Calling All Orthodox!

[dzheremi]

Who says I hate Thomas Aquinas just because I’ve brought him up here as an example of a Catholic philosopher who realized later in his life how his earlier pursuits had been inferior to received wisdom? That’s your reading of my posts, not anything I’ve actually written. And, yes, I have read the Summa (when I was still RC, I owned a copy for myself). And, no, the Filioque controversy was not a result of theologians “philosophizing themselves into separate corners”. It was the result of the Church of Rome adding to the Creed after they had already agreed much earlier not to do that, and then as time goes on building a whole theology around that addition that was wrong.

I don’t know why threads are started here asking for Orthodox viewpoints on anything if nobody ever wants to hear those viewpoints, but instead only wants to use them as an excuse to argue and make grand declarative statements. Of course you are free to feel that the Church of God includes anyone you want it to, and the that Roman Catholic Church has never erred and never will err, but why then bother me with attempts to set right my “hatred” by affirming the Catholic line regarding these issues and people that I’m already well aware of and reject because they are alien to my faith? If that’s “hatred”, then okay…being Orthodox is hateful insofar as it conflicts with a priori views of Catholics regarding the kinds of matters we are discussing. But this is not dialogue. It’s people being baited in an environment where we already know that we won’t agree, but still keep hoping that somehow maybe this one is a genuine chance to discuss a viewpoint different than that of RCism. Y’know, hope springs eternal and all, but the reality is probably that we’re all wasting our time here because even threads that ask for that viewpoint quickly degenerate into “nuh uh!” “yeah huh!” style pseudo-debate wherein the very basis of our disagreement (i.e., the thing that we are asked about in the OP) is seen as hatefulness and something that is in need of correction by repeating again, just one more time (until the next time), why it is that the RCC is correct and the Orthodox are not. Fine. This is your place in the first place, but geez…quit asking for things you don’t really want to hear. It’s confusing, being welcomed and unwelcome at the same time among fellow Christians.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know why threads are started here asking for Orthodox viewpoints on anything if nobody ever wants to hear those viewpoints, but instead only wants to use them as an excuse to argue and make grand declarative statements.

I think the intentions are always great to start, the usual problems arise in that these viewpoints vary from one extreme to another. Somehow a statement always arrives that we don’t need Baptism for the remission of sin, and “we” should come back to the true Church, but, on the other hand re-baptism is, well. you know the rest. I mean you can’t help but notice some of this.

 

[josie_L]

Again, you are repeating an interpretation of events through a very Westernized lens, which doesn’t take into account the evidence from the Eastern fathers, who also rejected the baptisms of heretics.

Did the Eastern Fathers “reject” the baptism of heretics to the degree that ALL heretics MUST be re-baptized upon entering the Church, for this is what St. Cyprian was advocating? And this is what Pope St. Stephen was arguing against.

It is often forgotten that the initial solution to the conflict between St. Cyprian and St. Stephen was St. Dionysius’ (of Alexandria), which was that each Church should hold to its own practice.

It is was not a matter of practice but a matter of doctrine, i.e., Pope St. Stephen intervened because the practice of re-baptism was sacrilegious and a novelty (St. Cyprian was basing his views on his predecessor, Agrippinus, i.e., not on apostolic/ancient tradition).

It is true that by the fourth century, the West had largely accepted St. Stephen’s view, but in the East, we find bishops like St. Athanasius and St. Basil rejecting heretical baptisms, with St. Basil citing Ss. Cyprian and Firmilian as ancient authorities on the matter.

It wasn’t just the West, i.e., the whole Church agreed with this view and St. Augustine affirmed this in the quote I posted in an earlier reply:

Chapter 7

1. For, in the next place, that I may not seem to rest on mere human arguments—since there is so much obscurity in this question, that in earlier ages of the Church, before the schism of Donatus, it has caused men of great weight, and even our fathers, the bishops, whose hearts were full of charity, so to dispute and doubt among themselves, saving always the peace of the Church, that the several statutes of their Councils in their different districts long varied from each other, till at length the most wholesome opinion was established, to the removal of all doubts, by a plenary Council of the whole world:

He is referring to Nicea, i.e., canon 8 in reference to the Novatians/Catharis who were the very people that St. Cyprian wanted to REBAPTIZE. Ergo, Pope St. Stephen’s view prevailed, i.e., what was expounded at Arles was reconfirmed at Nicea with respect to the Catharis (they did not need to be re-baptized).

