Is the Immaculate Conception True (Catholic/Orthodox Debate) w/ William Albrecht & Fr. Ramsey 

O Mary Conceived without Original Sin....Pray for Us Sinners who have recourse to thee. AMEN. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

We need more debates with Catholics and orthodox because theses churchs are the ones that truly matter. We waste so much time debating Protestants.

'I am the immaculate conception'

Incredible session. I enjoy and learn from videos like this. God bless everyone who participated and listened to this debate.

Learned so much during this debate. William is so knowledgeable. You can sense his hunger for truth 🙏

Great debate. Thank you William @ Fr. Ramsey

I have a lot of reading to do on Mary and who she is in full. Thank you Matt, and of course both the speakers, I now have a lot more thoughts on the matter to mull over.

We have huge numbers of scholars in our Catholic Church .Holy Marry ,mother of God ,pray for us .Amen

This isn't a debate about the ever virginity of our Most Pure Mother, this is a debate about Original Sin.

Great Debate

Excellent very nice theological discussion I wish more of these super discussion thank you all and God bless you all

I'm Orthodox but come from a Roman Catholic family. I will say that I'm not sure this is even one of those issues East and West need to debate much. It just seems like one of those things a lot of younger Orthodox converts nitpick over in their hatred of Latins, truth be told. Having been in both traditions, that seems to be more often the case.

Struggling wif life right now dunno wit religion I am my parents never telt me I kno I believe in God & your channel helps me thankyou ❤️

Fantastic debate by William. He answered every question and the real stumper was his preparation with the dormition homilies which show mary did not die for original sin. This will go down as the standard for Immaculate Conception debtaes. BRave William, Holy Mary is proud.

I’m impressed with how long Father Ramsey can go without blinking 😂

Great debate! Brother William I thank you with all my heart for your prayers for our baby girl and appreciate the prayers of all my brothers and sisters in Christ. God bless you and peace be with you all. We are praying the Lord Jesus has mercy on our baby girl in our pregnancy and she is delivered healed and healthy.

The most interesting point in this whole dialogue is when William and Fr. Ramsey both claim to be representing the Apostolic position and when I was Protestant investigating both churches I rejected the Orthodox church for that reason right there. Here we have a disagreement and only William could "take it to the church"....Fr. Ramsey doesn't have a Church that can definitively decide this matter or any matter because they have no head and haven't since they left communion with Rome (which means they can't bind and loose infallibly universally). Jesus said we could "take it to the church" and that the church he presupposed would be able to bind and loose on matters such as these. So far there is only one church that not only has a mechanism to make universal decisions (that are infallible) but also it is the only church to have ever done so.

The Virgin Mary did not die because of Original Sin. She died because of total perfect love of God, the love that was consuming Her. The reason She did not die earlier was because God preserve Her from death, but at the end of Her life on earth, God withdrew that preserving power & Her soul flew to God to be united more closely with Him.

Thank you Matt!!!! Great debate! Would love to see Fr Cristiaan Kappes one day present his work on the Immaculate Conception in your Channel. He is a great scholar and professor in St Cyril and Methodius seminary.

49:00 So it's certainly an interesting point and perhaps I'm speaking too soon given I haven't heard the exact quotes yet, but even if we allow for Elijah and Enoch being proof of exceptions being made, I'm failing to see how this is relevant. If an exception had been made for Mary I could see that being used to suggest it was because she was unaffected by the consequences of original sin inherent in the postlapsarian world she was part of even though she had not committed sin herself, by God's grace, but she wasn't excepted. So... yeah. Just making a note. Ignore this if you know it's about to be explained when I continue the video.

When as a result of other Greek influences, attacks were launched in Moscow against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, a protest was made by the Old Believers - a sect separated from the official Church by reason of its faithfulness to certain ancient rites. Again in 1841, the Old Believers said in an official declaration that “Mary has had no share in original sin”. (13) To all those who know how deeply the Old Believers are attached to the most ancient beliefs and traditions, their testimony has a very special significance.

William i was really impressed how knowledgeable you are and at the same time how patient and loving you were towards Father wow!!

