She received her human nature the same way as we received ours,but she did not receive the guilt of original sin or the damage to human nature and will.
Anthony: It was not necessary for her parents and ancestors to be immaculately conceived,because only she was to bear Christ. Her purity of conception doesn't depend upon a lineage of a pure conceptions,as if God had to do it in a mechanistic way. She received her human nature in the same mechanistic way the rest of us got ours. Otherwise she couldn't give it to Him Who knew no sin Whom God made sin for us.
We keep on being told that, according to the Vatican, there is no guilt involved. Can we get a clarification on that EM? Papist? Wyatt?
If she received her human nature the same way as we received ours, then she received ancestral sin, a fallen human nature and a gnomic will.
Hence the IC does not comport with the Orthodox teaching from the Scripture through the Catholic Tradition of the Church.
It is an authentic teaching of Catholic tradition,whether or not it is considered to be a teaching from scripture.
It is against scripture, so it is not an authentic teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Of the Vatican it might be, though we get conflicting reports of its "magisterium" authenticating teachings.
The Catholic Church and and Orthodox churches don't just cull their doctrines from scripture through Catholic tradition,they also teach doctrines that have been passed on from the apostles and ancient theologians which are not found in scripture.
That the Orthodox Catholic Church does, but her Tradition and scripture are not opposed but one and the same.
The Vatican teaches things the Apostles and Fathers never dreamed of, let alone taught, which it made up. Like the IC.
Some Catholic doctrines are confirmed by visitations of Jesus and Mary to saints.
Odd how the Vatican didn't look for confirmation from "visionaries" until it went in schism from us.
Instead of just criticizing the doctrine based on scripture and Greek and Eastern tradition,
I criticize it on Western Tradition (and common sense):somewhere here I've posted your Bernhardt of Clairveaux's denouncement of it when it first appeared in the West. I also have criticized its basis on the faulty Latin translation of the Vulgate, cited in Ineffibilis Deus.
you should consider whether Mary really appeared to St. Bernadette and told her "I am the Immaculate Conception".
If even an angel of light preaches to you another Gospel than what the Apostles preached, let it be accused. That's all I need to consider.