Ask a Traditional Catholic

[Metis]

I just showed you in the post above. When a glass is "full" of water, it contains no air. Mary was full of grace; she had no sin in her.

But not protected from sin from the moment of their conception. You will not find any Church document claiming otherwise for these saints.

You are in a state of grace after you attend confession yes? One can be in grace yet also previously have been in sin.

Incorrect. (And I missed nothing, btw.)

Mary was NOT conceived without sin in order to protect Jesus from inheriting Adam's sin. If that were the goal, God could have simply ensured that Jesus was conceived immaculately and left Mary's conception to the normal course of such things. But that wasn't the purpose.

Mary was conceived without sin because it was fitting that Jesus be carried in the womb of an Immaculate Mother. She was the new Ark of the Covenant which was untouched by human hands.

An Ark that came out of a womb tainted by sin. St Anne wasn't Immaculately concieved was she? I'm afraid that's being touched.

Not to mention the cohabitation, considering marriage is based upon the willingness and capability to engage in coitus, which you claim she didn't.

Nope. No infinite regression is required. God is bigger than that.

But not so big as to require an immaculate conception. Why stop at Mary? Why not make it even more fancy?

Nope. Just Greek to English.

Aramaic to Greek to English these days, historically when these dogmas were being devised it was more like Aramaic > Greek > Latin > French > English.

That's their opinion, but what do you expect from churches that do not have the advantage of being led by the Holy Spirit through an infallible Patriarch?

The Anglicans don't care much for infalliability, they think it presumptuous for any mortal to claim to be infallible as well as proven wrong several times throughout history (as I actually demonstrated with my case about historical Catholic anti-semitism in another thread).

The Orthodox however do claim infallible teachings, however they claim infallibility comes into effect when the Church as a whole comes together. When the Bishops and the Church as a whole speaks with one voice one knows it is infallible, and this is how they too claim infallibility but they don't have so many awkward situations with it. While the Holy Office was declaring belief in Uranus (then the "Gregorian Star" to be a heresy there was usually at least one Orthodox Bishop with enough sense to know that was beyond his scope to comment upon.

Rubbish. All you managed to do was to repeat the errors of the Protestants and Orthodox with whom you have studied. Big whoop.

Pointing out the holes in your post more like, which you haven't patched up.

Were Adam and Eve fully human? How was that possible given that their own "births" were so "inhuman"?

Considering Adam and Eve according to your own infallible teaching were designed to be immortal, feel no pain in childbirth and had no capacity to recognise between good and evil as represented in the tree of knowledge than no, how could they have been? At best they were robots, albeit knowingly flawed ones apparently again also according to your teachings.

And Jesus' had two natures, not one. Or did you not learn that during the course of your studies. Therefore, He had a fully human nature just as you and I have.

Of course I know what Arianism is, but I am pointing out the paradox that to be human one must be able to experience the full emotional range to be human and yet if the teachings of immaculate conception are to be believed neither Mary or Jesus could have.

Let's take lust for example. It's a biological hardwired reaction that when ones eyes fall onto a member of your preferred sex one feels lust. One can turn away and resist, one can sit drooling over them. That doesn't matter, lust itself is a very human emotion...But it is also a sin.

For Mary to be sinless she couldn't ever experience lust, but if she couldn't experience lust she can't understand the human condition and thus cannot be fully human. She may have theoretical second hand knowledge of lust but no experiential capacity at all.

I'm not drawing from Orthodoxy or Anglicanism for this one, just basic rationalism.