I am VERY glad to hear that! :)
... just as the Church dispenses Christ's redemptive graces to us, we believe that Mary is the co-metiatrix of Christ's graces. If Jesus is the Head and we are the Body of Christ, then Mary would be the Neck...
OK, but can Mary forgive sin like a priest can? I am zooming in on what the correct prayer is to Mary. Is the prayer to Mary in a worship sense so that she will procure God's graces and then pass them along, or is the prayer to Mary for Mary's prayer to God to pass the graces through her? I still haven't figured out why all the middlemen? :)
By the way, the Protoevangelism of James is not considered Scripture, so it would be difficult to base infallible beliefs upon it (that Mary didn't receive special graces until she was three).
I'm not sure I understand you. By "scripture" do you mean the Bible? I ask because you appear to hint that infallible tradition is based on scripture, when I know that at least some tradition is not really "based" in scripture, such as infant baptism.
Being that Mary, the Woman of Gen 3:15, was in complete enmity with the devil, it doesn't seem possible that God would even ALLOW Mary to sin.
What? MARY is the woman of Gen. 3:15? I can't buy that. Let's look at the section:
Gen. 3:15-17a : 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." 16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' ...
If Mary is the woman in 15, then who is the woman in 16? Are you saying that God switches from Mary to Eve in one verse? In that case, who is Adam really supposed to be in 17? :) This is another perfect example of interpretation being made to conform the Bible to extra-Biblical teaching. I can certainly take an honest disagreement on the meaning of a verse, but this just isn't reasonable.
First, I again commend you for your attitude towards these ideas that are likely new to you. I will try my best to explain all of this to you. Mary does not forgive sins in the sense that a priest could because we don't see Mary. The only reason a priest has been given this power from Christ is that He meant to continue on His ministry of Reconciliation to men in time (see 2 Cor 5:17-20). Through "us", Paul says, God pleads for us to return to Him. Thus, the priest is the hands and voice of Christ. It is important to understand that Catholics (and I think Orthodox) view the Church as the "continuation of the Incarnation". Thus, we see Christ through the actions of the priest during the sacraments. He forgives us, heals us, and offers Himself totally to us during the Eucharist. Thus, Mary doesn't forgive sins as a priest would - because we don't see her.
As to "middlemen", this is God's choosing. He allows us to participate in His work (as I explained during the cookie example). God does not create life directly, but allows His creatures to (He acts indirectly through them, of course). God acts indirectly through our actions to bring other people to Christ - so we can be co-redemptive in our actions. All of this is an expression of love, FK. When you love someone, you share yourself with the other. Thus, God, also, shares in His Divine self with His creation, allowing us to be secondary causes and to continue Christ's ministry of bringing the Kingdom of God to all men throughout the world. Thus, "middlemen" is the wrong way of looking at it. Look at it more like the happy child who is getting to do something with their beloved parent.
By "scripture" do you mean the Bible?
Yes. The Infancy Gospel of James is not Scripture because the early Church either didn't think it was written by an Apostle, or they found things in there that were not "Apostolic" in teaching. This doesn't mean there is nothing of use in that writing.
Infallible teaching is not "based" on Scripture, but is based on the Apostle's teachings - they first came orally. Then, some of the Apostles wrote letters and narratives. These were accepted by the Church as being in line with what they had ALREADY LEARNED. Later, some men wrote down the oral traditions (like infant Baptism) as coming from the Apostles also. This was accepted by the Church and later declared infallibly suited for belief among Catholics under the guidance of the Spirit. The Scripture and this Tradition CANNOT disagree. They work together.
Try not to get confused with Ecclesiastical tradition - such as Catholic priests must be celebate, and Apostolic Tradition - such as infant baptism. The former is a discipline that is subject to change based on the laws of the Church of the time and culture to better support the children of the Church. The latter is considered a revealed truth of God, just as Scripture was.
I know that at least some tradition is not really "based" in scripture, such as infant baptism.
What came first, the oral teachings of the Apostles during the first 20-30 years or the Scripture writings? Think about this for awhile...
If Mary is the woman in 15, then who is the woman in 16? Are you saying that God switches from Mary to Eve in one verse? In that case, who is Adam really supposed to be in 17? :)
Eve is the representive of women in the world, just as Adam is for men. Note in verse 15, it says that "the woman" (singular) will have enmity between "you (serpent) and "her" offspring. This is certainly not refering to Eve, because Eve had JUST SINNED! How can Eve have enmity between herself and Satan? I doubt she remained sinless, either. However, the Church has ALWAYS considered Mary sinless. Also, the Church sees Mary as a symbol of the Church - thus, Mary's offspring, Jesus, would deal Satan a fatal blow (upon the head) while Satan would deal a blow to Christ, but not fatal. This can also apply to the Church - those Baptized into her continue to fight against Satan's "offspring". The Church Fathers have seen this verse as refering to either the Church or Mary, but NEVER Eve! Verse 16, of course, is to Eve and her descendants, who will undergo painful childbirth and be subject to men. Considering this has been a valid interpretation of the Church for a long time, this ceratinly is reasonable - and quite in line with Christ's use of the word "woman" throughout the Gospel of John ("woman" would be an unusual name to call His mother, unless it had some other spiritual meaning. Again, the Church, after years of contemplation, picked up on this).
Regards
"If Mary is the woman in 15, then who is the woman in 16? Are you saying that God switches from Mary to Eve in one verse?"
One of the most important things to understand about patristic teaching in the Orthodox Church is the concept of recapitulation.
A given Scripture doesn't necessarily refer to only one event. One sees this all through the OT prophets, where their words clearly refer to events of their own day or immediate future -- and yet the Church saw that these same statements had other meanings, referring to events far in the future.
As an example, look at the prophet Malachi. He says that Elijah will come, and in the Gospels, Christ makes it clear that this referred to St. John the Baptist. Yet, there is yet something more. In the Septuagint, the text is very specific. It says that "Elijah the Tishbite" will come as a forerunner to the arrival of Christ.
The Orthodox Church sees this as being *also* a very literal reference to the original Elijah, who did not die, returning at the end of time as one of the two witnesses in the book of Revelation.
The woman in that passage of Genesis refers simultaneously to Eve and to a future woman, in the opinion of the Church, in verse 15, for Christ is both the offspring of Eve and of the second Eve, Mary. Whereas in 16, it refers only to Eve, and secondarily in a broader sense to all of fallen womankind.