"Orthodox used to believe in the Immaculate Conception"

[Cyrillic]

http://www.omhksea.org/2012/09/ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew-on-the-immaculate-conception/

Thanks.  Let's hope this is the final word on this topic.  I am so tired of havingg Roman Catholics tell me that I am mistaken and that we Orthodox do believe in this.
I went to the web site but where is the source of the interview?  Was it is Hong Kong?

We don't think you believe in the Immaculate Conception. We think that you used to believe in it.

Interesting claim. Care to back it up?

[Peter J]

We don't think you believe in the Immaculate Conception. We think that you used to believe in it.

Interesting claim. Care to back it up?

It's a general Catholic principle that all dogmas are somehow contained in the original Deposit of Faith, or they couldn't be dogmas. (I don't know if Papist has a more specific reason in mind.)

[Papist]

We don't think you believe in the Immaculate Conception. We think that you used to believe in it.

Interesting claim. Care to back it up?

It's a general Catholic principle that all dogmas are somehow contained in the original Deposit of Faith, or they couldn't be dogmas. (I don't know if Papist has a more specific reason in mind.)

Well, there seem to be quotes from the Eastern fathers that support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception even before it was ever seen in the west. I don't have the quotes off hand, but I was just being playful when I posted this in the other thread.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

We don't think you believe in the Immaculate Conception. We think that you used to believe in it.

Interesting claim. Care to back it up?

It's a general Catholic principle that all dogmas are somehow contained in the original Deposit of Faith, or they couldn't be dogmas. (I don't know if Papist has a more specific reason in mind.)

Well, there seem to be quotes from the Eastern fathers that support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception even before it was ever seen in the west. I don't have the quotes off hand, but I was just being playful when I posted this in the other thread.

Quote them please so we can discuss it more specifically, after all, we all share the same fathers before 449 so if such Fathers are used by the Latins to explain Immaculate Conception we Oriental would like to discuss this. The issue of Immaculate Conception is the active issue in the Ethiopian jurisdiction right now, some folks have mistakenly taken it up, others have become a bit to negative in their condemnations of those who have.  Needless to say then, we are well versed on the related theology

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Shanghaiski]

But the RC teaching of the Immaculate Conception is dependent on their misunderstanding of original sin. Both things didn't exist outside the post-schism West. We had plent of other heresies, but those are indigenous to time and place.

[Alpo]

But the RC teaching of the Immaculate Conception is dependent on their misunderstanding of original sin. Both things didn't exist outside the post-schism West. We had plent of other heresies, but those are indigenous to time and place.

In your opinion, what's the difference between RC and EO understanding on original sin?

[Asteriktos]

Sigh. Not this again 

[OrthoNoob]

Sigh. Not this again 

What do you all think about toll houses and purgatory?

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Sigh. Not this again  

What do you all think about toll houses and purgatory?

This is a divisive issue:

 ..ask your priest

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Asteriktos]

Sigh. Not this again 

What do you all think about toll houses and purgatory?

Of the two I consider purgatory more likely to exist

[Pan Michał]

Fixed the thread title - "Orthodox get used to believers in the Immaculate Conception"

[Αριστοκλής]

Sigh. Not this again 

What do you all think about toll houses and purgatory?

I don't think about them.

[primuspilus]

We don't think you believe in the Immaculate Conception. We think that you used to believe in it.

and

Well, there seem to be quotes from the Eastern fathers that support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception even before it was ever seen in the west

That does not mean the Church as a whole accepted this doctrine. There are also Fathers that attack Papal Supremacy, that doesn't stop RC's from believing in it.

I would like to see anything from a council saying anything like, "We held this to be true, but now we dont". I dont think you'll find it.

PP

[ZealousZeal]

We don't think you believe in the Immaculate Conception. We think that you used to believe in it.

Interesting claim. Care to back it up?

It's a general Catholic principle that all dogmas are somehow contained in the original Deposit of Faith, or they couldn't be dogmas. (I don't know if Papist has a more specific reason in mind.)

Well, there seem to be quotes from the Eastern fathers that support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception even before it was ever seen in the west. I don't have the quotes off hand, but I was just being playful when I posted this in the other thread.

