– if the immaculate conception really was a key doctrine, it would be taught in the Bible. It isn’t.
– If Mary herself has to be free from sin in order to bear Jesus, then I can’t see how she escapes that unless her mum, in turn, is free from sin – that then requires a whole lineage back to Sarah herself.
– if Mary is free from sin before the birth of the Saviour, what do we need the Saviour for?

I tend to feel that if objections to the Western doctrine are good enough for St Thomas, they’re good enough for me.

Hello Doug,

I’m not so sure that you can appeal to the Eastern Orthodox on this issue. At least, not from what I understand.

According to:

Casimir A. Kucharek’s The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (Allendale, NJ: Alleluia Press, 1971), pp. 354-7.

… from end to end of the Byzantine world, both Catholic and Orthodox greet the Mother of God as achrantos, “the immaculate, spotless one”, no less than eight times in the Divine Liturgy alone. But especially on the feast of her conception (December 9 in the Byzantine Church) is her immaculateness stressed: “This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary …” (From the Office of Matins, the Third Ode of the Canon for the feast); “She is conceived … the only immaculate one” (From the Office of Matins, the Stanzas during the Seating, for the same feast); or “Having conceived the most pure dove, Anne filled …” (From the Office of Matins, the Sixth Ode of the Canon for the same feast).

No sin, no fault, not even the slightest, ever marred the perfect sanctity of this masterpiece of God’s creation. For hundreds of years, the Byzantine Church has believed this, prayed and honored Mary in this way. Centuries of sacred tradition stand behind this title. Even during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when some Western theologians doubted or denied the truth of her immaculate conception, Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox theologians unanimously taught it. Two of Thomas Aquinas’ most ardent disciples among the Greeks disagreed with him on one point only, his failure to admit the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. Demetrios Kydonios (fourteenth century) translated some of Aquinas’ works into Greek, but vehemently opposed Thomas’ views on the immaculate conception.

The Greek Orthodox Church’s belief in the immaculate conception continued unanimously until the fifteenth century, then many Greek theologians began to adopt the idea that Mary had been made immaculate at the moment of the Annunciation.* Among the Eastern Slavs, belief in the immaculate conception went undisturbed until the seventeenth century, when the Skrizhal (Book of Laws) appeared in Russia, and proposed what the Slavs considered the “novel” doctrine of the Greeks. The views proposed in the Skrizhal were branded as blasphemous, especially among the Staroviery (Old Believers), who maintained the ancient customs and beliefs, however small or inconsequential. This reaction confirms the ancient Byzantine and Slav tradition of the immaculate conception. Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians.** The Orthodox Church, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. Its official position is rather a suspension of judgment than a true objection. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII’s letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.

* “Nicephorus Callixtus, however, expressed doubt during the fourteenth century [...], but the great Cabasilas’ (1371) teaching on the immaculate conception [...] still has great influence in the subsequent centuries. Perhaps even more influential was Patriarch [sic] Gregory Palamas (1446-1452), whose homilies on the Mother of God are second to none even today [...].

** “Most of them seem to have objected on the grounds that it was unnecessary to define it.”

Peace,
John

I do not believe in the Trinity because if Bible translations would use the word God both for the Father and for the Son they would become totally incomprehensible. In the Bible the Father and the Son are two distinct personalities. Their relationship is characterized by hierarchy: the Father commands and demands to be obeyed, the Son does what the Father tells him to do. He never expects his Father to obey Him.
Neither is there any passage in the Bible where the Father addresses his Son as his God.
Besides: all professional Bible scholars who can read the Bible books in their original languages agree that in the original texts (as they were written by the Bible writers) God has a name. Just as his Son has a name: Jesus Christ. God’s name is JHWH: in modern translations rendered as Jahweh or Jehovah.

To sum it all up: it is my personal view that the doctrine of the Trinity is not supported by anything that we can read in the Bible. Nor have I ever read an article or a book written by a theologian who wanted to defend this doctrine that I found convincing. Not to say that in most cases I really could not understand their way of reasoning and their way of writing.
But on the other hand I do not dare to go so far as to say that the major Christian Churches teach false unchristian doctrines.
The reason why I do not dare to go so far is that I cannot think of any reason why Christian Churches would tell their followers lies. On the other hand: I have never been able to think of any reason why they teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Like I said: there are no Biblical grounds to base this doctrine on. Neither are there any logical or philosophical or religious arguments to support it.
To me it is a sort of mystery. And a mystery that I experience as highly unpleasant.