Replies

So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, but rather it extended over the whole of her life. She must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."

This is one of those leaps of logic that leads nowhere. The "extraction" the angel's words at that moment to the very moment Mary was conceived simply doesn't follow.

While the Orthodox and the Catholic will strongly agree on the issue of Theotokos's ever-virginity, holiness and importance, the agreement breaks down on philosophical rationalizations of just "how" or "how it must have" happened (another example is the same belief in the Eucharistic Real Presence but completely divergent views on "how" it happens).

If our very definition of the "original sin" differs, our differences are evident at the very beginning of the Bible and only become more profound.

You are, of course correct. The RC's view of "original sin" does lead them, with a leap or two, to their dogma of the Immaculate Conception, something which, at least to me, calls into question the humanity of Christ, but two other interconnected issues were also being questioned by, I suspect, some Protestants; first whether Christ had brothers in the English sense of the word and therefore, second, the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos. When the RCs are fighting the "good fight", a few words from our side are appropriate and often helpful since non-RCs seem more willing to accept (or at least listen to and think about) the Truth of what The Church has always believed from us rather than from them.

This is not a new topic and all the rehashing did nothing to bring us closer on this issue. This comes from the fact that we Orthodox do not see, nor have we ever seen, the "original sin" in the Catholic Augustinian eyes and that is the thorn that eventually split the Church. Apparently it is still doing a great job at keeping us apart

This is misleading. The concept of Original Sin in both Churches is identical, I think that some assume Rome holds that each human being bears the personal guilt of the Fall of Man from Adam and Eve. Both East and West agree we bear the consequences of the Original Sin. This isn't in dispute, I think there is some minor "means" controversies. I think many Easterners get caught in the issue of the guilt for the fall, and that leads to these conclusions.

There is a big difference between speculation and doctrine, our doctrines are the same in this respect, the explanations are slightly different.

Mary was preserved from the beginning not by Gabriel but by Christ in anticipation of his enrobement in the flesh of man. He is fully Human and fully Divine, and existed before Mary's conception, in fact, Christ existed at the time of Creation. Maybe this is a minor point too, but Christ preserved her from Sin.

Too many Protestants look at the Catholic view and say Mary eclipses Christ, the proper viewpoint is that she is like an arrow, everything about her points to Christ, which she co-created with God.

Mary is the daughter of God, the Mother of Christ and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, I think she has a little pull with the big guy in Catholic devotions as a "prayer partner" (to use the Baptist term I have heard). When we pray a Hail Mary we ask her to pray with us or for us; when we Pray to Christ, we say, "Have Mercy on us".