Can you give an example where this is true for another dogma? I understand how it could be true for practices or devotions, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a dogma where this is the case (the east believed it before it was seen in the west, or vice versa). It seems hard to believe that something could have been part of the faith "once and for all delivered to the saints" if it wasn't believed "always, everywhere, and by all." I'm open to being corrected on this and freely admit that Pregnancy Brain is an actual condition I am suffering from, so I ask this with no snark. I just can't think of any other dogma that was believed in location X before locations Y and Z believed them.

[FormerReformer]

We don't think you believe in the Immaculate Conception. We think that you used to believe in it.

Interesting claim. Care to back it up?

It's a general Catholic principle that all dogmas are somehow contained in the original Deposit of Faith, or they couldn't be dogmas. (I don't know if Papist has a more specific reason in mind.)

Well, there seem to be quotes from the Eastern fathers that support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception even before it was ever seen in the west. I don't have the quotes off hand, but I was just being playful when I posted this in the other thread.

Can you give an example where this is true for another dogma? I understand how it could be true for practices or devotions, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a dogma where this is the case (the east believed it before it was seen in the west, or vice versa). It seems hard to believe that something could have been part of the faith "once and for all delivered to the saints" if it wasn't believed "always, everywhere, and by all." I'm open to being corrected on this and freely admit that Pregnancy Brain is an actual condition I am suffering from, so I ask this with no snark. I just can't think of any other dogma that was believed in location X before locations Y and Z believed them.

Pretty much everything the Orthodox don't believe that the Roman Catholics do is an example of this- Papal Supremacy and the Filioque just off the top of my head. It seems that when Roman Catholics "develop" doctrine it is no different from "developing" any sort of life form- all the genes are present, even if that shoot then doesn't quite look like the redwood of today.

[ZealousZeal]

We don't think you believe in the Immaculate Conception. We think that you used to believe in it.

Interesting claim. Care to back it up?

It's a general Catholic principle that all dogmas are somehow contained in the original Deposit of Faith, or they couldn't be dogmas. (I don't know if Papist has a more specific reason in mind.)

Well, there seem to be quotes from the Eastern fathers that support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception even before it was ever seen in the west. I don't have the quotes off hand, but I was just being playful when I posted this in the other thread.

Can you give an example where this is true for another dogma? I understand how it could be true for practices or devotions, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a dogma where this is the case (the east believed it before it was seen in the west, or vice versa). It seems hard to believe that something could have been part of the faith "once and for all delivered to the saints" if it wasn't believed "always, everywhere, and by all." I'm open to being corrected on this and freely admit that Pregnancy Brain is an actual condition I am suffering from, so I ask this with no snark. I just can't think of any other dogma that was believed in location X before locations Y and Z believed them.

Pretty much everything the Orthodox don't believe that the Roman Catholics do is an example of this- Papal Supremacy and the Filioque just off the top of my head. It seems that when Roman Catholics "develop" doctrine it is no different from "developing" any sort of life form- all the genes are present, even if that shoot then doesn't quite look like the redwood of today.

I thought of those as well. I can't think of any dogmas held by both or the undivided Church that follow that paradigm, though.

[FormerReformer]

We don't think you believe in the Immaculate Conception. We think that you used to believe in it.

Interesting claim. Care to back it up?

It's a general Catholic principle that all dogmas are somehow contained in the original Deposit of Faith, or they couldn't be dogmas. (I don't know if Papist has a more specific reason in mind.)

Well, there seem to be quotes from the Eastern fathers that support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception even before it was ever seen in the west. I don't have the quotes off hand, but I was just being playful when I posted this in the other thread.

Can you give an example where this is true for another dogma? I understand how it could be true for practices or devotions, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a dogma where this is the case (the east believed it before it was seen in the west, or vice versa). It seems hard to believe that something could have been part of the faith "once and for all delivered to the saints" if it wasn't believed "always, everywhere, and by all." I'm open to being corrected on this and freely admit that Pregnancy Brain is an actual condition I am suffering from, so I ask this with no snark. I just can't think of any other dogma that was believed in location X before locations Y and Z believed them.

