MennoNet.com

This is a thread for Catholic and Eastern Orthodox to explain their doctrines of the immaculate conception.

Note: debate can pleae go in a different threat, but discussion here asking to clarify aspects of the doctrines are okay here.

Hi!

I see no response was ever issued here. I can give a simple answer.

The Orthodox Church does not hold to the teaching of an immaculate conception of the Theotokos by her mother Anna.

Coifi wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2026 8:02 pm Hi!

I see no response was ever issued here. I can give a simple answer.

The Orthodox Church does not hold to the teaching of an immaculate conception of the Theotokos by her mother Anna.

Interesting - I did not know that. Could you elaborate on some of the reasons Orthodox don't feel this is necessary whilst Catholics do?

This is a uniquely Roman Catholic doctrine. It is an attempt to solve the same problem Menno tried to solve with "Celestial Flesh."

It is better not to solve the "problem" but to accept the mystery.

Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2026 8:18 pm This is a uniquely Roman Catholic doctrine. It is an attempt to solve the same problem Menno tried to solve with "Celestial Flesh."

It is better not to solve the "problem" but to accept the mystery.

Thanks for your response, but I was hoping to hear Catholic & Orthodox perspectives.

JohnH wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2026 8:17 pm

Coifi wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2026 8:02 pm Hi!

I see no response was ever issued here. I can give a simple answer.

The Orthodox Church does not hold to the teaching of an immaculate conception of the Theotokos by her mother Anna.

Interesting - I did not know that. Could you elaborate on some of the reasons Orthodox don't feel this is necessary whilst Catholics do?

I haven't studied this in much depth. What I have been told is similar to what Judas Maccabeus said about "Celestial Flesh" (I think). It has something to do with the RC understanding of sin, particularly how Adam's sin affects the human race and whether or not Christ would necessarily inherit Adam's guilt (or some other such ontology). The Immaculate Conceptions is, in some sense, a logical entailment of this perspective of sin. Forgive me for all the heavy qualifications.

For the Orthodox, human nature does not possess a "guilted nature" but a disordered nature. By way of analogy, a gummed up mirror still has a mirror nature (like 1 Cor 13:12).

So, as we see in the Gospels, when the God-man encounters the disordered (unclean/sick/dead), He does not become disordered. Rather, that which was disordered is put back in order. The same would be true of His humanity when He assumed it. It always was and will be properly ordered.

Welcome back Coifi! (Coifi and I used to interact together a bit at Penn State.)

I recently learned that Orthodox don't have the same view of original sin as what Catholics and many Protestants do.

I would like to see what similarities or differences there are in what Orthodox believe as compared with what the majority of traditional Anabaptists believe about original sin. I'm starting a new thread to have that conversation. https://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=9089

I refrained from commenting because I did not think the juice was worth the squeeze.

Orthodoxy absolutely does not believe in the Immaculate Conception. Neither do they reject it per se. They just have no need of it for they differ from the RCC in terms of their understanding of original sin They do agree Mary was free of sin but by her life choice, whereas Catholics believe original sin taints everyone, hence the need for God to 8ntervene and have her conceived without sin.

Nonetheless Orthodoxy places Mary in the same high esteem hence the title Theotokos

Many Orthodox use the term Ancestral Sin for what some call Original Sin but it has different meanings

JayP wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2026 5:21 pm ....
... Catholics believe original sin taints everyone, hence the need for God to 8ntervene [intervene] and have her conceived without sin.

Nonetheless Orthodoxy places Mary in the same high esteem hence the title Theotokos

Many Orthodox use the term Ancestral Sin for what some call Original Sin but it has different meanings

I agree that these terms have distinctive meanings, which causes confusion for the reader who is not aware of this. [I did not know that the Orthodox use the term Ancestral Sin in that manner.]

I also appreciate the clarification in regards to the RC explanation of how Mary managed to be born without sin. I have often wondered how they could believe that it could have happened for Mary, without it also being necessary for her parents, on and on back through time.

As for Jesus and a 'Sin Nature' (and yes, I realize that you didn't mention that), I do not see any place in the Scriptures that says that He did not have that. I just believe that IF He did, he, unlike all of us, ALWAYS resisted it. [I do tend to think that the Scripture implies this, as it is written that he was tempted in every way in which we are tempted. And I confess and acknowledge that a good bit of the temptations I face are out of myself, not through the direct approach of the Satan.]

I am always confused why folks get worked up over a relatively minor issue in other denominations. Rather than use anything related to Mary, let’s look at John the Baptist

Some Catholic theologians argue John was born without sin. Not conceived without sin, but born.
They use the Bible passage how the baby in the womb kept with joy, recognizing his Savior when Mary and Elizabeth met.

Now, I am neither endorsing or rejecting that view, but does it matter to your life or mine which is true? Is our battle against sin any different?