Thankyou for this wonderful discussion. I think what Father Patrick is saying that original sin causes death of the body....not of her soul and spirit. Mary, being full of grace kept her spirit ( not her flesh) free from the dominion of sin. This doesn't mean that her flesh didn't die. It did. But her spirit and soul were full of grace and the Holy Spirit.

Both of you are good .

George Scholarios (+1456), the last Patriarch of the Byzantine Empire, has also left us a homily on the Dormition and an explicit affirmation of the Immaculate Conception. He says that Mary was “all pure from the first moment of her existence” (gegne theion euthus). (6)

Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

There's also a good debate between William Albrecht vs Dr Tiny Costa regarding "Immaculate Conception". I heard Tony costa mentioned that Immaculate Conception can't be found in council of Nicea or in the Gospel.

1:41 I'm a bit confused. Father has mentioned a few times that Eve would not die and that physical death entered the world through sin. However, God had the tree of life to provide immortality, which He removed after the fall. So my understanding is that death was part of the program but that there was a pathway available to escape it and that being removed due to sin made death the wages of sin. Can anybody help? Edit: I guess it could still apply now I think on it.

Mary was already full of grace from the first moment of Her Conception. She was holier at Her Conception than the greatest Saints at their moment of death. If Mary had Original Sin, She would not have been a perfect Mother for Her Son, Jesus. But we know that She is perfect in all things, just as Her Son is perfect in all things. Hence, She is without Original Sin, because sin implies imperfection

A contemporary and opponent of Photius, the monk Theognostes, wrote in a homily for the feast of the Dormition, that Mary was conceived by “a sanctifying action”, ex arches - from the beginning. It seems to me that this ex arches exactly corresponds to the “in primo instanti” of Roman theology. (2)

Matt, lock these 2 guys in a room for about 12 hours and the issues constituting the schism will be resolved and church reunification will be achieved.😇

I'm early into this debate, so I'm not sure if this is mentioned, but I would think there could be a valid case of her preservation from original sin if we examine the form of her and Jesus being the new Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were without original sin, so it could follow the new Adam and Eve would be created without original sin. Any thoughts or does anyone know if any scholarship has been done on this idea? (probably, there's nothing new under the sun, but I'm not sure where to even start to look this up)

Awesome

Amazing information and William hit a homerun with this debate. He proved Mary was born and died without sin Original Sin as explained in the Book of Genesis and Luke was explicit in his writings.

What is sin ? It is question .if I love any body ,I do not care his faults ,I only love and love .similarly.Mary is love of God because she is full of love of God, sin is our creation ,our intelectual conception ,there is no sin in God sight .God is love and love .I love Marry (the mother of God .Most powerful testimony I experience in my life

Yet, in 1855, the Athenian professor, Christopher Damalas, was able to declare: “We have always held and always taught this doctrine. This point is too sacred to give rise to quarrels and it has no need of a deputation from Rome”.

I agree with the Catholic possition & They're is some Orthodox who agree with the immaculate Conception" my ex Greek Orthodox friend & his family who is now Catholic said at his ex Greek Orthodox church the priest believed in it" God bless 🙏🛐⛪💯 Catholic" Many Orthodox want to have they're cake & eat it to!🙏🛐🗝️🗝️ Jesus Mary and Joseph Pray for Us"

I want to see Karlo Broussard in a debate sometime🤔

St. Mark of Ephesos: "Nevertheless, let one remove every rational account with respect to that which concerns the Theotokos, who alone is the most supernatural marvel among supernaturals realized from eternity, who is also higher than all rational discourse; for in a true way God wished His own omnipotence to be manifested in this woman."

What’s a shame about Fr Ramsay’s cross-examination of William is that during a cross-examination one person is supposed to ask questions and his opponent is supposed to answer them. But when it was time for Fr Ramsey to cross examine William, William took over his time and just started responding to his previous comments. He didn’t actually allow Fr Ramsey to ask him hardly any questions, when it was his turn to cross-examine William. It was almost as if this time was more of a dialogue than a cross-examination.

Immaculata 🌹

16:23. Psalm 132 is referencing back to the actual OT Ark from 2 Samuel 6 when it was carried back to Jerusalem. It is not a typology or prophecy about Mary being the New Ark.

It is my thinking that God does not know what is sin for what we are becoming tempered

Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").