Moreover, how could St. Basil cite St. Cyprian and Firmillian as an authority if that authority had been undermined by Nicea and Constantinople I, i.e., I think you are misinterpreting St. Basil, in fact, I’m pretty certain you are:

All of these formula and interpretations are in essence far from Orthodoxy. The teaching and practice of the Church is based on the First Rule of Saint Basil the Great and on the original text which has served as reference to this rule: the message of St. Basil the Great to St. Amphilochius of Iconium. **In this message, St. Basil outlines the theological reasoning for the practice of not to re-baptize those who were baptized outside the church and expresses it in the following words: “because they exist thanks to the Church” **(“ek tis Ekklicias onton”). In other words, the reasoning for such practice of the Church is "ontological."

holy-trinity.org/liturgics/rodzianko-acceptance.html

Now this makes sense, this I agree with, i.e., not the extreme stance that was taken by St. Cyprian and Firmillian (all heretics must be re-baptized irregardless of whether their former baptism was performed in the name of the Trinity and with water).

Indeed, the claim that the view of St. Cyprian was repudiated at Nicaea seems untenable, for St. Basil, despite writing his canons after the decrees of Nicaea, does not believe that the practice of rebaptizing heretics and schismatics is necessarily wrong, only that in the specific case of Novatians, since a canon has been passed regulating their reception into the Church by oikonomia, that canon should be allowed to prevail.

If by re-baptism St. Basil meant baptizing heretics that were invalidly baptized then I agree, there is nothing wrong with this, however, this was not the issue of contention between Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian.

Also, I might add that the West at one point did not accept most of Augustine’s views on sacraments (which your narrative takes for granted).

No, my view does not hinge on St. Augustine’s view per se, i.e., the tradition which Pope St. Stephen expounded was ancient, and this is confirmed by St. Augustine, St. Vincent of Lerins, and even by St. Cyprian:

Cyprian, on the contrary, implicitly admits that antiquity is against his own practice, but stoutly maintains that it is more in accordance with an enlightened study of the subject. The tradition against him he declares to be “a human and unlawful tradition”. Neither Cyprian, however, nor his zealous abettor, Firmilian, could show that rebaptism was older than the century in which they were living. The contemporaneous but anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate” says that the ordinances of Pope Stephen, forbidding the rebaptism of converts, are in accordance with antiquity and ecclesiastical tradition, and are consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance of all the saints and of all the faithful. St. Augustine believes that the custom of not rebaptizing is an Apostolic tradition, and St. Vincent of Lérins declares that the Synod of Carthage introduced rebaptism against the Divine Law (canonem), against the rule of the universal Church, and against the customs and institutions of the ancients. By Pope Stephen’s decision, he continues, antiquity was retained and novelty was destroyed (retenta est antiquitas, explosa novitas).

cantius.org/go/sacraments/baptism/rebaptism/

to be continued. . . .

 

[RC_David333]

**the Catholic monk, brother Dimond, totally destroys the heretical arguments of the calvinist in this debate. Here is the link to that debate…

youtube.com/watch?v=Qn1vC1Ez-OI

To learn more about brother Dimond, his Monastery and the true teachings of our Lord, Jesus Christ, then please visit VaticanCatholic.com or MostHolyFamilyMonastery.com **

 

[josie_L]

Even the Second Vatican Council accepts this premise that there is no such thing as a baptism outside of the Church, which is why it understands the boundaries of the Church to include all who have been baptized in the document Unitatis Redintegratio. It is something completely fundamental to the constitution of the Church that outside of her, there can be no baptism, as baptism is the entrance into the Church. Baptism existing outside of the Church implies that the boundaries of the Church are broader than they visibly appear to be, a type of thinking which we reject.

Well, I have never read Unitatis Redingratio, however, I will reiterate what I posted earlier as I believe this is more or less supportive of the above:

In this message, St. Basil outlines the theological reasoning for the practice of not to re-baptize those who were baptized outside the church and expresses it in the following words: “because they exist thanks to the Church” (“ek tis Ekklicias onton”). In other words, the reasoning for such practice of the Church is “ontological.”

holy-trinity.org/liturgics/rodzianko-acceptance.html

That being said, the CC also teaches (Lumen Gentium) that those non-Catholic Christians whose baptism was performed outside the visible confines of the Church, are in effect or to some degree in spiritual communion with her if not in visible communion, this would imply that said baptisms are valid (even if outside the visible confines of the Church).

