Ancestral Sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Richard_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SyroMalankara said:
Honestly, Wandile, that is overly simplistic to state it that way. One can say “Truth is Truth, no matter what” regarding a whole lot of matters, and it would not make sense in a context outside of the one it was intended and spoken within. For example, does US reverence for the flag and disgust at its burning make sense within the context of an anti-American place like ISIS-held strongholds? Does the punishment of death for burning of a Koran make sense to anyone outside of those that hold whatever that ideal is? Truth is Truth sounds good, but doesn’t make sense when using only one type of Western language and theology and doctrine and dogma and inserting it into Eastern matters (which vary into 6 or 7 main schools and subschools within them). It comes off to us as being treated as a child who is being patted on the head and told “yes dear”, you can keep your toys (liturgy, rites, etc) just don’t go near the stove (scholastic Latin worded Catechism/language/doctrine).

How would it seem to you if we flipped it around, “you can believe original sin in the Augustinian manner if you want but ancestral sin is Truth, and Truth is Truth no matter what - to be a believing Apostolic orthodox Christian of the Catholic Communion, one must believe it, no matter how it’s worded in the Western catechism etc”
Click to expand...
The concepts are different but both require baptism of infants.
  • St Augustine: a child may die without earning either merit or demerit and merit is required for heaven.
  • Latin tradition: even though an infant has not acted, he is bound with the devil due to no merit. (Stain of original sin: lack of sanctifying grace.)
  • St Maximus: a child may not die without demerit since his first motion was demeritous.
  • Greek tradition: we have actual sin by the mere fact of our existence.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Honestly, Wandile, that is overly simplistic to state it that way. One can say “Truth is Truth, no matter what” regarding a whole lot of matters, and it would not make sense in a context outside of the one it was intended and spoken within. For example, does US reverence for the flag and disgust at its burning make sense within the context of an anti-American place like ISIS-held strongholds? Does the punishment of death for burning of a Koran make sense to anyone outside of those that hold whatever that ideal is? Truth is Truth sounds good, but doesn’t make sense when using only one type of Western language and theology and doctrine and dogma and inserting it into Eastern matters (which vary into 6 or 7 main schools and subschools within them). It comes off to us as being treated as a child who is being patted on the head and told “yes dear”, you can keep your toys (liturgy, rites, etc) just don’t go near the stove (scholastic Latin worded Catechism/language/doctrine).

How would it seem to you if we flipped it around, “you can believe original sin in the Augustinian manner if you want but ancestral sin is Truth, and Truth is Truth no matter what - to be a believing Apostolic orthodox Christian of the Catholic Communion, one must believe it, no matter how it’s worded in the Western catechism etc”
Click to expand...
If the underlying teaching is true then no matter how I formulate it, it must be true. So if ancestral sin seeks to teach that due to the fall mans human nature became fallen, lost sanctifying grace and was I need of redemption through the crucifixion and baptism, then I must believe it because it’s true.

Like I said the holy trinity was defined in a Greek theological context… could the Latins turn around and say they don’t subscribe to the Holy Trinity because it just doesn’t make sense within their theological background and context? Of course not, if it’s true then it will fit in your theology because it’s true. So we found a way to teach it in the Latin context. So too the Filioque can be and is taught in the Greek context, and the immaculate conception

Truth is truth simply means truth is objective, ultimate and universal. To deny this is to teach relativism which is a modern heresy
 
Axiosaxiosaxios said:
Yeah… I dont subscribe to the filioque but then according to the recent decrees
Click to expand...
What decrees? The council of Florence defined the Filioque as dogma. It’s teaching on the Filioque is quoted verbatim in the catechism of the Catholic Church.
and the fact that even the Pope at times doesnt use it, i dont see it as an issue.
Click to expand...
Yeah it using it in the creed is not a rejection of it. Two totally different things.
 