Por favor, traducir!

First of all - the patriarch Photius. In his first homily on the Annunciation, he says that Mary was sanctified ek Brephous. This is not an easy term to translate; the primary meaning of Brephos is that of a child in the embryonic state. Ek means origin or starting point. The phrase seems to me to mean not that Mary was sanctified in the embryonic state, that is to say, during her existence in her mother’s womb, but that she was sanctified from the moment of her existence as an embryo, from the very first moment of her formation - therefore - from the moment of her conception. (1)

From the Orthodox Psalter to the Most Holy Theotokos and Evervirgin Mary: Come let us worship our Queen, the Theotokos. (Great prostration) +++ Come let us worship the Virgin Mary, our Queen, the Theotokos. (Great prostration) +++ Come let us worship and fall down before our Lady, the Virgin Mary, our Queen, the Theotokos. (Great prostration) +++

And if She did not die? Would that be contrary to the Will of The Holy Trinity?

St Euthymes, patriarch of Constantinople (+917), in the course of a homily on the conception of St Anne (that is to say, on Mary’s conception by Anne and Joachim) said that it was on this very day (touto semerou) that the Father fashioned a tabernacle (Mary) for his Son, and that this tabernacle was “fully sanctified” (kathagiazei). There again we find the idea of Mary’s sanctification in primo instanti conceptionis

Impressive mental gymnastics.

when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).

The serpent waited for the child to be born to devour it. Why? Why didn't he just devour the pregnant woman? He couldn't touch her. She, like her son, is not within his dominion. Fr. is overlooking Mary's nature as complete humility. She would have ASKED for a death that was not above that of Our Lord, or any other human. Fr. said that original sin is not a nature but a state that we inherit. Then how did the 100% human Jesus not inherit it? If it is a state that all humans are born into, He would have shared it with us. And yet He admitted to John the Baptist that He didn't need baptism. So, the human He was born to could not have been in the state of original sin. "Man cannot be united to God in the state of being bound to death." Mary was as "united" as it gets with both the Holy Spirit and Jesus long before baptism would have been possible. So besides being full of the grace that would not be possible before baptism, she was united to God in a way that Fr. said could not happen to a fallen human. How does he reconcile Eve being more pure than Mary?

Can you host a debate for me on the Virgin birth? I have a guy in mind who is a Black Israelte. thx!

St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence.

William seemed frustrated during the opening statement of F Ramsey.. but it is a domino effect.

The Emperor Manuel II Paleologus (+1425) also pronounced a homily on the Dormition. In it, he affirms in precise terms Mary’s sanctification in primo instanti. He says that Mary was full of grace “from the moment of her conception” and that as soon as she began to exist … there was no time when Jesus was not united to her”. We must note that Manuel was no mere amateur in theology. He had written at great length on the procession of the Holy Spirit and had taken part in doctrinal debates during his journeys in the West. One can, therefore, consider him as a qualified representative of the Byzantine theology of his time.

Father Ramsay knows his stuff for sure but William seems almost unbeatable in a Mariology debate. At first I would’ve thought that the immaculate conception not being true would’ve been easier to defend even though I’m Catholic but there’s actually a lot of logic behind it in my opinion just based on what we know about Jesus and the little bit of scripture that Mana Mary is in.

¡Viva Cristo Rey!

i don't understand why fr. ramsey does not want to accept the immaculate conception, it seems that he believes it but he does not want to say those specific words. I mean he could remain orthodox although he accepts it.

I understand what the Holy Fathers are saying. How it is interpreted by the multiple different Orthodox confessions could be off; at the same time in the Catholic Roman Church they do not focus on her actually dying but the Ascent of her being taken body and soul into heaven. I wonder if the traditions of the various Eastern Orthodox churches could be missing the mark? Missing all the details. The Roman Church mentions when her earthly life was over. Fallen human beings trying to understand this concept is hard. We are not the Holy Virgin. We are fallen; we need the teaching authority of the Church to give us the correct and full tradition. The living tradition.

Father Ramsey and Orthodoxy is making a distinction without a difference. They say Mary is pure, sinless, full of grace etc..... but then say immaculate conception is false. Crazy!

