” (ib. xiv. 16.)

But why did the Holy Ghost come to them, not while Christ was present, nor even immediately after his departure, but, whereas Christ ascended on the fortieth day, the Spirit descended “when the day of Pentecost,” that is, the fiftieth, “was fully come?” (Acts ii. 1.) And how was it, if the Spirit had not yet come, that He said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost?” (John xx. 22.) In order to render them capable and meet for the reception of Him. For if Daniel fainted at the sight of an Angel (Dan. viii. 17), much more would these when about to receive so great a grace. Either this then is to be said, or else that Christ spoke of what was to come, as if come already; as when He said, “Tread ye upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the devil.” (Luke x. 19.) But why had the Holy Ghost not yet come? It was fit that they should first be brought to have a longing desire for that event, and so receive the grace. For this reason Christ Himself departed, and then the Spirit descended. For had He Himself been there, they would not have expected the Spirit so earnestly as they did. On this account neither did He come immediately after Christ’s Ascension, but after eight or nine days. It is the same with us also; for our desires towards God are then most raised, when we stand in need. Accordingly, John chose that time to send his disciples to Christ when they were likely to feel their need of Jesus, during his own imprisonment. Besides, it was fit that our nature should be seen in heaven, and that the reconciliation should be perfected, and then the Spirit should come, and the joy should be unalloyed. For, if the Spirit being already come, Christ had then departed, and the Spirit remained; the consolation would not have been so great as it was. For in fact they clung to Him, and could not bear to part with Him; wherefore also to comfort them He said, “It is expedient for you that I go away.” (John xvi. 7.) On this account He also waits during those intermediate days, that they might first despond for awhile, and be made, as I said, to feel their need of Him. and then reap a full and unalloyed delight. But if the Spirit were inferior to the Son, the consolation would not have been adequate; and how could He have said, “It is expedient for you?” For this reason the greater matters of teaching were reserved for the Spirit, that the disciples might not imagine Him inferior.

Consider also how necessary He made it for them to abide in Jerusalem, by promising that the Spirit should be granted them. For lest they should again flee away after His Ascension, by this expectation, as by a bond, He keeps them to that spot. But having said, “Wait for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of Me,” He then adds, “For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” (v. 4, 5.) For now indeed He gives them to see the difference there was betwixt Him and John, plainly, and not as heretofore in obscure hints; for in fact He had spoken very obscurely, when He said, “Notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he:” but now He says plainly, “John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. xi. 11.) And he no longer uses the testimony, but merely adverts to the person of John, reminding the disciples of what he had said, and 7shows them that they are now become greater than John; seeing they too are to baptize with the Spirit. Again, He did not say, I baptize you with the Holy Ghost, but, “Ye shall be baptized:” teaching us humility. For this was plain enough from the testimonyof John, that it was Christ Himself Who should baptize: “He it is that shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire” (Luke iii. 16.); wherefore also He made mention of John.

The Gospels, then, are a history of what Christ did and said; but the Acts, of what that “other Comforter” said and did. Not but that the Spirit did many things in the Gospels also; even as Christ here in the Acts still works in men as He did in the Gospels: only then the Spirit wrought through the Temple, now through the Apostles: then, He came into the Virgin’s womb, and fashioned the Temple; now, into Apostolic souls: then in the likeness of a dove; now, in the likeness of fire. And wherefore? Showing there the gentleness of the Lord, but here His taking vengeance also, He now puts them in mind of the judgment likewise. For, when need was to forgive, need was there of much gentleness; but now we have obtained the gift, it is henceforth a time for judgment and examination.

But why does Christ say, “Ye shall be baptized,” when in fact there was no water in the upper room? Because the more essential part of Baptism is the Spirit, through Whom indeed the water has its operation; in the same manner our Lord also is said to be anointed, not that He had ever been anointed with oil, but because He had received the Spirit. Besides, we do in fact find them receiving a baptism with water [and a baptism with the Spirit], and these at different moments. In our case both take place under one act, but then they were divided.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.i.html

Btw, despite the icon of today's feast, the Holy Theotokos was in the upper room.  Back to the subject at hand, last week, I heard a lot of eisogesis of which the Vatican is so found, particularly in over promotion of the cult of the Virgin, that the Theotokos was calming the frightened Apostles in the Upper Room, as she had already experienced what they were going to.

[Mardukm]

Dear brother Alex,

Sorry but I'm late in responding. I must clarify my positions, especially on what I meant (but wrongly explained) when I said "natural grace".
"I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins"
As you can see, dear Marduk, baptism is not for the cleansing of original sin, but for the remission of sins. The Creed is here extremely explicit in affirming how being not in a condition of "full" grace - as the non-baptised infants are - doesn't mean you're fully disgraced and outside of God's friendship. Afterall, even your "souls of purgatory" are friends with God but still imperfect...
The RC extremely pessimistic position on original sin once implied that children were condemned to limbo, a region of hell, because of Adam's sin and not for their own sins. To stop this belief, Pope Benedict XVI had to invent the doctrine that God must give some extraordinary grace to the infants to prevent them from being condemned. Our position, on the contrary, stating that we have two major consequences of sin (death and concupiscence) which lead us automatically to sin, doesn't even touch the problem of children's destiny: we know God is their saviour too. Jesus himself says we must be as children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, showing that children are "pure enough" (but not perfect) to merit salvation from God's perspective.
Our interpretation of a non-total depravity of human nature at conception also explains why baptism of children is not only necessary, but even possible. They need baptism for the *future* sins they are bound to by concupiscence, and at the same time they *can* be baptised because they experience a natural orientation (which I wrongly called "natural grace" in my previous posts) to God. In a world (as yours) where infants are sinners, God can't be accepted by them, and baptism is imposed by the parents. On the contrary, in an Orthodox view parents just follow the natural orientation of infants to God, which is the seed of faith, when they have their children baptised.

I could write a whole treatise on this matter, but don't have the time right now.  I hope in the future we can discuss this issue in a separate thread of its own (entitled, naturally "Original Sin").

For now, I would just like to say this:
It admit your position is indeed more primordial than my own, if only due to the scarcity of sources in the earlier centuries of the Church.

However, I believe there was a development of doctrine on the matter, and by the end of the 4th century, the more prevalent (note, I'm not saying "only") position is the one I believe - that the "remission of sins" at Baptism included "original sin."  And this is so not only among the Latin Fathers, but also the Eastern.  I will have to do research on the matter to provide quotes.  Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now (off the top of my head, I know the Cappadocians, at the very least, taught Original Sin in the same manner as the Catholic Church does today).  As I said, in the future, I hope to have time and we can discuss this more fully (with patristic citations) in a thread entitled "Original Sin."

In any case, both positions are acceptable within the Catholic Communion.  The Catholic Church has never dogmatized negatively on the position you espouse, though it has dogmatized positively on my own position (in other words, the Catholic Church has never stated that my own position is the ONLY position that can be held on pain of excommunication or loss of salvation).

Blessings,
Marduk