Replies

Now what you say is true, the Orthodox Church- which schismed from the Papacy a millennia after the Resurrection… does not hold the IC as a belief. This is true. Not the end of the world- but I think your saying you support their (the Orthodox) position on this as true as well.

So it follows then, if you hold their position on the IC to be true in this case, then you ALSO have to believe that they are correct in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sinlessness in life as they hold that as true.

The point is very simple and has nothing to do with agreeing with the Orthodox church. If the IC was the position of the Roman Catholic church from the start then it follows that it would be the position of the Orthodox Church as well. The fact that it rejects the IC proves that it was never an agreed upon idea in the Roman Catholic church (before Pius IX one day declared it to be true).

Exactly my points, lasereye. If the “Immaculate Conception” was truly there as doctrine at the beginning, it would have been well-established in the Orthodox Church for almost 1,000 years before the split. But instead, it’s been a source of great division between Catholics and Orthodox and within the RCC itself.

Murphs, you’re the one who should be careful, and fear. It amazes me how many Catholics who passionately defend their church’s doctrine don’t seem to have any fear of doing wrong while doing so, despite the fact that they say they believe in “faith plus works.”

Meanwhile, I’m trying to carefully consider and weigh every word because as God’s Word says, those who teach will be judged more harshly, and Jesus Himself says we will have to give an account for every word we say. There’s nothing wrong with defending Christian beliefs, except when truth is sacrificed in the process to protect the church at all costs.

You made some false accusations against me, Murphs, and I’d beware, too, of using foul language as you have (that “c” word) as Christians aren’t supposed to use it.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/foul_language

So let’s turn this conversation to our Savior. Here’s a question for you: is Jesus wonderful to you? If so, why? What has He done for you?

“And they overcame him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” Revelation 12:11

Soory for my delay on your reply...
I see 2 errors in your response. One concerns the structure of it - the other is just plain incorrect.
Just because the formulation of an idea as doctrine takes years to develop, does not mean the idea does not exist in earlier or original form.
A simple Google search easily challenges your assertion on what some, yes-not all - of the Church Fathers believed:

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me {ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1 {A.D. 244).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns 27:8 {A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin 71:216 {ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22, 30 {A.D. 388).

Not that this will suffice as proof you demand, but it does in fact show this idea of an IC - along with OT Ark of the Covenant typology of Mary- was in the minds even before the Bible was set to a Canon.
If your standard for acceptance than is UNANIMOUS consent of the Faith- I would say very little can be accepted of the Christian faith considering the now multitude of Gospels.
If your standard is a deadline set in time- than the question always remains who sets that deadline when Christian doctrine can no longer develop. In the case of the IC, I would assume what modern science has discovered about cellular DNA, fertility- even insemination- could not be considered in understanding this miraculous occurrence of the flesh. We are always to be relegated then to only believing in some sort of miracle...but certainly not any other ideal or dimension of that miracle.. as our egos now know the mind of God and his intentions, as captured on the pages on ancient text.

To your point about a singular focus regarding a singular topic - say the IC - if I were an Orthodox- I can somewhat agree with you and hold to that questionable position as that - as it pertains to MY Orthodox faith perspective.

However, if my perspective is one of the many Protestant ideals floating around, outside of the Orthodox doctrine- (which is what I was addressing)...well no way in Hades can they singularly cherry pick for acceptance of an Orthodox position-to support there Protestant claim- while holding other Orthodox doctrine- even that which is aligned with the Catholic- as false and rejectable.
That's more commonly known as a Double-Standard which I will always try to point out.

Reject as you wish, but just realize just how it is you are rejecting it.