Joseph Bryennios: ‘Yet on one hand, how did another Mother of God not come about?’ But, on the other hand: ‘Had she some sort of virtue/excellence, because of which she was honored above all women?’ First, another woman was not chosen over her, because while God foreknew all women, he sanctified the future woman from her mother’s womb, purer than other women, who were going to come to exist; but he eschewed all unworthy persons with respect to her, as is reasonable. But she procured for herself the excellence superior to all men and [procured for herself] to be prepared as a containing receptacle of the divinity, which was prepurified [to prokatharthenai] by the Holy Spirit; O what a marvel, indeed! (p. 91)

A little late to this. I agree with Fr. Ramsey's position but I have to admit William won the debate. I think this comes down to William being more prepared and also Fr. Ramsey allowing William to overly pontificate during cross examination. With Fr. Ramsey's questioning you could see him laying traps but for some reason he would never close them or abandon them to pursue other lives of questioning which ultimately bore no fruit. I also think Fr. Ramsey's unwillingness or his inability to clash just essentially allowed William to state his position. Fr. Ramsey had the better opening statement IMO, but after that it felt like William was givening a lecture.

While I don’t entirely agree with this Orthodox priest, I do really like him. One issue that the west needs to come to grips with is much of Augustine’s view of original sin stems from a really bad translation of the Old Testament, particularly Genesis. This point has been made in multiple write ups, with many Roman Catholic writers and thinkers acknowledging this. Not to negate the importance of Augustine, it is unique that he was the only major early church theologian who was not schooled in Greek (hence his relying on this translation of Genesis). With all of that said, the Orthodox, in my experience, consistently either misunderstand or misrepresent Catholic teaching on original sin, regularly stating that the Roman church believes that we all inherit “the guilt of Adam”, in that we are guilty of his very sin. My issue with this commonality from the Orthodox is that official Catholic teaching is that we inherit a fallen nature, a point which the Orthodox do agree with. In many Orthodox prayers, it is presented in the first person, describing the reader as being guilty of eating from the forbidden fruit in Eden. My real view is that there isn’t really any issue with this subject of original sin, but that it is more recently Orthodox thinkers who needlessly take it to task, simply so as to define themselves in contradistinction to western Catholic theology, seemingly to justify the asininity of the schism still existing today.

The Academy of Kiev, with Peter Moghila, Stephen Gavorsky and many others, taught the Immaculate Conception in terms of Latin theology. A confraternity of the Immaculate Conception was established at Polotsk in 1651. The Orthodox members of the confraternity promised to honour the Immaculate Conception of Mary all the days of their life. The Council of Moscow of 1666 [which included the patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria] approved Simeon Polotsky’s book called The Rod of Direction, in which he said: ‘Mary was exempt from original sin from the moment of her conception.’

Ok, so here is my take. These two have debated on whether or not Mary was immaculately conceived and the role original sin plays. As someone who is a protestant and is starting to go toward the more ancient churches (EO and Catholic). Here is where I'm getting confused. If Mary was immaculately conceived and had no sin and didn't sin in her life, wouldn't that make her less human like you and I? On top of that, isn't there a verse in the old testament that says no man shall inherit the sins of his father? I hope this doesn't come off as aggressive in any way, I'm genuinely looking for answers. God Bless y'all 🙂

William great, great Job brother wow

1:02:15. Purification in Luke 2 is strictly for the mother according to the Old Testament. The Old Testament says nothing about purification of the male child that opens the womb. Unfortunately, the Greek copies of the New Testament from Luke translated “their” which is plural in the Greek are not based on the original autographs. These are later Greek copies, and the early Catholic scribes were not as meticulous in the copying efforts as the Jews were with the Old Testament. This is why even Catholic commentaries on Luke 2 state that “her purification“ is the better translation and more faithful to its reference in the Old Testament. Plus, after Mary’s purification, she had to sacrifice two turtle doves and two pigeons as burnt offerings and sin offerings. And the purpose of these sin and burnt offerings using these specific animals in the Old Testament was to atone for the mother’s sins. Mary would not need to do this if she was immaculately conceived, but she did because she was conceived in sin, just as Psalm 51:5 states we all are.