Pretty much everything the Orthodox don't believe that the Roman Catholics do is an example of this- Papal Supremacy and the Filioque just off the top of my head. It seems that when Roman Catholics "develop" doctrine it is no different from "developing" any sort of life form- all the genes are present, even if that shoot then doesn't quite look like the redwood of today.

I thought of those as well. I can't think of any dogmas held by both or the undivided Church that follow that paradigm, though.

That's simply because you haven't gotten the super-secret Roman Catholic decoder ring. Free with every episcopal consecration or with coupons from 100 masses (+ shipping and handling).

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

We don't think you believe in the Immaculate Conception. We think that you used to believe in it.

Interesting claim. Care to back it up?

It's a general Catholic principle that all dogmas are somehow contained in the original Deposit of Faith, or they couldn't be dogmas. (I don't know if Papist has a more specific reason in mind.)

Well, there seem to be quotes from the Eastern fathers that support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception even before it was ever seen in the west. I don't have the quotes off hand, but I was just being playful when I posted this in the other thread.

All of the Fathers I've seen quoted by Catholic apologists for Immaculate Conception do not implicitly support the Catholic dogma, rather they simply affirm that Saint Mary is indeed pure, holy, and yes, Immaculate from Sin.  However again, the bone of contention between Orthodox and Catholic on this is not the IF, is the WHEN. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Deacon Lance]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

We don't think you believe in the Immaculate Conception. We think that you used to believe in it.

Interesting claim. Care to back it up?

It's a general Catholic principle that all dogmas are somehow contained in the original Deposit of Faith, or they couldn't be dogmas. (I don't know if Papist has a more specific reason in mind.)

Well, there seem to be quotes from the Eastern fathers that support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception even before it was ever seen in the west. I don't have the quotes off hand, but I was just being playful when I posted this in the other thread.

Quote them please so we can discuss it more specifically, after all, we all share the same fathers before 449 so if such Fathers are used by the Latins to explain Immaculate Conception we Oriental would like to discuss this. The issue of Immaculate Conception is the active issue in the Ethiopian jurisdiction right now, some folks have mistakenly taken it up, others have become a bit to negative in their condemnations of those who have.  Needless to say then, we are well versed on the related theology

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Ephraim the Syrian
You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Jacob of Sarug
[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Ephraim the Syrian
You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Jacob of Sarug
[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

We don't think you believe in the Immaculate Conception. We think that you used to believe in it.

Interesting claim. Care to back it up?

It's a general Catholic principle that all dogmas are somehow contained in the original Deposit of Faith, or they couldn't be dogmas. (I don't know if Papist has a more specific reason in mind.)

Well, there seem to be quotes from the Eastern fathers that support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception even before it was ever seen in the west. I don't have the quotes off hand, but I was just being playful when I posted this in the other thread.

All of the Fathers I've seen quoted by Catholic apologists for Immaculate Conception do not implicitly support the Catholic dogma, rather they simply affirm that Saint Mary is indeed pure, holy, and yes, Immaculate from Sin.  However again, the bone of contention between Orthodox and Catholic on this is not the IF, is the WHEN. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Deacon Lance]

I don't necessarily agree with the website, but I think St. Jacob's quote would tend to imply for the entirety of her life.

[sheenj]

I don't necessarily agree with the website, but I think St. Jacob's quote would tend to imply for the entirety of her life.

Huh, I read it as St. Mary was purer than all others, making her the most worthy to bear our Lord. Which is not altogether un-Orthodox.

[Shanghaiski]

I don't necessarily agree with the website, but I think St. Jacob's quote would tend to imply for the entirety of her life.

Huh, I read it as St. Mary was purer than all others, making her the most worthy to bear our Lord. Which is not altogether un-Orthodox.

And does not accord with the Latin innovation.

[Apotheoun]

Ephraim the Syrian
You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Jacob of Sarug
[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

The above quotations, and no doubt dozens of other statements that could be found within the writings of the Fathers, are often used by Westerners to support the theory of the Immaculate Conception; but it is unlikely that the authors of the quotations themselves accepted the theological presuppositions underlying that later Western approach to the sanctity of the Theotokos.

