Are Orthodox are Catholic theologies mutually exclusive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter icamhif
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the pure definition of a cheap shot. This video gives off the impression that the Orthodox Church has the perfect combination of reverence and solemnity whereas the Catholic liturgy is presented as a carnival hosted by clowns. When I once sought to convert to the EO, the priest at my local parish warned me against thinking the EOC is the perfect Church. There is no such thing. Does liturgical abuse never occur in the EOC?

And why is it allowed you might ask? Well, you might as well ask why there is sin…🤷
It is indeed a cheap shot. I noted in an earlier post that the Orthodox example is a solemn patriarchal liturgy, yet the Catholic example is clearly an anomaly riddled by liturgical abuses. As I noted earlier, a fair comparison would have shown a papal mass (patriarch / pope)…I attended a few of Pope Benedict’s masses…just as reverent, solemn, and (IMO) beautiful as Orthodox liturgies: chanted, incense, processions, magnificent vestments.
 
Interesting question which I’ll let Randy answer. I also think clarification may help if we consider actual sin under the mosaic regime. Could actual sin be forgiven?
I’m not sure how the Mosaic law would be a factor in the Church’s understanding of sin, since it had already been fulfilled in the OT, and in light of the Council of Florence:
"It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally*. …
If anything, I would think it would be the Abrahamic covenant (although also fulfilled through Christ) that would warrant consideration in the matter (if at all), since it (and not the Mosaic one) refers specifically to Christ and shows some continuation in the New Testament. 🤷

What I gleaned from your previous post of the writings of the early Fathers was that they either fully believed salvation was affected by Original Sin, or at least strongly worried that it *might *be, and therefore advocated infant baptism as a precaution. Though I’ve not a clue as to from where their understandings derived.
 
Infants and the intellectually challenged still need to be joined to Christ’s body for their salvation. As I said before, Baptism, Chrismation and Holy Communion achieve this.
How does this view differ from this:*We believe in one Baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Baptism should be administered even to little children who have not yet been able to be guilty of any personal sin, in order that, though born deprived of supernatural grace, they may be reborn “of water and the Holy Spirit” to the divine life in Christ Jesus. (Pope Paul VI, Solemni Hac Liturgia, 1968)*There is a deprivation of sorts in Orthodox theology, correct? As in Adam, all die. Otherwise, no one would be unjoined to Christ’s body at birth.
 
How does this view differ from this:We believe in one Baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Baptism should be administered even to little children who have not yet been able to be guilty of any personal sin, in order that, though born deprived of supernatural grace, they may be reborn “of water and the Holy Spirit” to the divine life in Christ Jesus. (Pope Paul VI, Solemni Hac Liturgia, 1968)There is a deprivation of sorts in Orthodox theology, correct? As in Adam, all die. Otherwise, no one would be unjoined to Christ’s body at birth.
The above sounds much the same, which isn’t what your fellow Catholics have been posting.
 
It is indeed a cheap shot. I noted in an earlier post that the Orthodox example is a solemn patriarchal liturgy, yet the Catholic example is clearly an anomaly riddled by liturgical abuses. As I noted earlier, a fair comparison would have shown a papal mass (patriarch / pope)…I attended a few of Pope Benedict’s masses…just as reverent, solemn, and (IMO) beautiful as Orthodox liturgies: chanted, incense, processions, magnificent vestments.
Someone posted the following video in another thread. I think it offers a much fairer comparison.
youtube.com/watch?v=dApWNfJgGC4
 
But it was commonly understood among the ECF’s.

Catholics believe in original sin. But we’re wrong.

Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception in light of Original Sin. But we’re wrong.

Catholics understand infant baptism in light of Original Sin. But we’re wrong.

Thank you for this clarification.
I completely missed this second part of your response, but I’m not sure how you are getting your conclusions?

I actually AGREE on how you define original sin, and I believe to the extent of my knowledge that the view of original sin in the East and West are totally compatible.

Regarding the Immaculate Conception, Orthodox just say we don’t believe it because it was not part of our faith tradition (although you already responded to this in a later post).

And I’m not sure what you mean regarding baptism as I have not been following the baptism discussion on this thread that much (more on the original sin discussion). However, I would say as an Orthodox catechumen, to the extent of my knowledge, that I also agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on baptism.

So as an Orthodox point of view in general, I think we do agree on the teaching on original sin and baptism, and that the ultimately it’s just the East and West’s different theological expression of the same truth, so I’m not sure why you think I’m saying your wrong regarding the teaching on baptism and original sin?
 
Someone posted the following video in another thread. I think it offers a much fairer comparison.
youtube.com/watch?v=dApWNfJgGC4
Yes I agree. In all honesty, any form of biased misrepresentation on either the Orthodox and Catholic side is uncharitable behavior, and the other video should be taken down. It’s downright offensive to the Catholic Mass, and I appreciate it very much as well. My first candlelight Mass a year ago was an incredible experience. 🙂
 
The above sounds much the same, which isn’t what your fellow Catholics have been posting.
That is exactly what the Catholics have been posting. That all humans are born deprived of sanctifying grace. Without this , no man , no matter how good he is can be saved. Hence the need for baptism…for the remission of sins, original sin. To impart sanctifying grace in us.
Hence the idea of limbo being popular in the middle ages.