I feel like the immaculate conception is a needless extra. Mary didn't need to be sinless to carry Jesus, nor to be taken body and soul into heaven, nor to minister before the Lord. I don't accept it, but I don't make a big deal out of it. I accept the rest of the Mary dogmas.

I find the argument that if Mary were w/o original sin, then she wouldn’t die, to be somewhat speculative. A woman without the ancestral curse who still spends her whole life on the cursed earth with cursed people 24/7, who is deprived of eating of the Tree of Life or the Garden, I mean, she might suffer some effects. Besides, the very term “Dormition” implies there’s something about her “death” we’re reluctant to call a death. I mean taken literally, we’re talking a coma or something. But how dead are you if your body doesn’t rot and you get assumed to Heaven? Is that maybe the prelapsarian dispensation? We don’t know. The whole argument seems too certain about too many imponderables.

she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140)

The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37

Did I just hear that there is a huge difference in theology where the Orthodox believe death enters the world through ancestral sin (original sin) and Roman Catholics do not?

For details of the Immaculate Conception of Mary & the holy death of Mary, read the great 4 volume books by Ven. Mary of Agreda: The Mystical City of God. Free pdf ebook versions are available on internet for download.

William, there is an insight which both yourself and Fr. Ramsey overlooked in this debate which thoroughly disproves the Orthodox position as Fr. Ramsey declared it, that OS is the first cause of death. According to Genesis 3, it was only after Adam and Eve were banished from Eden, and refused to eat of the Tree of Life, that death began to corrupt them. God declares his response to OS in Genesis 3:14-19, then God acts to accomplish these curses in Genesis 3:20-24, and says: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." -- As a creature in this space and time, banished from Eden, appointed to be sinless but suffer in this valley of tears, the BVM was banned from Eden and could not partake of the ToL, the same is true for Enoch and Elijah, who would have died had the Lord not taken them. Thusly, the BVM might be totally without Original Sin, yet die without the Tree of Life. The more perfect nature of her "death" or "dormition" is best understood in the context of union and sympathy with Her Son and Saviour, who also was incarnated in this world, and whose resurrected body was "born again" (John 3:3), as the Shroud of Turn evidences. To be "born again" speaks of this transition into the next life, not of any personal confession of faith or act of God upon the living man, as the Evangelicals misunderstand its meaning. He meant death occurs because we are not in Eden, do not partake of the ToL, and the restoration of all things will not make this unnecessary until the complete fulfillment of all prophecy, in the Parousia. Let us consider what it means to be "born", and "first-born" to Mary: from St. Alphonsus de Liguori, an historical context: "For whether she be the first-born inasmuch as she was predestined in the divine decrees, together with the Son, before all creatures, according to the Scotists, or the first-born of grace as the predestined Mother of the Redeemer, after the prevision of sin, according to the Thomists; nevertheless all agree in calling her the first-born of God" (Glories of Mary, II.I.) and St. Theophanius of Nice, who proclaimed, " Hail, thou who hast taken away Eve's sorrow!" (Nova Eva, Mater vitae). Adam, Eve, Christ - NONE were born as men are born, but MARY WAS. Thus, it was simultaneous with the natural act of her conception that she was preserved from the stain of OS, and not after, but rather by the instantaneous indwelling of the Holy Ghost, she was made to grow physically from her onset as "a fit habitation for Christ, but because of her original grace", and "sealed with the power of the Holy Spirit" (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus). One last consideration, the Lord Himself, not being BORN (BVM), and not being CREATED (Adam, Eve), would not ever have died had it not been His Will to Save Us at that hour, because it would not be necessary for Him to partake of the Tree of Life, which He created. The evil angels, either, they do not have to partake, the Fallen Ones - yet they live still, full of sin. It is Mary's presence in the banished world, a necessary need, that made it she did not live here forever, it was not due to any Original Sin whatsoever, and the nature of her passing transpired in a way that made her in perfect union with Christ Himself, both by the Mercy of God given to us.

Interesting that it was missed that Our Lady actively prayed to die like her son and that her prayer was answered. This tradition is found in various accounts such as the account of St John the Theologian. The fact she prayed to die can demonstrate even by the eastern orthodox idea presented that she did not need to die and did not die simply by normal or ordinary means, but her death was an answer to her prayer.

