coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

tonyhabibi

posted on Jun 21, 2007 - 03:35 PM

what is the catholic defense for immacualte conception of the virgin mary ? they said since angel gabriel said : HAIL MARY FULL OF GRACE " .... this means she was entierly sinlesss . ????

" My soul magnifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my saviour"- saint mary (Luke 1)

isnt mary emphasizing that she is too in need of a saviour ? ... if we agree on this .. then why is there a notion that mary was not born with the original sin ? ... she to was in need of salvation .. right ?

i have a question then ..... since our god is a holy holy holy god .... would it be " damaging " his holiness by being born of SAint virgin mary who had the original sin ?

forgive my ignorance ... i just want to learn the diffrence betwen right and wrong .

Admin note: Topic of thread changed for clarity.

_________________
( insert Cool Signature here , think original )

Joined: Apr 09, 2004 | Posts: 1220
Location: IN THE back of your mind .navagating through your heart , resting in your soul .

AMoussa01

posted on Jun 21, 2007 - 04:18 PM

The Blessed Virgin was born with the same fallen nature as we all are, and as such was imperfect and in need of salvation from the binding power of sin and death.

However, by the grace of God, and Her obedience to His will, She never sinned in word, in deed or in thought. It is necessary to distinguish between the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which states that the Most Holy and Most Blessed Theotokos was born without sin, and the universal teaching of the Church from ancient times that she was fully human (and therefore inherited the effects of sin upon our weakened nature), but lived her blessed life without sinning; that is why she is the Queen of our Race. She is an example to us all of the virtues of perfect obedience - and why we ask for Her intercession for our sinful selves.

GB
Tony

_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Joined: Jan 08, 2007 | Posts: 519
Location: St. George and St. Joseph in San Jose California

Meghalo05

posted on Jun 22, 2007 - 12:31 AM

Tony,

I have to disagree with you on how you said, "she never sinned in word, deed, or thought". How do you know this? I think it is perfectly fine to say that Saint Mary was a sinner. Not only was she born with the fallen nature, but she probably sinned in her lifetime, as did many of the righteous prophets, kings, apostles, and saints of the church. I think its the beauty of the incarnation that our Lord chose a humble sinner like Saint Mary, it goes to show that God came and chose sinners and through his Grace they became great pillars of the Church. I find it very inaccurate to say that she never sinned in word, deed, or thought in her lifetime. Our Lord did not choose Saint Mary because she never sinned in her lifetime, but chose her because it was God's will that a humbled servant become the mother of our Lord. It was Saint Mary herself who was astonished that the Lord choose her, a humble sinner to be the Mother of the Chosen One. "All have sinned and fell short of the Glory of God"

Blessed Apostles Fast,
Abe

Joined: Jan 18, 2005 | Posts: 304
Location: St. Mary and St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church of Indianapolis, IN

Biboboy

posted on Jun 22, 2007 - 04:08 AM

Agape,

I disagree with Meghalo. No one with volunary sins can bear God. The Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, is our example of perfection, because through her struggles against sin and choosing not to sin, Christ was incarnate in her. We cannot use her as an example of the gift of God-bearing through struggle with sin unless she herself was living in perfection.

_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).

"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.

In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 722

PaulS

posted on Jun 22, 2007 - 02:14 PM

Hello,

There is a pretty thorough discussion of immaculate conception in this older thread from coptichymns.net. You may want to read it to understand more of the differing positions.

Also, for my benefit and the benefit of our users, I hope someone can post a clear and simple statement of the Orthodox position on immaculate conception... perhaps a few sentences or a paragraph that we can all learn and remember if the topic ever presents itself in our later lives.

GBU,
Paul

_________________
`Uioc :eoc!

PaulS
Webmaster
coptichymns.net
http://www.coptichymns.net/

Joined: Sep 09, 2002 | Posts: 2441
Location: St. Abanoub and St. Antony Coptic Orthodox Church in Norco, CA

mikokiko

posted on Jun 24, 2007 - 03:45 AM

I also have some trouble believing that the Lord chose to be born of St. Mary because she became sinless. This, in my opinion is nothing but out of ignorance.

