[jo kus]

Now if this decree comes from "the chair of Peter", as it does, and if any ruling from the chair is infalible, then how can it be wrong? It means that original sin infects mankind and Mary was preserved from it. That's the "infalible" teaching from the Church. It also means that the Orthodox are wrong in their teaching of original sin which they claim tradition support their view.

As I have said before, this is the Latin Catholic view of Tradition, their own tradition. As you point out, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is infallibly declared. But the Orthodox are not bound to this decision, since they are not part of the Latin Catholic Church. Thus, when you say they are wrong, that is like comparing apples and oranges. We have infallibly declared OUR Tradition. We don't answer for the Orthodox or their tradition or beliefs. It is clear that our Churches have taken different interpretative paths on some issues. That doesn't make either wrong when we say Mary was conceived sinless, and the Orthodox say she never sinned. As Kolo said, a Great Council would reconcile our positions and reaffirm our respective Traditions, which have gone in different directions in the last 1000 years.

Part of why we call Mary sinless has to do with very ancient writings - St. Justin, St. Ireneaus and Tertullian (c.150-220 AD) all wrote about Mary as the Second Eve. The Church also saw Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant, a pure vessel for carrying the Bread of Life, the New Law, and the High Priest, just as the original Ark carried the symbols of the reality of Jesus Christ. The idea that Mary was sinless is NOT a "new" concept in the Church.

Regards

[HarleyD]

As I have said before, this is the Latin Catholic view of Tradition, their own tradition. As you point out, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is infallibly declared. But the Orthodox are not bound to this decision, since they are not part of the Latin Catholic Church. Thus, when you say they are wrong, that is like comparing apples and oranges. We have infallibly declared OUR Tradition.

Wow, this gets stranger and stranger. Let me see if I understand this correctly; the Catholic Church declares something to be an infallible teaching of the RCC but this doesn't make it right for someone else???? Infalibility defined by the Church is:

Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.

It is well further to explain:

that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error;

that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly;

and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.

If God bestowed the gift of prophecy on Caiphas who condemned Christ (John 11:49-52; 18:14), surely He may bestow the lesser gift of infallibility even on unworthy human agents.

So, if I understand you and the definition correctly, the Church can make an "inerrent" decision but it is perfectly acceptable for someone else to make another "inerrent" decision. In other words, there could be multiple truths. Is that's what you're stating?