[Apotheoun]

I don't necessarily agree with the website, but I think St. Jacob's quote would tend to imply for the entirety of her life.

Huh, I read it as St. Mary was purer than all others, making her the most worthy to bear our Lord. Which is not altogether un-Orthodox.

I agree.  Moreover, the absolute purity of the Theotokos is simply a pious opinion of many Fathers, but it is not supported by all of them.

[Apotheoun]

This thread made me think back to the discussion of Mary's impeccability in another thread on the Immaculate Conception. 

It became clear to me in that thread that the Western take on Mary's inability to sin is very different from the Eastern view of Mary's purity:

See, for example, my posts quoting various Roman Catholic theologians:

The quotation from Fr. Hardon's catechism;

and the quotations written by Johannes Tauler, Fr. Matthias J. Scheeben, Fr. Joseph Pohle, Fr. Juniper B. Carol;

and the audio lecture by Fr. Peter Fehlner;

and the quotation written by Fr. Kenneth Baker;

to list just a few of the many quotations from reputable Roman Catholic sources in connection with the Western view of Mary's impeccability that I provided in that thread.

[Cyrillic]

Catholics quoting Jacob of Serugh to prove a dogma? Now I've seen it all.

Also, doesn't impeccability come with a huge limitation of freedom of will?

[Peter J]

This thread made me think back to the discussion of Mary's impeccability in another thread on the Immaculate Conception. 

It became clear to me in that thread that the Western take on Mary's inability to sin is very different from the Eastern view of Mary's purity:

See, for example, my posts quoting various Roman Catholic theologians:

The quotation from Fr. Hardon's catechism;

and the quotations written by Johannes Tauler, Fr. Matthias J. Scheeben, Fr. Joseph Pohle, Fr. Juniper B. Carol;

and the audio lecture by Fr. Peter Fehlner;

and the quotation written by Fr. Kenneth Baker;

to list just a few of the many quotations from reputable Roman Catholic sources in connection with the Western view of Mary's impeccability that I provided in that thread.

Not so long ago I would have said that this idea (that Mary was incapable of sinning) wasn't a "real" Catholic belief. Now I'm not sure what to think.

 

[Peter J]

I'm open to being corrected on this and freely admit that Pregnancy Brain is an actual condition I am suffering from, so I ask this with no snark.

That's a condition? I thought it was just a party game.

[ZealousZeal]

I'm open to being corrected on this and freely admit that Pregnancy Brain is an actual condition I am suffering from, so I ask this with no snark.

That's a condition? I thought it was just a party game.

I must be going to all the wrong paries.

[Deacon Lance]

Ephraim the Syrian
You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Jacob of Sarug
[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

The above quotations, and no doubt dozens of other statements that could be found within the writings of the Fathers, are often used by Westerners to support the theory of the Immaculate Conception; but it is unlikely that the authors of the quotations themselves accepted the theological presuppositions underlying that later Western approach to the sanctity of the Theotokos.

Unlikely? I would say it is certain.  I do think it clear that some Fathers viewed her as always pure and others purified at some point in time.

[JoeS2]

For what it is worth, this is the way I believe:  If the Blessed Mother was conceived without sin then we all were conceived without sin.
Now we know that we are born into a Sinful world and we know that being born into a Sinful world we all must die.  No, the Mother of God was born the same as everyone else is born : Normally.   
However, I also believe that prior to the Annunciation, God found great favor with her by her dedication and love for God and that she would be the perfect vessel for the Savior of Mankind and that any sin she may have had prior to that moment was absolved thus allowing God to occupy the Ark in total purity. Now she is Immaculate from that moment on.  But, the only immaculate conception was Christ Himself in the womb.

[LBK]

For what it is worth, this is the way I believe:  If the Blessed Mother was conceived without sin then we all were conceived without sin.
Now we know that we are born into a Sinful world and we know that being born into a Sinful world we all must die.  No, the Mother of God was born the same as everyone else is born : Normally.   
However, I also believe that prior to the Annunciation, God found great favor with her by her dedication and love for God and that she would be the perfect vessel for the Savior of Mankind and that any sin she may have had prior to that moment was absolved thus allowing God to occupy the Ark in total purity. Now she is Immaculate from that moment on.  But, the only immaculate conception was Christ Himself in the womb.