You condemn catholics for holding the belief in the immaculate conception, but you yourselves fall into the same error. The only way I could possible believe you, is that you told me that there were other people who inherited the corrupt nature of Adam, but never sinned elsewhere in their lives. Maybe then, you have some credibility. But when you say that the St. Virgin Mary out of all the creation was the only who did not sin during her lifetime, and this is one of the reasons Christ chose to be born from her, I beg to differ. First of all to elevate her to such a position, and please I may seem like some Protestant here trying to dishonor, and please understand that I am not in anyway doing that here, but I am only stating what makes sense to me. Anyways back to where I was, to elevate her to such a position is to put her in the place of God. Why? Because you have marked her out of all other people by saying she did not sin in her lifetime (by which you show no apparent proof that she didn't it is only a reason some have come up with to explain why the Lord might dwell in her womb) you are putting her in a place very similar to where God is. I am also in no way bashing her and telling you that she is not the most holy and most faithful of all human beings, but what I am saying is that I, nor has anyone else ever seen in any doctrine, authoritative religious text, or official church teaching that expounds on this.

Also, many people here are making it sound like that the original sin, is like one of the many sins that we inherit from our parents and from generations passed all the way to Adam, that gets washed away in the baptismal font. I beg to differ...It seems to be contradicting the scriptures as was written in Ezekiel, where the Lord said to Ezekiel: “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
“But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die." (Ezekiel 18:19-21)

Original sin is a doctrine whose origins are in the western Catholic church. The Orthodox Church has always taught that we did not inherit one sin, but a corrupt nature, a consequence of the sinning of Adam.

This I guess is what I am trying to pull at here...Us humans are very similar, and have much more in common than we may think. That is why I don't think it's fair when people say that it was Adam's fault that sin entered the world. No the Bible says in general "through man." And this applies to all of us. Each and everyone of us are both Adams and Eves and would have done the same in their situation. Why? because we are imperfect and it was bound to happen at one point. Now we are born with corrupt natures, that we will never be fully free of until we are fully united with God. This corrupt nature is what leads everyone to sin and what compels St. Paul the Apostle to say: "There is NO DIFFERENCE, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:22-23)

I also looked up the theological definition of grace, since many state that since the Archangel Gabriel came and told the Virgin Mary that she was full of grace, meaning she would not voluntarily sin at any point of her life, but rather the term grace means the following:
a. the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God.
b. the influence or spirit of God operating in humans to regenerate or strengthen them.
c. a virtue or excellence of divine origin: the Christian graces.
d. Also called state of grace. the condition of being in God's favor or one of the elect.
Hopefully I have not offended anyone, I may have come off too strong since this is what I strongly believe, and feel free to correct me.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 997

minasoliman

posted on Jun 24, 2007 - 06:13 PM

There's a difference between sinning and Original Sin. What RC's believe is that she was born without the stain of "Original Sin." I think before one can talk about the Immaculate Conception, one must first ask about the Original Sin that RC's believe in. Is is something compatible with Orthodoxy?

Well, in another thread, I did mention that there are those like Mikokiko who is adamantly against the doctrine of Original Sin, and like many Orthodox, would exclude Original Sin as a heretical concept. But there are others, like myself, who is giving second thought to that question.

What Original Sin or "Original Guilt" is not:

It is not the inheritance of a corrupt/mortal nature. RC's obviously believe that St. Mary was indeed born with a corrupt nature, set to die. In fact, if "Original Sin" meant corrupt nature, then they would have been Julianists, a heresy that believed Christ's humanity was incorruptible from conception.

It is also not the inheritance of the sins and guilts of their forefathers. It is slightly different than that. RC's understand very well how "Original Sin" or "Original Guilt" can be misunderstood.

What is it then?

It is simply the inheritance of that graceless state that Adam brought unto us, this state of "condemnability," in which we cannot be saved except by being in the Church, and its effects would be a disposition to sinning. It makes sense then why Christ would be without "Original Sin," considering that He is not merely a man full of grace, but TRUE GOD from True God in the flesh. Original Sin is the curse of the law brought upon us when God said "You will surely die," in which the Logos Incarnate without condemnation found in Him took upon Himself the curse of the Law on behalf of all humanity. It is this secondary aspect to salvation. I likened this secondary aspect to the fulfillment of the "consistency" of God, as St. Athanasius teaches.

