Anthony: 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.
We keep on being told that, according to the Vatican, there is no guilt involved.
The inheritance of original sin does not entail that we are guilty of committing Adam's sin,it entails guilt in the sense that we have participated in the sin for being descended from Adam,and have inherited the stain and burden of it.
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.
Anthony: 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.
It is not against scripture.
Of the Vatican it might be, though we get conflicting reports of its "magisterium" authenticating teachings.
Just read the Catechism and Vatican documents for authentic 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.
That opinion requires logical argumentation to justify it. Protestants can easily point to apparent contradictions between Catholic or Orthodox traditions and scripture,such as the title Father for priests,the veneration of icons and statues of saints,praying to the saints as mediators between us and God,the belief that we can be saved through good works,and the mass as sacrifice.
The Immaculate Conception is not opposed to scripture.
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.
The belief in the Immaculate Conception did not first appear in the West during the time of St. Bernard. It was believed by some theologians in the West at least as early as the 3rd century.
"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).
"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).
"By the Spirit, Christ is born from the body of his unsullied Mother; by this same Spirit, the Christian is reborn from the womb of holy Church." (Leo I, Sermo 29:1)
The doctrine has been accepted by the Latin Church since the late 1400's and made into a dogma,so why would you criticize it on the basis of over-ruled objections of a few theologians of the Western Tradition? Theological traditions are discerned by the magisterium.
St. Bernard was not aware of the Greek and Syrian tradition that Mary was free from original sin,and he thought that Rome should have been consulted about the feast. http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Immaculate_Conception
< VII. THE CONTROVERSY
No controversy arose over the Immaculate Conception on the European continent before the twelfth century. The Norman clergy abolished the feast in some monasteries of England where it had been established by the Anglo-Saxon monks. But towards the end of the eleventh century, through the efforts of Anselm the Younger, it was taken up again in several Anglo-Norman establishments. That St. Anselm the Elder reestablished the feast in England is highly improbable, although it was not new to him. He had been made familiar with it as well by the Saxon monks of Canterbury, as by the Greeks with whom he came in contact during his exile in Campania and Apulia (1098-9). The treatise "De Conceptu virginali", usually ascribed to him, was composed by his friend and disciple, the Saxon monk Eadmer of Canterbury (Kellner, op. cit., 446). When the canons of the cathedral of Lyons, who no doubt knew Anselm the Younger, Abbot of Bury St. Edmund's, personally introduced the feast into their choir, after the death of their bishop in 1240, St. Bernard deemed it his duty to publish a protest against this new way of honoring Mary. He addressed to the canons a vehement letter (Epist. clxxiv), in which he reproved them for taking the step upon their own authority and before they had consulted the Holy See. Not knowing that the feast had been celebrated with the rich tradition of the Greek and Syrian Churches regarding the sinlessness of Mary, he asserted that the feast was foreign to the old tradition of the Church. Yet it is evident from the tenor of his language that he had in mind only the active conception or the formation of the flesh, and that the distinction between the active conception, the formation of the body, and its animation by the soul had not yet been drawn. No doubt, when the feast was introduced in England and Normandy, the axiom "decuit, potuit, ergo fecit", the childlike piety and enthusiasm of the simplices building upon revelations and apocryphal legends, had the upper hand. The object of the feast was not clearly determined, no positive theological reasons had been placed in evidence. >
I also have criticized its basis on the faulty Latin translation of the Vulgate, cited in Ineffibilis Deus.
What is faulty about it?
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.
The apparition of Mary didn't preach a different gospel. She advised penance for the sins of the world.