Origen

Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments,** knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit**” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Council of Mileum II

"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated].
Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
 
In case you missed it
Catholic Encyclopedia has in Article: Communion of ChildrenIn the reign of Charlemagne an edict was published by a Council of Tours (813) prohibiting the reception by young children of Communion unless they were in danger of death (Zaccaria, Bibl. Rit., II, p. 161) and Odo, Bishop of Paris, renewed this prohibition in 1175.

The existing legislation with regard to the Communion of children has been definitely settled by the Fourth Lateran Council [1215 A.D.]…

Morrisroe, P. (1908). Communion of Children. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/04170b.htm
 
Catholic Encyclopedia has in Article: Communion of ChildrenIn the reign of Charlemagne an edict was published by a Council of Tours (813) prohibiting the reception by young children of Communion unless they were in danger of death (Zaccaria, Bibl. Rit., II, p. 161) and Odo, Bishop of Paris, renewed this prohibition in 1175.

The existing legislation with regard to the Communion of children has been definitely settled by the Fourth Lateran Council [1215 A.D.]…

Morrisroe, P. (1908). Communion of Children. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/04170b.htm
It sounds very much like the arguments Baptists have against infant baptism
 
I completely missed this second part of your response, but I’m not sure how you are getting your conclusions?

I actually AGREE on how you define original sin, and I believe to the extent of my knowledge that the view of original sin in the East and West are totally compatible.

Regarding the Immaculate Conception, Orthodox just say we don’t believe it because it was not part of our faith tradition (although you already responded to this in a later post).

And I’m not sure what you mean regarding baptism as I have not been following the baptism discussion on this thread that much (more on the original sin discussion). However, I would say as an Orthodox catechumen, to the extent of my knowledge, that I also agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on baptism.

So as an Orthodox point of view in general, I think we do agree on the teaching on original sin and baptism, and that the ultimately it’s just the East and West’s different theological expression of the same truth, so I’m not sure why you think I’m saying your wrong regarding the teaching on baptism and original sin?
I’m probably going to let this drop…not because I don’t appreciate your company and conversation but because there are too many other topics I’m exploring right now

HOWEVER, let me ask you this: The Orthodox reject the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and previous discussions in this forum have led me to the conclusion that the reason they do so, in part, is that Mary did not NEED to be preserved from the stain of original sin since NONE of us do.

Am I correct in my understanding of EO belief and do you share this understanding?

Thanks.
 
I’m probably going to let this drop…not because I don’t appreciate your company and conversation but because there are too many other topics I’m exploring right now

HOWEVER, let me ask you this: The Orthodox reject the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and previous discussions in this forum have led me to the conclusion that the reason they do so, in part, is that Mary did not NEED to be preserved from the stain of original sin since NONE of us do.

Am I correct in my understanding of EO belief and do you share this understanding?

Thanks.
Baptismal Instruction of Saint John Chrysostom given below:
“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”

– Saint John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, babies are sinless, but as St. John Chrysostom taught also, in need of sanctification and justice:405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice,
 
The Orthodox service in the video makes me think of Luke 7:25.

The Catholic service makes me wonder whether I should laugh or cry. I assume the Pope or a Cardinal has already shot this down hard, correct? There’s no way that it hasn’t gotten to the higher ups and they’ve squashed this sickening presentation of the Bible.
Admittedly I haven’t seen the video, but I’m wondering if you could elaborate on this ^^ statement?
 
Ancient practice

It is now well established that in the early days of Christianity it was not uncommon for infants to receive Communion immediately after they were baptized. Among others St. Cyprian (De Lapsis 25) makes reference to the practice. In the East the custom was pretty universal, and even to this day exists in some places, but in the West infant Communion was not so general. Here, moreover, it was restricted to the occasions of baptism and dangerous illness. Probably it originated in a mistaken notion of the absolute necessity of the Blessed Eucharist for salvation, founded on the words of St. John (vi, 54). In the reign of Charlemagne an edict was published by a Council of Tours (813) prohibiting the reception by young children of Communion unless they were in danger of death (Zaccaria, Bibl. Rit., II, p. 161) and Odo, Bishop of Paris, renewed this prohibition in 1175. Still the custom died hard, for we find traces of it in Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacr., I, c. 20) and Martène (De Ant. Ecc. Rit., I bk., I, c. 15) alleges that it had not altogether disappeared in his own day. The manner of Communicating infants was by dipping the finger in the consecrated chalice and then applying it to the tongue of the child. This would seem to imply that it was only the Precious Blood that was administered, but evidence is not wanting to show that the other Consecrated Species was also given in similar circumstances (cf. Sebastiano Giribaldi, Op. Mor., I, c. 72). That infants and children not yet come to the use of reason may not only validly but even fruitfully receive the Blessed Eucharist is now the universally received opinion, but it is opposed to Catholic teaching to hold that this sacrament is necessary for their salvation (Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, can. iv).