Therefore, to the RC's, if Christ was to be born without Original Sin, then the Theotokos also had to be born the same way, preserving Christ's nature. But one may ask that there is no salvation without the blood of Christ. RCs' answer that it is precisely the blood of Christ, by virtue of its unity with the Divine nature and its transcendence of time, matter, and space, that removed the Original Sin from the Theotokos at her conception.

There are other ways in which RC's explain the support of the Immaculate Conception (IC):

1. They find quotes from the Holy Fathers about her sinless life as well as "pure" and "immaculate."
2. A Christological emphasis on being born "without sin."
3. As I said above, since He is God Incarnate, His blood has its effect in "eternity" outside of time, and thus specifically saves the Theotokos from Original Sin at her conception.
4. The gospel of Luke's "Hail full of grace."

What is the Orthodox answer?

Well either you don't believe in Original Sin, which means there's really no basis of discussion for the IC, or do you believe in the Original Sin doctrine, and you answer the following:

1. These quotes talk about her pure, sinless life, but not about her life as one exempt from Original Sin.
2. Pope Leo the first of Rome left us with a quote about the Holy Spirit not only involved in the Incarnation, but purifying the womb so that Christ can be born without Original Sin.
3. The main problem with this is preserving the free choice of St. Mary in accepting her responsibility of being the Theotokos. While RC's say this doesn't take away free choice, we happen to differ. While her free will is not taken away, she certainly has a conundrum when she was already chosen at conception to be Theotokos without her acceptance of the fact. (I also thought there might be a minor argument against the IC, which is the disregard of time as part of Christ's salvation. If time is ignored, then Christ hasn't really saved all of humanity. Time is as much a part of human nature as is space and matter. What was not assumed has not been saved. If Christ did not assume time, then He has not saved all of human nature. This argument however is merely my own, and not something I have read from an Orthodox source, so I don't know if it can be a valid one.)
4. I don't know how to answer this one. Sure, she's full of grace now, or she was full of grace when accepting Christ as her physical son. But I wonder if the Angel Gabriel meant it in the manner we mean it today or in the manner RC's see it. Every Bible version in English reads "highly favored one," which shows the propensity to be full of grace. I can only wonder about the Greek, which I'm not very knowledgeable of. I'd like to see if anyone else has an answer to this.

So, in the end, there is indeed a difference between RC's and Orthodox on Mariology, perhaps the only difference being the IC (I'm not sure if "Co-redemptrx" would count as a difference). However, we both exalt her perhaps equally, and we both believe in her sinless life, or at least close to a sinless, pure, and immaculate life. Is there proof that she lived a sinless life? Not directly, but there were many Holy Fathers that attest to this, with the exception of I think St. John Chrysostom, who considered her intercession to Christ to make wine for the party as a sin, albeit something very minor. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

However, I think it's important to understand that being a "highly favored one," she had to have lived a perfect life. One can extend the same praise to St. John the Forerunner, and there might have been others we don't know about. Christ did say "be perfect as my Father in Heaven is perfect." I don't think this command is impossible in this world, even in a world where we put ourselves down all the time in the highly pessimistic and anti-Christian belief "no one can be perfect." With God, all things are possible. The Theotokos always had God with her in her whole life, even when she was lived with the propensity to sin, in that graceless curse called the "Original Sin".

In discussing Original Sin, I recommend this thread:

http://coptichymns.net/PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-7871.html

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

mikokiko

posted on Jun 24, 2007 - 07:32 PM

Mina the way you have addressed and discussed Original sin is in a way I see no different then the inheritance of the corrupt nature. You call it the state of "condemnability" which is precisely what this corrupt nature is. It is the state brought on us by what Adam himself was condemned. I have nothing wrong with the doctrine of Original Sin in the way you described it. I have a problem with some perceive it to be an unclean deficiency we are born with from our parents. That is not what it is. That is why we can easily dismiss the fact that St. Mary had to be born without the "stain," (as if it were one kind of blemish found in man) so that Christ would be born without it. We are forgetting that this corrupt nature is not revealed physically in our being, so that it is something we are born with. It is something the whole of humanity is cursed with. Only Christ Who is Himself only, the Son of God can be free of it. No one else is free of this corrupt nature.