Wandile said:
What decrees? The council of Florence defined the Filioque as dogma. It’s teaching on the Filioque is quoted verbatim in the catechism of the Catholic Church.
.
Click to expand...
Well for the most part Rome’s proclaimed dogmas aren’t really anything more than the theological speculation of the Latin Church.

Further, after the Council of Florence, the Catholic Church entered into agreements of communion with the Eastern Catholic Churches that provided they “should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.”

Additionally, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation which the Holy See sends a delegation to already ruled that the filioque clause isnt a barrier to Church unity in that the Latin understanding of the clause (even by its own members) was badly misrepresented and that both understandings of the interior life of the Trinity are theologically sound.

Lastly, as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI puts it, asking the Eastern Churches such an agreement to the clause is absolutely unnecessary. "Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”
 
Axiosaxiosaxios said:
Well for the most part Rome’s proclaimed dogmas aren’t really anything more than the theological speculation of the Latin Church.
Click to expand...
This is ludicrous, those are proclamations of the Catholic Church. It’s funny that anything proclaimed in the east is deemed Ecumenical but anything proclaimed in the west is theological speculation. The Filioque is dogmatic truth under the pin of anathema. The church has spoken through an Ecumenical council and Papal Proclamations in the bulk of Pope Eugene. Hence it is included in the catechism of the catholic church.
Further, after the Council of Florence, the Catholic Church entered into agreements of communion with the Eastern Catholic Churches that provided they “should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.”
Click to expand...
Exactly! This is in the decree of the Council of Florence itself! The Filioque does not teach a different a double procession but a single procession from the father and the Son as from one principal through one spiration. This is equivalent of from the father through the Son as per th the decree of Florence, Thomas Aquinas and all doctors of the church have taught. Hence at Florence the Greeks signed off on the Filioque decree. It is dogma and no catholic, eastern or western, can reject it in good conscience because such a man is anathematised.
Additionally, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation which the Holy See sends a delegation to already ruled that the filioque clause isnt a barrier to Church unity in that the Latin understanding of the clause (even by its own members) was badly misrepresented and that both understandings of the interior life of the Trinity are theologically sound.
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that the proclamation of specific bishops confrences are not authoritative at all. But however if you have read the final paper itself, it admits the Filioque truth of the Latin tradition and the compatibility of the Greek tardion which also teaches it as “through the Son” hence it isn’t a barrier to communion because we are teaching the same thing, that the Son participates in the procession of the Holy Spirit. This again just a reaffirmation of the decree of Florence.
Lastly, as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI puts it, asking the Eastern Churches such an agreement to the clause is absolutely unnecessary. "Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”
Click to expand...
I know of this too. What he said was ,In simple, accept the Orthodoxy of the Filioque teaching and the way shouldn’t impose its theological language on the east as they have a different formulation of the sameness teaching. Hence he emphasizes the Latin church’s orthodoxy and its developments as a precondition for union. This is juts a nice ah of saying EO must accept the orthodoxy of the catholic faith.

If you want to see how he teaches this more bluntly, look at his letter to the Synod of the melkites church in which he rejected (as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith) the zoghby initiative pretty much saying that for union the Eastern Orthodox must accept the Catholic faith and it’s developments before we can have unity.
 
The immaculate conception, Papal infallibility, for another. People think these are dogmas, but dogmas, by definition, are beliefs incumbent on all for salvation, the denial of which makes one a heretic. Heretics being outside the Church cannot receive the Eucharist, yet the Catholic Church allows the Orthodox (both Oriental and Eastern)–who deny both of these doctrines–to receive the sacraments in Catholic Churches, and, what’s more, allow Catholics to receive in Orthodox Churches. If either doctrine were truly a dogma, then the Catholic Church could not allow this Eucharistic sharing–and if it did, it would be guilty of sacrilege. But, since the Catholic Church does allow it, we can conclude that these doctrines are not really dogmatic at all.
 
