Actually, the priest was a pretty good representative of your faith. It was on a Christian television station about 20 years ago, with a sort of panel discussion with a Lutheran, a Baptist, and a Catholic for clergy.
The Catholic pretty much cleaned up, from my perspective (I was a Protestant at the time.) He was calm, had tightly reasoned arguments, etc... He explained what a tradition was for the first time in a way that I could understand it. I was already drawn to the "catholic" world from a liturgical and sacramental standpoint, but had a long way to go in the theology department to accept some of the things I had been taught were wrong as a Protestant. It was a helpful moment for me, even though I would never end up a Catholic.
Anyway, he certainly did not portray the idea that Mary didn't die as the mainstream view, but simply said that there was no consensus within the Catholic church on the question when the then Pope asked Catholic clergy around the world to tell him what they understood the tradition to be. Thus the ambiguous wording of the declaration. As to whether it is allowable piety today, I don't know, but it certainly was allowable piety at some point.
And actually, the Immaculate Conception does have consequences for Orthodox beliefs about the Theotokos.
There are any number of implications, but the main one is that if the Theotokos was born without the effects of the ancestral sin, she would really not be like those of us who are, and wouldn't be an example for us to emulate in the same way that she is in the Orthodox view.
Christ lived a sinless life and we certainly imitate him in every way that we can, but of course he was God, so he had a bit of an advantage in following the command "be ye perfect"! Certainly he was tempted in all ways as we are, and his human nature was like ours in all ways except for sin -- his was a "pre-fall" human nature, unlike ours.
The Theotokos had a post-fall human nature. Her sinlessness was achieved with the same tools at her disposal that we have at ours. Even though she was morally guiltless in her life, she still needed a Savior just as we do -- because of her inheriting the effects of the ancestral sin. Without a Savior, death would hold her captive. She was born with corruption and death and the tendency to sin, just as we are. Her holy life was in no small part the result of the faithfulness of her parents and the piety of her extended family. All of human history led up to the birth and rearing of this one little girl who would be a vessel worthy of bearing the eternal God.
The Catholic view is certainly that she needed a Savior, and that the merits of Christ's sacrifice were applied to her "preveniently." But as to her life, she began it filled with "excess" Grace from the moment of her conception (thus her "extra" grace can be applied to others.)
Jesus being fully divine and fully human is a mystery and certainly one valuable for us to take in contemplation. Here's the portion of your post that struck me:
Christ lived a sinless life and we certainly imitate him in every way that we can, but of course he was God, so he had a bit of an advantage in following the command "be ye perfect"! Certainly he was tempted in all ways as we are, and his human nature was like ours in all ways except for sin -- his was a "pre-fall" human nature, unlike ours.On first reading the initial portion seemed in contradiction to what followed.
When I contemplate the sorrowful mysteries, for example, it is me in the place of Christ being tortured and shamed.. sharing this in human nature in compassion with Jesus. If He had "a bit of an advantage" here, then..?
But I don't think this is what you refered to in "be ye perfect" though I think it can't be separated?
Secondly, I'm not familiar with the difference in Jesus's human nature and ours vis a vis "pre/post-fall."
As far as our human nature, don't we both start at the same place, if we are baptised? Doesn't this place us both at pre-fall?
Mostly, this, to me is a key focus of contemplation of the mystery of the Incarnation and I benefit from others discussion of it. If you have time for further comment, thank you..
Having given this more thought, I agree now that this is a theological difference that goes much deeper than just the timing of The Blessed Virgin's state of sinlessness. The Catholic mariology views Mary primarily are a second Eve, and secondarily as a saint among saints. Since Eve was made by God without sin, so must Mary; that completes the symmetry. It also places Mary's intercession on a different and more cosmic plane than the intercession of saints: she intercedes to Christ as Eve interceded to Adam and becomes uniquely the co-redeemer just as Eve was uniquely the co-sinner.
It is also Catholic teaching that Mary did not suffer the ordinary pain of childbirth, although I am not sure if it is dogmatic. Both are ancient beliefs East and West, even though the Immaculate conception was infallibly proclaimed very late.
So, what are we Catholics to make of the call to imitate her: "blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it" in Luke 11? I think it is on the same plain as the exhortation to become perfect in Matthew 5:48. Surely our Father in heaven had a different set of tools. So did Mary. It is not like there is a shortage of men and women equipped similarly as we are in the Communion of saints, priesthood and consecrated life, who become beacons of perfection for us.