When the angel said hail full of grace do Protestants think it was just at that moment or just for 9 months or what? How can you have God in your womb and also have had any sin at any point in life?

What is true is that Marry (mother of God ) is sinless and virgin no doubt I have huge expeience I pray the rosary prayer .

The Most Holy Theotokos and Evervirgin Mary DID NOT DIE IN HOLY ORTHODOXY. SHE FELL ASLEEP. A DEATHLESS DEATH

It seems that the Church Fathers do not teach that Enoch and Elijah went bodily into Heaven. They rely on the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text of 4 Kings 2:11. Bretons Septuagint translation agrees with the Fathers and says "as if". Here are several Church Fathers on this passage. The only difference from the Masoretic text is in the words “as it were” (“яко”), but the meaning changes dramatically. Elijah was taken not into Heaven, but as if into Heaven-that is, he was raised up into the air. How did the holy fathers understand this spot in Scripture? St. John Chrysostom: “Elijah ascended as if into Heaven, because he was a slave, but Christ ascended into Heaven itself, because He was the Lord.”[4] St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “This one ‘as if into Heaven’ (4 Kg. 2:11), but Christ directly into Heaven.”[5] St. Photios: “And Elijah, as a slave, was taken to the aerial heights, but not into Heaven, but as it were into Heaven (4 Kg. 2:11). The Lord, as the Ruler of all, ascended not as it were into Heaven, but truly into Heaven did He ascend.”[6] Euthymius Zigabinos, quoting Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus, says, “He commands them (the angels) to open the everlasting gates, as they had never before been opened for human nature. For none among men has ever passed through them. Although the great Elijah ascended, it was not into Heaven-but as if into Heaven.”[7] St. Maximos the Greek: “And Elijah was taken not into Heaven, but as if into Heaven.”[8] Our hymnography also speaks about the prophet’s relative ascension: St. Andrew of Crete sings thus: “Elijah the charioteer once ascended by the chariot of the virtues as to Heaven and was carried above earthly things. Consider then, my soul, this ascent.”[9] St. Romanos the Melodist notes that although the prophet Elijah was lifted up, he was not blessed to enter into Paradise: “Elijah, sitting upon a fiery chariot, ascended, as if into Heaven, as is written, but not reaching Heaven.”[10] It follows from these quotes that the prophet Elijah was not taken into Heaven. So then where? And where is he now? The prophet was elevated into the air (“as it were into Heaven”), however this heaven is not one and the same as the spiritual Heaven-Paradise. St. Symeon the New Theologian contemplates this rather apophatically: “Elijah was taken in a fiery chariot, and before him Enoch, but not into Heaven, but to some other place-not of his own power, although he was translated.”[11] St. Gregory the Dialogist gives a more cataphatic image. He describes the place where the prophet Elijah abides thus: “Elijah was caught up into heaven, but the aerial one, which is distinct from the incorporeal one… so he was appointed to a secret region of the Earth, where he ought to dwell in bodily and spiritual peace hitherto, until, at the end of the world, he will again appear on the Earth to pay the debt of death.”[12] The Prophet Elijah ascended as it were into Heaven, but not of his own power, but on a fiery chariot, with angelic assistance, as St. Photios wrote.[13] Thus the prophet Elijah’s human nature and human infirmity were manifested in his ascension, as he was unable of himself to ascend into the heavens, but was borne up by angels. In ascending, Christ displayed His Divine nature and omnipotence. St. Gregory the Dialogist says, “Elijah ascended into the sky on a chariot as proof that he, as a man, could not do so without aid. This aid was rendered him by angels, when he ascended into the aerial heaven; for he could not of himself ascend there, because his natural weakness did not allow him to separate from the Earth. Meanwhile, as the Savior did not need a chariot, so He did not need the angels, for by His own Divine power the Creator ascended into Heaven, because He was returning to there from whence He descended. He entered there where He had habitation from the ages: for, although He ascended as man, as God He possessed both Heaven and Earth.”[14] Therefore, the Savior, the Son of Man, Himself ascended into Heaven, as He promised, but Elijah was raised into the air and placed in a secret region of the Earth. If Elijah was taken as it were into Heaven, then what is that Heaven to which the Savior ascended? As St. John of Damascus says, the Son of God “becomes Man, but does not leave Heaven and the bosom of the Father,”[15] and, having divinized human nature, “ascends to where He was before as God.”[16] The Son of God, the Second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, having assumed human nature, elevates it to the “bosom of the Father,” or, as the Gospel says, to the right hand of God (cf. Mk. 16:19), to where neither man nor angel can climb-to where only the Spirit searches out the depths of God. Conclusion We have touched upon God’s mysterious concealment of the two Old Testament righteous ones. The prophet Elijah and Enoch were translated to some secret earthly place, where they await the apocalypse. The prophets did not ascend into Heaven; there is no contradiction here with the words of Christ pronounced in His nighttime conversation with Nicodemus: No man hath ascended up to Heaven, but He that came down from Heaven, even the Son of man Which is in Heaven (Jn. 3:13).