Again you say that it is possible for one to lead a perfect life now, in the sense that they are sinless in their actions. I disagree. The fact that we are born with this corrupt nature is a major imperfection on our part. The matter of the fact is, every single action one makes is either in the direction of good or evil. Nothing is wholeheartedly a sin. Every good deed is but marred by some sort of evil action from within, and we shall never be saved of this until we are fully united with Christ. This is why we are in need of grace and regeneration, for how can one say he has followed the law without error and is blameless? St. Paul even said: "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

Do you see what the holy apostle says, "for by the law is the knowledge of sin." We are uncovered and we see something that is inherent to our weak nature. That is why before the law we could not see that we were sinning. It was part of our ways.

Also, if the immaculate conception was true and the Theotokos was truly blameless of any sinful action, or if there were few others who did not have to learn from previous sinful actions, but lead perfect lives, St. Paul would have not stated with such an absolute, saying we are all guilty before God. This is indeed why we need a saviour and why we all agree the Virgin St. Mary is in need of a saviour. For what is the use of saying she had a corrupt nature had she not sinned? She was perfect and she needed no help from any kind of error.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 997

minasoliman

posted on Jun 25, 2007 - 01:32 AM

Dear Mikokiko,

Like I said, Original Sin is not corruption nature, or better put it, it is not the physical aspect of the problem of humanity. Think of it this way, if baptism washes away Original Sin, why do we still die?

I guess another way one can define "Original Sin" or "Original Guilt" is the lack of unity with God. This unity with God can take away our corruption into a state of grace of incorruption, but instead at the moment, it doesn't. We still die because we are in communion with the life and struggle of Christ, i.e. we die with Him so that we rise from the dead with him. So what exactly does baptism wash away, especially in an infant? The Original Sin, the curse of being not in unity with God.

As for the Virgin Mary, I'll offer you a Pauline verse:

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." (Romans 5:14). Keep in mind this comes after Romans 5:12 which says "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, in which all sinned." 5:12 describes the graceless state of mankind, while 5:14 explains this even further even for those who did not sin.

So is it possible? I believe so. And I think many Holy Fathers believed so as well. In fact, it's because of people like St. Ephraim and St. Jacob of Sarugh as well as our liturgical tradition that some may be confused about St. Mary's state of grace.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

mikokiko

posted on Jun 25, 2007 - 02:30 AM

Mina, the verse you have quoted does not seem to tell me the same things you are claiming otherwise it would have been in complete contradiction with the previous verse I quoted ("all are guilty before God"). The difference is this verse does not speak in an absolute and thus must be understood in its context. St. Paul here says "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned ACCORDING TO THE LIKENESS OF THE TRANSGRESSION of Adam"

That is why I see a difference from not sinning at all. Here sin can be interpreted as a major offense. It was simple for Adam to preserve his state but his imperfection lead him out of the garden. What this verse is saying is that not everyone sinned in a like manner, by disobeying a stern commandment. See, no one is under the curse except those who are born with the corrupt nature, and those who are born with the corrupt nature are also born with imperfections. These imperfections FILL our lives from the very day we are born, otherwise we would have been God who is alone perfect: "There is none who does good, no, not one."

There imperfections are what the Bible calls infirmities. While they may not be the sins that we intentionally commit and trespass, they are the "moral gaps", as you might want to call them, the incompleteness in all of us, that is only made complete with the washing of the blood of the Lord Jesus. To say that it is simply the original sin that made ST. Mary in need of salvation is demeaning to its great power. It not only heals us of our corrupt nature which is inseparable from our sins and infirmities, but it elevates from our state and fills us, and unites us with God, only there will sin escape and its shadow disappear.

Plus, you say that the Original sin is washed away in Baptism. The Fathers didn't actually talk about this when they brought up Baptism. Rather they said it was the washing of all sins committed, not of one original sin. This baptism is our spiritual regeneration, where we are reborn into the spiritual life. Again, baptism, shares the purpose that all the other sacraments share, and that is it is a gateway for us to reach grace through Christ. They are a means for us to be in constant unity with God. They all share the same objective. The word sacrament in ecclesiastical dictionary is "...a visible sign of an inward grace, esp. one of the solemn Christian rites considered to have been instituted by Jesus Christ to symbolize or confer grace." Through this grace we receive our forgiveness of sins. "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." (Ephesians 1:7) Each and every sacrament has that purpose, be it Communion, Confession, Unction of the Sick, and even priesthood.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 997

minasoliman

posted on Jun 25, 2007 - 03:19 AM

Dear Mikokiko,

I don't think it did contradict that verse. In fact, I believe that this guilt speaks also of those who have not sinned because they are not saved by the blood of Christ. No righteousness or perfection can help. Let me give you what St. John Chrysostom says:

Here then he exhibits them as destitute of the boldness of speech which comes of works, and only using a parade of words and behaving in a barefaced way. And this is why he uses so literal an expression, saying, “that every mouth may be stopped,” so pointing out the barefaced and almost uncontrollable pomposity of their language, and that their tongue was now curbed in the strictest sense. For as an unsupportable torrent, so had it been borne along. But the prophet stopped it. And when Paul saith, “that every mouth may be stopped,” what he means is, not that the reason of their sinning was that their mouth might be stopped, but that the reason of their being reproved was that they might not commit this very sin in ignorance. “And all the world may become guilty before God.” He does not say the Jew, but the whole of mankind. For the phrase, “that every mouth may be stopped,” is the language of a person hinting at them, although he has not stated it clearly, so as to prevent the language being too harsh. But the words “that all the world may become guilty before God,” are spoken at once both of Jews and of Greeks. Now this is no slight thing with a view to take down their unreasonableness. Since even here they have no advantage over the Gentiles, but are alike given up as far as salvation is concerned. For he would be in strict propriety called a guilty person, who cannot help himself to any excuse, but needeth the assistance of another: and such was the plight of all of us, in that we had lost the things pertaining to salvation. (emphasis mine)

Notice "guilt" is defined not by the result of committing sins, but by the lack of "things pertaining to salvation."

Second, you misinterpreted Romans 5:14. There should have been a comma after the word "sinned." Therefore, the most accurate meaning of the verse in a re-organized manner is, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, even over those who had not sinned." The "likeness" described the reign, not the sinners. Again, St. John Chrysostom:

For sin, he says, can have no existence if there be no law. If then it was this sin, he means, from the transgression of the Law that brought forth death, how was it that all before the Law died? For if it is in sin that death hath its origin, but when there is no law, sin is not imputed, how came death to prevail? From whence it is clear, that it was not this sin, the transgression, that is, of the Law, but that of Adam’s disobedience, which marred all things. Now what is the proof of this? The fact that even before the Law all died: for “death reigned,” he says, “from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned.”

How did it reign? “After the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.” (emphasis mine)

As for Original Sin, I think a look at the Liturgy of Baptism shows that this prayer of washing away sins is even prayed over infants. The major "sin" is that Original Sin that eliminates our condemnation and allows us a chance to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Did not Christ say "unless we are born again, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven?" Yes, baptism also washes away sins committed, but I would hesitate to say that most of the baptisms performed, which are on infants, would take away any sins committed by infants, since I don't believe they committed any.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

lowlyman

posted on Jun 25, 2007 - 04:48 PM

I was taught that the Virgin Mary was born like any other person. However, she lived a pure life as far as it is possible for men. God the Almighty, looking down at the purity of her life, willed that his son be born of her and of the Holy Spirit. So, when the Theotokos accepted the Angels greetings when she said: "I am the handmaid of the Lord let it be according to his will", then she became sinless and stayed without sin.

My questions to the Catholics are:
why do they claim that some of the early Christian fathers believed in the Immaculate Conception? Also, how did they arrive at this dogma? I think they claim that the virgin herself appeared to a lady and told her about it. Is this true?

God bless, lowly
From minasoliman:Dear Mikokiko,

I don't think it did contradict that verse. In fact, I believe that this guilt speaks also of those who have not sinned because they are not saved by the blood of Christ. No righteousness or perfection can help. Let me give you what St. John Chrysostom says:

Here then he exhibits them as destitute of the boldness of speech which comes of works, and only using a parade of words and behaving in a barefaced way. And this is why he uses so literal an expression, saying, “that every mouth may be stopped,” so pointing out the barefaced and almost uncontrollable pomposity of their language, and that their tongue was now curbed in the strictest sense. For as an unsupportable torrent, so had it been borne along. But the prophet stopped it. And when Paul saith, “that every mouth may be stopped,” what he means is, not that the reason of their sinning was that their mouth might be stopped, but that the reason of their being reproved was that they might not commit this very sin in ignorance. “And all the world may become guilty before God.” He does not say the Jew, but the whole of mankind. For the phrase, “that every mouth may be stopped,” is the language of a person hinting at them, although he has not stated it clearly, so as to prevent the language being too harsh. But the words “that all the world may become guilty before God,” are spoken at once both of Jews and of Greeks. Now this is no slight thing with a view to take down their unreasonableness. Since even here they have no advantage over the Gentiles, but are alike given up as far as salvation is concerned. For he would be in strict propriety called a guilty person, who cannot help himself to any excuse, but needeth the assistance of another: and such was the plight of all of us, in that we had lost the things pertaining to salvation. (emphasis mine)

Notice "guilt" is defined not by the result of committing sins, but by the lack of "things pertaining to salvation."

