There's nothing here supporting the Immaculate conception dogma. Of course we believe Mary was a virgin and was a saint and that's what the Church fathers reiterate. Immaculate conception refers to her being conceived outside of sin but only Christ is free from the sin of Adam by virtue of His miracle conception. The sin of Adam is part of human nature and Mary was human. Christ cannot be subject to the effects of the original sin because He shares both human and divine nature and His divine nature precludes the possibility of any sin.
The older feast of the Conception of Mary (Conception of St. Anne), which originated in the monasteries of Palestine at least as early as the seventh century, and the modern feast of the Immaculate Conception are not identical in their object.
Originally the Church celebrated only the Feast of the Conception of Mary, as she kept the Feast of St. John's conception, not discussing the sinlessness. This feast in the course of centuries became the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, as dogmatical argumentation brought about precise and correct ideas, and as the thesis of the theological schools regarding the preservation of Mary from all stain of original sin gained strength.
It became the feast of the Immaculate conception but was not the same feast initially. Can you read, fren?
Lol research early Church History. The Easterns were always putting the Emperor before the Pope. Easterns considered the Emperor head of the Church, not the Pope.
Research what symphonia is. The head of the Church was always Christ and both Orthodox and Catholics agree.
Easterns put ethnos before Church, which is why all Eastern "Orthodox" Churches are ethno-centric.
Why, because the liturgy is held in different languages? The Orthodox Church acknowledges the differences of different people and affirms that what matters is the profession of the true faith in accordance to Church tradition, dogma and sacraments. It's not a centralized structure but is synodal and every patriarch has equal authority over their diocese. This is how the Early Church was structured and not after the supreme authority of Rome which is a later development in the west.
You have no Emperor now. You have no unity. You have no universalism. You have constant schism. The only debatable 2 of the 4 marks of the Church you have are Holy and Apostolic. There is no "One" or "Catholic/universal" marks in your church.
Enjoy your universalist ecumenism - sharing the same God as muslims and hindus. This is what Vatican II says. This is what your pope says. Isn't it bizarre you have popes who embrace Islam straight up contradicting the Catholic Church tradition which used to call crusades against those guys? Even a century back you have a pope who condemned Islam as a satanic heresy and now you have popes praying in mosques, kissing the Quran and teaching Islam is as valid as Christianity.
Again, the problems you have with heretical popes collapse the whole system because according to your dogma the Roman pontiff cannot be a heretic and apostatize. This is not the case in Orthodoxy as I pointed out with Athanasius so even if both Kirill and Bartholomew are heretics that doesn't render Orthodoxy false. You can't reconcile that and if you think you can I'd love to see you go on Jay Dyer's debate streams on jewtube and try.
There's nothing here supporting the Immaculate conception dogma. Of course we believe Mary was a virgin and was a saint and that's what the Church fathers reiterate. Immaculate conception refers to her being conceived outside of sin but only Christ is free from the sin of Adam by virtue of His miracle conception. The sin of Adam is part of human nature and Mary was human. Christ cannot be subject to the effects of the original sin because He shares both human and divine nature and His divine nature precludes the possibility of any sin.
Originally the Church celebrated only the Feast of the Conception of Mary, as she kept the Feast of St. John's conception, not discussing the sinlessness. This feast in the course of centuries became the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, as dogmatical argumentation brought about precise and correct ideas, and as the thesis of the theological schools regarding the preservation of Mary from all stain of original sin gained strength.
It became the feast of the Immaculate conception but was not the same feast initially. Can you read, fren?
Research what symphonia is. The head of the Church was always Christ and both Orthodox and Catholics agree.
Why, because the liturgy is held in different languages? The Orthodox Church acknowledges the differences of different people and affirms that what matters is the profession of the true faith in accordance to Church tradition, dogma and sacraments. It's not a centralized structure but is synodal and every patriarch has equal authority over their diocese. This is how the Early Church was structured and not after the supreme authority of Rome which is a later development in the west.
Enjoy your universalist ecumenism - sharing the same God as muslims and hindus. This is what Vatican II says. This is what your pope says. Isn't it bizarre you have popes who embrace Islam straight up contradicting the Catholic Church tradition which used to call crusades against those guys? Even a century back you have a pope who condemned Islam as a satanic heresy and now you have popes praying in mosques, kissing the Quran and teaching Islam is as valid as Christianity.
Again, the problems you have with heretical popes collapse the whole system because according to your dogma the Roman pontiff cannot be a heretic and apostatize. This is not the case in Orthodoxy as I pointed out with Athanasius so even if both Kirill and Bartholomew are heretics that doesn't render Orthodoxy false. You can't reconcile that and if you think you can I'd love to see you go on Jay Dyer's debate streams on jewtube and try.