Gerasimo. patriarch of Alexandria (+1636) taught at the same time. according to the Chronicle of the Greek, Hypsilantis, that the Theotokos “was not subject to the sin of our first father” (ouk npekeito to propatopiko hamarte mati); and a manual of dogmatic theology of the same century, written by Nicholas Coursoulas (+1652) declared that “the soul of the Holy Virgin was made exempt from the stain of original sin from the first moment of its creation by God and union with the body.”

William Albrecht is without doubt a intellectual above all Marian theology,the good priest was out of his depths in knowledge and understanding compared with William who controlled and led the debate from beginning to end and wasn’t pressed on anything he had to say but the good priest came up lacking.

It is rather strange that the most precise Greek affirmation of the Immaculate Conception should come from the most anti-Latin, the most “Protestantizing” of the patriarchs of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris (+1638). He too gave a sermon on the Dormition of Our Lady. He said that Mary “was wholly sanctified from the very first moment of her conception (ole egiasmene en aute te sullepsei) when her body was formed and when her soul was united to her body”; and further on he writes: “As for the Panaghia, who is there who does not know that she is pure and immaculate, that she was a spotless instrument, sanctified in her conception and her birth, as befits one who is to contain the One whom nothing can contain?” (7)

William was completely out matched by Fr Ramsey's intellect. Fr. Ramsey was very kind and charitable and William couldn't get out of his own way.

He keeps talking about "full possession" based on "full of grace". This only occurs in the Latin translation "gratia plena"; the Greek word κεχαριτωμένη does not denote fullness.

1:56:10 Q: "Dont we have to make up new dogma because the original fathers didnt have the other made up dogma?" A: "Yep!"

12:26. Wait a sec, if William is arguing that Mary is the new ark because the Holy Spirit overshadowed the ark (actually the whole Temple, not just the ark) and Mary, but then he goes on to say that the Holy Spirit ALSO overshadowed Peter James and John at the transfiguration, then is he saying that Peter James and John are also typologies of the new Ark too? Is he arguing that they were sinless too? If so, how does he explain Peter denying Christ later on? This is the problem when you allow subjective and unrestrained typologies that are not stated in scripture, like Jesus being the “last Adam.”

william is the new marian doctor like blessed john duns scotus.

I know what he meant, but at 16:00 William accidentally called Jesus the "son of the Messiah", implying that Mary was the messiah. He them followed up by calling her the mother of the messiah. Just made me chuckle a little. I really disliked how William took a lot of Ramsey's cross-examination time to monologue his position rather thn allowing Father to interrogate him.

Was Adam and Eve created originally Immaculate (without sin). ?

13:18. So if Mary is a type of the ark in the old testament, and William is stating that whoever touched the ark like Uzzah, then is William implying that if anybody as much as touched Mary, they would die too because she’s the new Ark? Another example of how typology can be subjective when you don’t have biblical boundaries for typology, like you do with the Biblical typologies mentioned about Christ.