Second, you misinterpreted Romans 5:14. There should have been a comma after the word "sinned." Therefore, the most accurate meaning of the verse in a re-organized manner is, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, even over those who had not sinned." The "likeness" described the reign, not the sinners. Again, St. John Chrysostom:

For sin, he says, can have no existence if there be no law. If then it was this sin, he means, from the transgression of the Law that brought forth death, how was it that all before the Law died? For if it is in sin that death hath its origin, but when there is no law, sin is not imputed, how came death to prevail? From whence it is clear, that it was not this sin, the transgression, that is, of the Law, but that of Adam’s disobedience, which marred all things. Now what is the proof of this? The fact that even before the Law all died: for “death reigned,” he says, “from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned.”

How did it reign? “After the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.” (emphasis mine)

As for Original Sin, I think a look at the Liturgy of Baptism shows that this prayer of washing away sins is even prayed over infants. The major "sin" is that Original Sin that eliminates our condemnation and allows us a chance to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Did not Christ say "unless we are born again, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven?" Yes, baptism also washes away sins committed, but I would hesitate to say that most of the baptisms performed, which are on infants, would take away any sins committed by infants, since I don't believe they committed any.

God bless.

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226

minasoliman

posted on Jun 25, 2007 - 10:24 PM

Hi Lowlyman,

I think there's nothing better than to read the Catholic Encycloedia to get a better perspective of the dogma of the IC:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

The answer to your specific question on Holy Fathers would be answered under the heading "Proof from Tradition."

As for the story, I also heard it from Catholics where a certain St. Catherine, I think, talked to the Virgin Theotokos who told her "I am the Immaculate Conception." I can only wonder if that be a misunderstanding of the message or a deception.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1748

mikokiko

posted on Jun 26, 2007 - 12:20 AM

How about this...Scripture always supersedes divine visions and dreams that contradict the belief that not one man is sinless.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 997

lowlyman

posted on Jun 27, 2007 - 12:39 PM

Thanks mina. I quick read the section "Proof from Tradition" and didn't think that it supported the IC dogma. I thought it venerated and exalted mary as it is fit to do.

From minasoliman:Hi Lowlyman,

I think there's nothing better than to read the Catholic Encycloedia to get a better perspective of the dogma of the IC:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

The answer to your specific question on Holy Fathers would be answered under the heading "Proof from Tradition."

As for the story, I also heard it from Catholics where a certain St. Catherine, I think, talked to the Virgin Theotokos who told her "I am the Immaculate Conception." I can only wonder if that be a misunderstanding of the message or a deception.

God bless.

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226

tonyhabibi

posted on Jun 27, 2007 - 03:03 PM

can someone simplfy the answer for me ? what do we as orthodox beleive .... i had a pretty good idea before i made this thread now im confused ... everyone is saying something diffrent ....

was saintmary sinless her entire life ? did mary have a sinless life , but yet carried the original sin ?
can someone tell me what we as orthodox beleive please ????

Joined: Apr 09, 2004 | Posts: 1220
Location: IN THE back of your mind .navagating through your heart , resting in your soul .

lowlyman

posted on Jun 27, 2007 - 04:03 PM

Hi Tony;

Here are my answers as far as i know:

was saintmary sinless her entire life ?

I am not sure actually. I don't know if the church has a teaching on this.

did mary have a sinless life , but yet carried the original sin ?
The church teaches that Mary, the Mother of god, was born just like you n me.

Cheers,
lowly

From tonyhabibi:can someone simplfy the answer for me ? what do we as orthodox beleive .... i had a pretty good idea before i made this thread now im confused ... everyone is saying something diffrent ....


can someone tell me what we as orthodox beleive please ????

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226