Present discipline

The existing legislation with regard to the Communion of children has been definitely settled by the Fourth Lateran Council, which was afterwards confirmed by the authority of the Council of Trent. According to its provisions children may not be admitted to the Blessed Eucharist until they have attained to years of discretion, but when this period is reached then they are bound to receive this sacrament. When may they be said to have attained the age of discretion? In the best-supported view of theologians this phrase means, not the attainment of a definite number of years, but rather the arrival at a certain stage in mental development, when children become able to discern the Eucharistic from ordinary bread, to realize in some measure the dignity and excellence of the Sacrament of the Altar, to believe in the Real Presence, and adore Christ under the sacramental veils. De Lugo (De Euch., disp. xiii, n. 36, Ben. XIV, De Syn., vii) says that if children are observed to assist at Mass with devotion and attention it is a sign that they are come to this discretion.

Thus it is seen that a keener religious sense, so to speak, is demanded for the reception of Communion than for confession. Moreover, it is agreed that children in danger of death ought to be admitted to Communion even though they may not have the same degree of fitness that would be required in ordinary circumstances. In answer to a question as to whether a certain episcopal ordinance should be upheld that fixed a definite age-limit under which children could not be admitted to First Communion, the Congregation of the Council replied in the affirmative, provided, however, that those children adjudged to have reached the discretion required by the Councils of Lateran and Trent might not be excluded (21 July, 1888). This reply bears out the interpretation already given of “the years of discretion” and it may be said in the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent (pt. II, c. iv, q. 63) that “no one can better determine the age at which the sacred mysteries should be given to young children than their parents and confessor”.

newadvent.org/cathen/04170b.htm
 
Origen: I take this occasion to discuss something which our brothers often inquire about. Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. Of what kinds? Or when did they sin? But since “No one is exempt from stain,” one removes the stain by the mystery of baptism. For this reason infants are baptized. For “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Homily on Luke 14:5).
[After quoting Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:4] These verses may be adduced when it is asked why, since the baptism of the church is given for the remission of sins, baptism according to the practice of the church is given even to infants; since indeed if there is in infants nothing which ought to pertain to forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be superfluous. (Homily on Leviticus 8:3).
[After quoting Leviticus 12:8 and Psalm 51:5] For this also the church had a tradition from the apostles, to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were given knew that there is in all persons the natural stains of sin which must be washed away by the water and the Spirit. On account of these stains the body itself is called the body of sin. (Commentary on Romans 5:9)
Cyprian: In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man… Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision… we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins - that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another" (Letter 58 to Fidus).
The apostolic teaching is repetitive in Alexandria, Antioch and Rome. More so they used scripture for their basis.
 
I see several infants receive each Sunday, since I am a Byzantine Catholic. Of course Father does not commune the Latin Catholic infants (he knows who they are).
 
I’m probably going to let this drop…not because I don’t appreciate your company and conversation but because there are too many other topics I’m exploring right now

HOWEVER, let me ask you this: The Orthodox reject the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and previous discussions in this forum have led me to the conclusion that the reason they do so, in part, is that Mary did not NEED to be preserved from the stain of original sin since NONE of us do.

Am I correct in my understanding of EO belief and do you share this understanding?

Thanks.
I do not think Original Sin was God’s only plan to give to Mary this incredible Grace of the Immaculate Conception. There has to be another reason that propelled God to give to Mary at her conception. The understanding from Orthodoxy was God could have granted to Mary this Grace at any time so why at the conception. Since the Lord can cleansed anyone at anytime it does give us this interesting discussion. A good reason why God had given to Mary this Grace at her conception was it was more tied to the Orthodox understanding of when one can receive Grace. Since the Orthodox and Eastern Churches grants to a child or baby baptized with a lot more Graces (Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist all at once) it seems to me the Immaculate Conception was just a great head start for Mary. Since both Churches believe Mary was sinless it is strange that they argue about how she goes about this. Does it really matter what happened in the beginning of her life if she had remained sinless because of it? I think if I had to put my finger on this so that both Churches can try to see in each other something they will like is to say that both Churches are right. Mary received Her Immaculate Conception so that Original Sin will not matter and also to confer on her incredible Graces to prevent her from sinning and to be God’s most faithful servant and saint. Perhaps Mary’s Immaculate Conception was her Baptism of fire but what a fire it was. I sense it was because she had received from her conception the most of what the Holy Spirit that one can receive in this life.
 
I see several infants receive each Sunday, since I am a Byzantine Catholic. Of course Father does not commune the Latin Catholic infants (he knows who they are).
This makes me wonder, would it be wrong for the Latin children to receive communion at a Byzantine parish?
 
This makes me wonder, would it be wrong for the Latin children to receive communion at a Byzantine parish?
I have heard Father ask Catholic visitors if they have received first communion already. If they have, then he will give them Communion. (Also, not all eastern Catholic churches practice infant communion.) The sacramental discipline of the enrolled church sui iuris is to be followed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top