And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You! Luke‬ ‭11:27‬ ‭

Just debating the official title Τῆς Παναγίας, ἀχράντου, ὑπερευλογημένης, ἐνδόξου, δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θεοτόκου καὶ ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας makes more sense, than what a Greek Protestant thinks the Catholic dogma is when in fact, the teaching is the same, 'without theological explanations' involved. If Catholics left out the word 'Conception' but simply used 'her whole life', suddenly there is no argument. Seems like the curse of Babel (semantics) is still on us. The worry I see is the infiltration of Protestant Reformist thought feigning as Orthodoxy and that is a separate danger which all the Eastern Fathers and their successors ought to combat. If this whole debate was in Greek, there would only be agreement. In Mary being achrantos based on the Greek understanding of sin and there being no 'original sin' in the minds of many Orthodox, the Catholic concept is moot, or superfluous to them, and the same goes for Protestants who don't accept Augustine. In that sense, non-Catholic belief is usually a reduction of Catholic teaching. A Greek (Orthodox) simply needs to debate if the Latin teaching is ancient and consistent, and universal. No genuine Orthodox teacher would ever, ever end their defence of Mary by saying: the Θεοτόκος is 'just like everyone else'. That is a great reduction of her honour.

William ,I tell you the object of writting the new testment is not to prove that marry is something but the objects of writing the NTis to prove that jesus is God that is why the writer of the bible did not write any thing about Marry but she (mother of God ) is the only is .Catholic church after studying long time declares something .

So...the EO assert that all death comes from sin, Christ died from sin, Mary died from Sin, Enoq lives despite sin...sus

St Gregory Palams: "Surely it is obvious to anyone that the Virgin Theotokos is both the burning bush and the tongs. She conceived the divine fire within Her and was not burnt, and an archangel ministered at the conception, and through Her the Bearer of the sins of the world was united with the human race, purifying us thoroughly by means of this indescribable bond. The Virgin Theotokos, and She alone, is the frontier between created and uncreated nature. All who know God will recognize Her as the one who contained Him who cannot be contained. All who sing hymns to God will praise Her next after Him. She is the cause of the benefits which preceded Her, the protectress of those which came after, and through Her those good things which are eternal shall be received. She is the theme of the prophets, the first of the apostles, the support of the martyrs, the dais of the teachers. She is the glory of those on earth, the delight of those in heaven, the adornment of the whole creation. She is the beginning, fount and root of the hope stored up for in in heaven."

Though there are exceptions to death due to original sin (ie Enoch and those living at the time of the second comming of the Lord) there does not appear to be any instance in scripture that those who do die a natural death can be for reasons other than due to original sin . If the catholic position was that the Holy mother did not ever die but was translated to life with God after her time on earth ,then the catholic position would be a very strong one . However since they believe that it is possible that she did die a natural death then it's difficult to make a case of a natural death that did not occur due to original sin. The Orthodox postion at this piont is then very strong.

Since Mary was canceled from having Original sin she could never die. One of the effects of Original sin was death. Therefore, Mary could not die. Mary never died she was assumed into heaven both body and soul.

Why does Fr. Ramsey look like emperor palpatine. Lol!

What William doesn’t understand about Enoch and Elijah not dying, is that the purpose of them being assumed bodily to Heaven is so they would not see death. The writer of Hebrews 11:5 states this as the reason for Enoch. See also 2 Kings where Elijah was caught up in a whirlwind and didn’t see death. But it doesn’t change the fact that if God hadn’t done that, Enoch and Elijah still would’ve died, because they inherited original sin, and physical death is the consequence of inheriting original sin. So if Mary died, which the earliest Dormitian narratives state, and the dogma of the bodily assumption strongly implies, since it quotes two Doctors of the Church who state she died, this means that Mary inherited original sin which physical death is the consequence of inheriting it through Adam. And as Fr. Ramsey correctly pointed out, unlike Mary‘s father who she inherited original sin through, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and did not inherit original sin, because his Father is God. This is known as federal headship, which is biblical, which you can see in passages like 1 Corinthians 15 where it contrasts Adam to Jesus being the “Last Adam.” Those who remain in Adam, are under his federal headship. But those who are in Christ, are under His federal headship. Also, if you notice, when William cites a church father who is more explicit about the immaculate conception and Mary being conceived without sin, they tend to be several hundred years later, like around AD 700 or even later. But the ones that he quotes that are earlier, tend to be less specific and even more vague. Meaning, they are not explicit about Mary being conceived in sin AND living an entire life without sinning. He ignores even doctors of the church who stated that Mary did commit personal sin.