This.

[Pharaoh714]

For what it is worth, this is the way I believe:  If the Blessed Mother was conceived without sin then we all were conceived without sin.
Now we know that we are born into a Sinful world and we know that being born into a Sinful world we all must die.  No, the Mother of God was born the same as everyone else is born : Normally.   
However, I also believe that prior to the Annunciation, God found great favor with her by her dedication and love for God and that she would be the perfect vessel for the Savior of Mankind and that any sin she may have had prior to that moment was absolved thus allowing God to occupy the Ark in total purity. Now she is Immaculate from that moment on.  But, the only immaculate conception was Christ Himself in the womb.

This.

Agree, and if the Virgin St. Mary was preserved without sin before God, prior to her birth that would make God deny her freedom/free-will. Thus rendering the Angel Gabriel message and her acceptance to the message of God totally useless, since God has already consecrated her prior to her knowledge and not her acceptance and obedience. And if she was consecrated without her free will then she does not have free will and thus not fully human? and if she is not fully human with free, then Christ is not fully Human; and if Christ is not fully Human he cannot save us? thus its heresy?

ahh brain Explodes!!!

[LakaYaRabb]

We don't think you believe in the Immaculate Conception. We think that you used to believe in it. Smiley

Interesting claim. Care to back it up?

Orthodox never believed in the Immaculate Conception. God did not give the Theotokos a singular special Grace (only ever available to her). Please read the various hymns for the feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos and what Orthodox Christians have to say about them. Cyrillic is right, it can't be backed up.

Orthodox used to believe in the Immaculate Conception? The answer is no.

Please read the article found here------>http://sttikhonsmonastery.org/sinlessness.html

[LakaYaRabb]

The above quotations, and no doubt dozens of other statements that could be found within the writings of the Fathers, are often used by Westerners to support the theory of the Immaculate Conception; but it is unlikely that the authors of the quotations themselves accepted the theological presuppositions underlying that later Western approach to the sanctity of the Theotokos.

Spot on, as usual. 

[LakaYaRabb]

Agree, and if the Virgin St. Mary was preserved without sin before God, prior to her birth that would make God deny her freedom/free-will.

Exactly, although a Roman Catholic would claim that the merits of the cross were applied backwards to the Theotokos in order that she have the singular special Grace for sinlessness. I think they seek to keep it from being totally dependent on her yes or no.

Two problems with that:

1. It mitigates her purified will. Orthodox Christians believe the will was darkened by sin because of the fall, hence fallen nature. This will can be purified here and now (being deified). We believe that the Theoltokos struggled for this purification (remember, it is not sinning just to be fallen, rather, the sin is in the actions which we make by our willing. If we work with God (synergia), we are working to be transformed, purified. We believe the Theotokos did just that. She did not sin.). Back to her will. If she had a special Grace that was gifted in advance (Roman Catholics use the God is not limited to time argument here), then that Grace necessitated her yes. She had to say yes, regardless of her will.

2. She is placed in a different category than other Christians because of how she acquired her sinlessness. We have to work with God and struggle. In the Roman Catholic model, she has virtually no struggle against sin. The Grace preserves her from it. So, her will was automatically purified, from conception. It's a strange form of "auto-theosis". Of course, I think Roman Catholics might say "well, God knew what she was going to do and that she was going to follow him and say yes and be obedient, etc, etc." But that's a pre-destination theology, isn't it?

[Shlomlokh]

Agree, and if the Virgin St. Mary was preserved without sin before God, prior to her birth that would make God deny her freedom/free-will.

Exactly, although a Roman Catholic would claim that the merits of the cross were applied backwards to the Theotokos in order that she have the singular special Grace for sinlessness. I think they seek to keep it from being totally dependent on her yes or no.