Axiosaxiosaxios said:
The immaculate conception, Papal infallibility, for another. People think these are dogmas, but dogmas, by definition, are beliefs incumbent on all for salvation, the denial of which makes one a heretic. Heretics being outside the Church cannot receive the Eucharist, yet the Catholic Church allows the Orthodox (both Oriental and Eastern)–who deny both of these doctrines–to receive the sacraments in Catholic Churches, and, what’s more, allow Catholics to receive in Orthodox Churches. If either doctrine were truly a dogma, then the Catholic Church could not allow this Eucharistic sharing–and if it did, it would be guilty of sacrilege. But, since the Catholic Church does allow it, we can conclude that these doctrines are not really dogmatic at all.
Click to expand...
The can if it is due to invincible ignorance which reduces culpability.
 
Vico said:
The can if it is due to invincible ignorance which reduces culpability.
Click to expand...
True but thats usually not the case, and it certainly wasnt the case with many of the Eastern Catholic Churches who continued practices such as divorce well into the 19th centuries.
 
Axiosaxiosaxios said:
True but thats usually not the case, and it certainly wasnt the case with many of the Eastern Catholic Churches who continued practices such as divorce well into the 19th centuries.
Click to expand...
That speaks to level of tolerance of heretical practices in those churches, not the theological appropriateness of them. Heresy is heresy. Many things have been defined as dogma and there is no wiggle room out of them other than to defect from the catholic faith and Beyoncé a heretic or an apostate. It’s okay to express the same truth in your own way but another to deny it. How can you justify denying the truth? To deny truth is to deny Christ!
 
Axiosaxiosaxios said:
True but thats usually not the case, and it certainly wasnt the case with many of the Eastern Catholic Churches who continued practices such as divorce well into the 19th centuries.
Click to expand...
You mean that they knew that second and later marriages were wrong with a bond still existing (without annulment) and continued to do it with full knowledge?
 
Vico said:
You mean that they knew that second and later marriages were wrong with a bond still existing (without annulment) and continued to do it with full knowledge?
Click to expand...
Correct. This is still the case in the Orthodox Churches. However, the second marriage isnt viewed as sacramental even though the rite of marriage still takes place in the Church. Rather the service has many penitential elements included as if noting that the solemnity of the occasion and the recognition that the previous marriage broke down.
 
Vico said:
You mean that they knew that second and later marriages were wrong with a bond still existing (without annulment) and continued to do it with full knowledge?
Click to expand...
Correct. This is still the case in the Orthodox Churches. However, the second marriage isnt viewed as sacramental even though the rite of marriage still takes place in the Church. Rather the service has many penitential elements included as if noting that the solemnity of the occasion and the recognition that the previous marriage broke down.
 
Axiosaxiosaxios said:
Correct. This is still the case in the Orthodox Churches. However, the second marriage isnt viewed as sacramental even though the rite of marriage still takes place in the Church. Rather the service has many penitential elements included as if noting that the solemnity of the occasion and the recognition that the previous marriage broke down.
Click to expand...
The 23 eastern Catholic churches sui iuris do not allow this. I don’t get involved in historical disputes, having no verifiable historical statements from the Holy See to rely upon, from before the current canon law. I am familiar with the Eastern Orthodox practice of penitential marriages, having read the Marriage booklet written by Fr. John Meyendorff.
 
Vico said:
The 23 eastern Catholic churches sui iuris do not allow this. I don’t get involved in historical disputes, having no verifiable statements from the Holy See to rely upon. I am familiar with the Eastern Orthodox practice of penitential marriages, having read the Marriage booklet written by Fr. John Meyendorff.
Click to expand...
You are correct, presently forbidden by intervention of the the Holy See. However there were documented cases going back to the 1920’s of Eastern Catholics getting divorced and having second marriages.

In the Patriarchal lands today, many do not go through the annulment process. The vast majority of them are not truly annulments but rather reasons for divorce. In this case many just apply for a divorce in the local Orthodox diocese and are remarried as Orthodox.

Fr. John Meyendorff’s texts are a wonderful resource!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top