I do not agree, but then this disagreement has been going on for millennia- we’re not fixing it here today.
May God bless and guide everyone to truth, which is only one!
Orthodox Christianity
- Thread starter DelMarMisty
- Start date
May God bless and guide everyone to truth, which is only one!
That is correct. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is states that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin.
The Immaculate Mother of God, by a singular privilege, did NOT inherit Adam’s fallen nature.
I do not agree, but then this disagreement has been going on for millennia- we’re not fixing it here today.
May God bless and guide everyone to truth, which is only onen
Orthodox believe otherwise; I’m Orthodox.
Then she is a different Creation than the rest of us, and thus not relatable to normal humans. @kingtg went a little too far, @Sitting Bull was right to call that out, but there is a problem with this Roman Catholic conception.
Edit: I retract the above statement, thinking about this some more, if the Virgin Mary was "Immaculately Conceived" then she was remade, and wasn't really the child of her mother, and kingtg was correct
If you take this thought further, why did He only give this "privilege" once, why not extend it to the rest of creation. Why not give that grace to the first created Adam and Eve, then "Original Sin" wouldn't exist, and death never would have had a foothold in this world. Do you believe that he chose not to? Wouldn't that make God one who could have prevented the sacrifice of his Only-Begotten Son, but chose not to? What kind of god kills his own son?
If the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, didn't inherit our damaged nature, why did her earthly life come to an end? Death, after all is a consequence of the first sin.
If the Theotokos didn't have our damaged nature, then her conceiving Christ was of no point, for he never had the same human nature as us. He may as well have just came down straight from heaven bypassing the womb altogether. If he didn't have the same damaged nature as us, then that nature never ascended into heaven, and I really don't know the point of your religion.
Do you think this is a strawman of Catholic belief?
1)Adam and Eve, Eve was tempted through the snake, and humanity falls,
2)God spends thousands of years weaving a tale with prophecies of the future redemption for mankind
3)A new Eve appears that somehow has an undamaged human nature, and gives birth to the new Adam who also has an undamaged nature.
4) ????????
5) Salvation is achieved for damaged humanity by undamaged humanity.
Am I to believe there is no real difference between the undamaged, and the damaged human nature?
Last edited:
This is my main concern with the Immaculate Conception. Christ showed us the way, conquering death, while being fully man and fully God. If he wasn't fully man, or of a different human nature than us, then like Aboulia said, his childhood was just for show; there was no point to it.
Contrast that with the Orthodox perspective that the Theotokos struggled against sin, defeating temptation every time it reared its head, and seeing her virtue, she became fit to bear our Savior, to the point that the Archangel Gabriel knelt before her and said "hail!" When my patron saint, the Prophet Daniel was visited by an Archangel, he was sick for days and was terrified. Mary earned the right through her struggle to have an angel kneel before her. She is the model of Christian living, full of Grace, humility, and love. To me, it honors Mary much more to believe she conquered sin better than anyone born of two human parents before and since than to think she never had to struggle against temptation. Even angels had to make a choice between obedience and sin - the Immaculate Conception doesn't give her a choice.
Yes, I know you are. I’m answering your question.
“Why did He extend this privilege once and not extend it to His entire creation?” you ask? A) Because that’s the way God chose to do it; why didn’t He just ask YOU how to arrange the plan of salvation, since you seem to think you know better? Ridiculous. B)Because only gave the privilege of being His Mother in His incarnation once! Why didn’t He just become incarnate in EVERY woman’s womb? Why did He just extend the privilege of being His Mother once (to Mary) instead of to all of creation...?
I’m not sure what you are asking, because most of these questions are not even relevant to the Immaculate Conception. For example:
He may as well have just came down straight from heaven bypassing the womb altogether. If he didn't have the same damaged nature as us, then that nature never ascended into heaven, and I really don't know the point of your religion.
I don’t understand the point of yours. I thought you were an Eastern Orthodox but the tone of your questions indicates a general ignorance of Christianity, reminds me of the sort of questions one sees Moslems asking Christian apologists online.
You said: “If the Theotokos didn't have our damaged nature, then her conceiving Christ was of no point, for he never had the same human nature as us.” What?
The Blessed Virgin Mary shared our human nature. She didn’t share our damaged nature. Christ the incarnate Son of God also shared our human nature. He did not share our sinful human nature. It isn’t complicated.
Or do you believe that Jesus Christ, the Divine Son of God, actually shared our sinful nature??
I will be happy to explain the Immaculate Conception to you and clear up your misunderstandings. I’m not quite sure what exactly you’re asking or your specific objections are. You peppered me with about 20 different questions at once most of which were either irrelevant or incoherent...
Not the "Privilege of being his Mother". Don't be ridiculous. I'm talking about the "privilege" of being preserved from "Original Sin"
Yes. (insert meme picture here)
How else could he save us? How else can we relate to his struggles, and him to ours?
