ok dokey. challenge my faith now. what is this all about? Maybe I need some mystery here. For me it seems enough that Mary the Mother of my Lord was prefigured in by the Arc. I can get that. I understand Christ's love of her, and even his obedience to her early reqeust at the wedding, which he accomodated as his first miracle. But, splitting the Virgin's hairs further (forgive me) seems SO much like the scene with the mob outside of Brian's apartment in the Monty Python film.

"Excuse me? If it's not too personal? Are you a virgin?" This after they've already venerated her as their messiah's mother. I guess that was the point in the film.

Anyway, I'll look forward to enlightenment.

I love these security prompts... (then22) as in: when I'll get enlightenment... then; and 22... as in catch 22. How many angels fit on the head of Zippy.

Anglicans. Not, Episcopalians, of course.

(another53) as in another post.

I suspect it must use the same algorythmic software as ipod shuffle. I am amused by little things.

Actually, the problem isn't with the honour paid Mary: anyone who might enter an Orthodox Church or hear one of our services (in a language he understands) would know how highly she is honoured - "more honourable than the Cherubim" as the hymn says.

The issue is with the Roman Catholic and Western Teaching of "original sin" which the Church does not teach. After the schism, westerners took the writings of St Augustine - some of which were not in keeping with the Church - and made those the center around which a whole lot of other errors arose: Anslem, Aquinas, Calvin... the entire concept of "original sin" which has no connection to historic Christianity has tainted the Western teachings. It is, really, the original sin of the West, if you'll pardon the humour.

From that schismatic idea comes the need that Mary be born "without original sin" and thus, since the wage of sin is death - once without "original sin" she's not going to die... so it gets very convoluted.

Something new everyday. I always thought the doctrine of "immaculate conception" always referred to only to the conjugal act. Which, I guess it does as well, as Mary kept herself apart, dedicated towards the Lord even prior to the annunciation. Not sure I even had the basis to consider the implications theologically of the virgin, other than it's a "mystery" God can pardon, cleanse, sactify whomever he so chooses in his mercy. It was a matter of some contemplation for me as she is prefigured in the arc. Very specific rules regarding who could touch it, etc. Very specific rules about purification for anywhere the prescence of the Lord might arrive.

Seems difficult to imagine that this is possible through merely human will, so it does take some mercy upon God's part to aid Mary in her perfect contemplation and "willfulness" to choose what is right. Does complete the specific circle with reagrds to Eve and childbirth, which sounds more like God, than a broad bruch stroke of salvation through chilbearing for every woman.

I understand original sin as the OC describes it except that I can't yet comprehend how "not one can be without sin" apart from the above exception. Thus my resort to my understanding calling upon God's mercy. It remains a mystery to me.

I sort of understand not carrying the "stain" of Adam's sin but participating in a "fallen creation" but I'm not sure what that means. If it is possible to be without sin by one's one willpower then it really only sinlessness that effects one's salvation. It would seem not. Although by definition sinlessness would be being so focused on the "target" of God that one never "goes astray". So, it is not possible to be sinless without God. Mary had to have God in "mind" to remain so focused.

Bikram yoga without any concept of God would not lead to sinlessness or salvation as it does not have God as it's focus.

So, we have Mary and Christ who have remained sinless. Any others? I'd be interested to know. Even in Christ's case, as fully human, he had to rely on the promise of his Father, and the power and grace of his Father in order to overcome temptations, sin, and death (well death for sure). Now, I wonder about the other two.

Are we so weak? Mercy.

very patiently composed with patients in mind:

science?? religion? maybe neither but... interesting and strange...
tracing the blood is a very literal concept

David, thank you so much for the first link. As a confused Anglican -- who seems more so every day -- that was just what I was looking for in regards to the Mary issue.

And thank you Huw for this blog. I probably don't mention often enough how much I enjoy visiting.

Ith! Thanks for stoping by!
Yours,

A Confused Orthodox.

The "immaculate conception" doesn't refer to the sex act. It refers to the idea that Mary, when her parents had sex, was concieved without the taint of Original Sin. The "sex act" thing may be refering to the Virgin birth - by which Jesus was born with the divine actions of the Holy Spirit and no sex act at all. Two different ideas, though.

Of course that second link not only teaches heresy (sin only passed through the male?) but ties the heresy of "original sin" to the historic teaching of the virgin birth.