Two problems with that:

1. It mitigates her purified will. Orthodox Christians believe the will was darkened by sin because of the fall, hence fallen nature. This will can be purified here and now (being deified). We believe that the Theoltokos struggled for this purification (remember, it is not sinning just to be fallen, rather, the sin is in the actions which we make by our willing. If we work with God (synergia), we are working to be transformed, purified. We believe the Theotokos did just that. She did not sin.). Back to her will. If she had a special Grace that was gifted in advance (Roman Catholics use the God is not limited to time argument here), then that Grace necessitated her yes. She had to say yes, regardless of her will.

2. She is placed in a different category than other Christians because of how she acquired her sinlessness. We have to work with God and struggle. In the Roman Catholic model, she has virtually no struggle against sin. The Grace preserves her from it. So, her will was automatically purified, from conception. It's a strange form of "auto-theosis". Of course, I think Roman Catholics might say "well, God knew what she was going to do and that she was going to follow him and say yes and be obedient, etc, etc." But that's a pre-destination theology, isn't it?

I think there are some problems with Pharoah's take on the IC. Roman Catholics that I have discussed this with in real life argue that Adam and Eve were born without sin, but God did not deny their free will.

In Christ,
Andrew

[LakaYaRabb]

I think there are some problems with Pharoah's take on the IC. Roman Catholics that I have discussed this with in real life argue that Adam and Eve were born without sin, but God did not deny their free will.

In Christ,
Andrew

Andrew, You are correct. Roman Catholics believe the Theotokos was born without son. They do not, however, believe that her free will was denied. The problem is the theological inconsistency of their position. This is what, I think, Pharaoh rightly points out.   

[LakaYaRabb]

The Immaculate Conception

490      To become the mother of the Savior, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.”132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace.”133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace. (2676, 2853, 2001)

491      Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: (411)

    The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492      The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son.”136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love.”137 (2011, 1077)

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=15-chapter5.xhtml%23para491

In light of the official teaching of Roman Catholicism on the Immaculate Conception, it extremely difficult to claim, consistently, that Mary will was not mitigated in in some way.

[Shlomlokh]

The Immaculate Conception

490      To become the mother of the Savior, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.”132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace.”133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace. (2676, 2853, 2001)

491      Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: (411)

    The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492      The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son.”136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love.”137 (2011, 1077)

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm?p=15-chapter5.xhtml%23para491

In light of the official teaching of Roman Catholicism on the Immaculate Conception, it extremely difficult to claim, consistently, that Mary will was not mitigated in in some way.

Interesting. I never realized that before. Oh the rational boxes they built around themselves.

In Christ,
Andrew

[orthonorm]

It seems hard to believe that something could have been part of the faith "once and for all delivered to the saints" if it wasn't believed "always, everywhere, and by all."

Well nothing was never believed "always, everywhere, and by all" in any meaningful sense by all humans in how most would understand such a phrase.

Nothing.

However, we are getting into theology here. So there is change within the Church within time. (This is obviously and I am not going to waste my time discussing it. Anyone who believes otherwise has an enormous row to hoe.) Heck, once there were no humans in the Church. That is a pretty big change.

Anyway.

Saints come into being within time. So "the faith" from some ontological perspective could be understood as once being delivered, but from our day to day perspective the Saints deliver the faith over time to us which they received (tradition).

One of the facts which accounts for the changes in the Church.

People in the Church didn't even know that Yeshua was the Son of God for quite some time. Like millions of years.

Again, pretty big change.

Coming from nowhere, I never understood the typical approach most Christians applied to this dynamic as it seemed pretty obvious from a Trinitarian Incarnational understanding of what the Church that the reasoning typically used was odd.

But since most people are pretty confused about what the Church is and when it began, questions like the above end with entirely confused answers, when really they are not that complicated at all.

Caught this phrase while scrolling down and thought I would pipe up.

It's one of three drums I beat.

The IC? That is a much more complicated question.

[Cyrillic]

People in the Church didn't even know that Yeshua was the Son of God for quite some time. Like millions of years.

This is a really bad attempt at trolling.

[orthonorm]

People in the Church didn't even know that Yeshua was the Son of God for quite some time. Like millions of years.

This is a really bad attempt at trolling.

What's in a name?

[Asteriktos]

^^^Yeah I ain't real big on the Vincentian canon either... (though probably for somewhat different reasons) 

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: "Orthodox used to believe in the Immaculate Conception"