Yes. (insert meme picture here)
How else could he save us? How else can we relate to his struggles, and him to ours?
You demand to know why God only gave the special privilege of being preserved from Original Sin to ONE person—the same reason that God only have the special privilege of being His Mother to ONE person, Mary. She was to be His Mother, therefore She alone by special grace of God was preserved from the stain of Original Sin.
Let’s me be clear about another thing—God could have saved us ANY way He wanted to. You ask lot of “how was God able to do x?” or “why did God not do it x way?” type questions. Because he’s God, that’s why. Christ became Man to suffer as a Man and redeem us. It wasn’t about Him “being relatable” to us much less about US needing to be able to “relate” to HIS struggles. As if we could “relate” to HIS sufferings. Your theology is somewhat base, rudimentary, man-centered. Catholic theology is sublimely and gloriously God-centered.
I don't know what you're being "saved" from. What does salvation mean to you?
Do you just worship God because he's more powerful than you? I mean, we should be able to understand him dimly, if anything.
"He's God, he does anything he wants, he doesn't have to make sense" sort of attitude, is both an insult to both God, and to us, if you believe the words of Genesis are true, that we were made in the image and likeness of God.
Well then, perhaps you could condescend to a level where a sinful peasant such as myself could understand. In my theology, God did no less by taking on my damaged nature, and redeeming the brokenness of humanity (mine included).
Shall I shock the world and state the things that God can't do? It's fun saying things you know are provocative, yet true. 
Being "immaculate" (free from original sin) has nothing to do with "not having to go through temptation".
Consider the following examples :
1) Adam or Eve before their first sin were "immaculate", and were nevertheless tempted and tempted successfully.
2) Jesus himself, who is God and a fortiori "immaculate", was nevertheless tempted in the desert as narrated in the Gospels.
That's not what it is though. According to Father John Hardon in the Modern Catholic Dictionary, Mary's “freedom from sin was an unmerited gift of God or special grace, and an exception to the law, or privilege, which no other created person has received”
This puts her in a different category entirely from Adam and Eve. The doctrine itself says it is a singular event.
”We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance 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, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.[10]“
If I'm misunderstanding this then Fr Hardon also is.
I would disagree about that.
Your source nowhere contradicts my point, that being "immaculate" doesn't mean you will never be tempted.
Your source only says that Mary received an absolutely unique privilege. Your source nowhere says that Mary was not tempted.
Are you denying that Adam & Eve were free from original sin before they commited it ?
I never said she was never tempted, obviously she was if Christ was, my problem with the doctrine is that it denies her agency in fighting temptation unlike the belief of The Orthodox Church. She didn't fight against it as you or I do as fallen beings subject to original sin (which doesn't mean the same thing to us), she fought against it with endless Grace. It was simply a unique Grace given to her without merit, and it is unique from the state of Adam and Eve according to the Catholic Church. I guess I was confused at your response because you were saying I said something I didn't.
Well then, to restate my challenge, I challenge you to find an official Catholic document stating that the "immaculate" implies "having no agency in fighting temptation"
The doctrine implicitly claims she had less agency than you or I had. She obtained this blessing, according to your doctrine, completely without merit at conception. Unless you believe in the pre existence of souls why would God save her but not all of us like that? De Fide's response to that was essentially “because God can do what He wants and He doesn't owe you an explanation.” Then this circles back to my original assertion pages ago that this gives credence to Calivinists who believe in predestination, since it seems to imply Mary was predestined for Grace at a level completely beyond what anyone else has ever, or can ever, obtain in this life.
Sincere question to you: Do you accept Pope Francis as the Vicarius Christi?
Is anybody doing the full Orthodox Lent fast?
Can anyone advise a list of things we need to abstain from completely?
Social media?
Sex (in marriage)?
Food - obviously no oil, fish, dairy and meat apart from the prescribed days where oil is allowed and rare occasions in April where fish is allowed.
Any food/meal ideas? Obviously it will have to be simple and humble preparation.
Thanks and God Bless.
Can anyone advise a list of things we need to abstain from completely?
Social media?
Sex (in marriage)?
Food - obviously no oil, fish, dairy and meat apart from the prescribed days where oil is allowed and rare occasions in April where fish is allowed.
Any food/meal ideas? Obviously it will have to be simple and humble preparation.
Thanks and God Bless.
We are trying. We use vegetable oil to cook some veggies, per our priest who says since it doesn't add flavor it's okay. Quinoa with garlic and onion, lots of smoothies, all types of nuts, rice, mixed veggies, pasta. I have to admit we are really terrible at making actual meals during fasts and usually end up eating a bunch of snacks throughout the day. Shrimp is allowed, all shellfish are allowed.
God bless you.