I think my interpretations of those canons are in fact entirely well-founded, both by a plain reading of the text, and also by the history of their interpretation by canonists like Balsamon, Zonaras, Blastares, et al.

I don’t know who these canonists are but I assume they do not speak for all Orthodox, i.e., the Russian Orthodox Church in particular (the Russian practice of receiving converts varies from the Greek).

Patriarch Philaret, you mean, (Metropolitan Philaret typically refers to a later figure) and I am not aware of any time when Patriarch Philaret redacted his views. Indeed, he died in 1633, well before the order to baptize Latins was rescinded in 1667.

Yes, Patriarch Philaret, and no he didn’t redact his views (I got him confused with another Philaret because both were mentioned in the same article), but nevertheless, it was during his reign wherein re-baptism was introduced as the official practice (although there were disputes) of the Russian Orthodox Church in receiving non-Orthodox converts. It was the only time in Russian history that Catholics were re-baptized.

It is not sound to go from the fact that Roman Catholic baptism was accepted to the conclusion that it was therefore considered to be grace-filled. As I have pointed out numerous times, one does not necessarily imply the other, as canon law and the history of the reception of the heterodox into the Church suggests. Their baptisms are accepted by oikonomia (according to St. Basil and later interpreters of the canons), and not by reason of any inherent efficacy of their baptisms, since it is considered entirely appropriate for a bishop to exercise akriveia and to baptize those coming from groups for which no rule yet exists in order to regulate how converts from that group should be received.

Yes, they were considered grace-filled (according to the ROC), and as such Catholics were received by way of the third rite:

The third rite - repentance of previous errors, repudiation of those errors and a confession of the Orthodox Faith. To be used for persons converting from the Roman Catholic faith and Armenians, provided that the former have received confirmation from their bishop, and that the latter were chrismated by their clergy. If they have not been confirmed or if there is any doubt as to whether they were confirmed, they should be anointed with the Holy Chrism.

holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch2.html

I did not realize that Metropolitan Hilarion had the power to create history by fiat. His interpretation of Russian history is only one of many. Like I said, there are plenty like Fr. Dragas and Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, who have interpreted the Synod of 1667 much differently.

No, this is not his interpretation of history, i.e., the ROC does view all of our sacraments as grace-filled. Here is further confirmation:

But Moscow, the so-called “third Rome”, did not take sides with the other orthodox patriarchates, on the contrary, it decreed in 1757 that the sacraments of the Church of the west had to be recognized as valid also in the future. This was reconfirmed by the Moscow metropolitan Filaret Drozdov in the 19th century who on Dec. 7, 1995, was canonized in the Kremlin Cathedral in Moscow. Metropolitan Sergij confirmed the validity of the Catholic sacraments again in 1931 and 1936. Furthermore, the Russian Orthodox Church adopted the recommendations of Vatican Council II concerning the “communicatio in sacris” Dec. 16, 1969, confirmed them again July 26, 1986 when a delegation of the German Bishops’ Conference happened to be in Moscow but suspended them out of consideration for the other orthodox churches.

oki-regensburg.de/r_oek_e.htm

 

[josie_L]

Just wanted to add this Russian interpretation of canon law regarding the reception of converts, which you will see is similar to our own understanding:

We see from Church history that it was the lot of the dissident sects such as Novatians, Montanists and Donatists to re-baptize those converting to them. Considering themselves “pure” and “better” and seeing themselves as the only ones who will be saved, they abhorred everyone else. They could have earned respect because of their high moral demands, but pride did them in. They cut themselves from the main body of the Church where life and grace did abide, and thus completely died out within a short period of time. “The Lord resists the proud, but He gives grace to the humble” (Prov. 3:34 LXX). Even in Russia, certain dissidents, especially the Priestless Old Ritualists, likewise performed re-baptism on the Orthodox if they converted to them. The humble, kind, compassionate, benevolent and condescending Orthodox Church possessed and possesses and will continue to possess Grace and along with it, the vitality and the strength to be magnanimous. That re-baptism, which the heretics and the dissidents performed upon the Orthodox, harbored within it their inner weakness. The strong and righteous is not afraid to be magnanimous, but the weak and unrighteous cannot permit this for himself. As we have seen, in ancient times (particularly in the Third century) and within the Orthodox Church there have been tendencies to re-baptize dissidents who convert to the Orthodox Church. But the Church decisively opposed this, forbidding, with her canons, the re-baptism of those who were validly baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. The Ecumenical Councils, the Second and especially the Sixth, directed by their decisions, who should be received into Orthodoxy by means of baptism, who — by means of chrismation and who — by means of repentance, the repudiation of heresy and confession of the Orthodox Faith. By this it piously maintained the rule about the non-repetition of a valid baptism even if it was performed outside the Orthodox Church. In Russia, as we have later seen, for a short time it was decreed to receive all non-Orthodox by means of baptism. But this “re-baptism” called for by the horrors of those times was as something erroneous quickly rescinded once and for all by the councils and decrees of the Holy Russian Church. Finally, as we have seen the patriarchate of Constantinople factually rejected that radical decree about the re-baptism of all non-Orthodox converting to Orthodoxy, pronounced by the 1756 Council in Constantinople.

holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s the Canons in relation…

“The Ecumenical Councils, the Second and especially the Sixth, directed by their decisions, who should be received into Orthodoxy by means of baptism, who — by means of chrismation and who — by means of repentance, the repudiation of heresy and confession of the Orthodox Faith. By this it piously maintained the rule about the non-repetition of a valid baptism even if it was performed outside the Orthodox Church.”

Here’s Constantinople;

Canon 7

Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, “The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies—for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:—all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.

Canon 95 is the same as above from the 6th Council

Synod of Arles Canon 11

CONCERNING those who have fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation.

Oblation is communion.

 

[spina1953]

I reading these posts I came across something from history that seems to make some sense and that is in 292AD the emperor Diocletian divided the Roman empire into East and West. The division emphasized political, cultural and other differences between the two parts of the empire and it influenced different developments in the Church in the east and the West.
it sounds to me that today in our day and age those differences have not disappeared and continues. From history it seems to me that the Roman empire when they conquered the east were heavy handed which I think also let to major differences that have also led to having a dislike if you will of the West and their ways od thinking and doing things. buts that IMHO. I would like to see the East and West unite but I do not see how that can be done when the thinking between the two are so far very different.

 

[chimo]

I reading these posts I came across something from history that seems to make some sense and that is in 292AD the emperor Diocletian divided the Roman empire into East and West. The division emphasized political, cultural and other differences between the two parts of the empire and it influenced different developments in the Church in the east and the West.

it sounds to me that today in our day and age those differences have not disappeared and continues. From history it seems to me that the Roman empire when they conquered the east were heavy handed which I think also let to major differences that have also led to having a dislike if you will of the West and their ways od thinking and doing things. buts that IMHO. I would like to see the East and West unite but I do not see how that can be done when the thinking between the two are so far very different.

Perhaps we need to think of this in a different way. We are not that different if you really check it out. We can both love and serve God. What is different in East and West is the approach we take in teaching about God. But what really counts is not the approach but the final product. Since both Churches have a surplus of saints in their respective Churches than their approaches seem to be working. The problem though between East and West is this lack of knowledge by what approach each other has come to learn by. We do not know the approach! And surprisingly we judge each other because of these differences in our own approaches. Does it really matter that one Church goes about it in a different way to give out God than what the other does? If I have a wife whom I love will I complain she is not brought up the same as I am? Are we not going to have some differences? Are not the approaches in teaching us going to be the same or are they going to be different? Does it really matter that we have these differences in our Churches, both East and West? Is not the final product that counts?

Perhaps if we will only see this in the same light as young couples do than these differences would not matter at all. In fact they would make us even grow more to become more. They say a woman when she marries her man makes him a better man and a man when he marries a certain woman will help make her to be a better woman. May be we are looking at this the wrong way? May be what is in the Catholic Church will make the Orthodox a better Orthodox and what is in the Orthodox Church will make the Catholic a better Catholic. It depends on how you look at it. If we will not see it in this light than how are we ever going to unite?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Perhaps we need to think of this in a different way. We are not that different if you really check it out. We can both love and serve God. What is different in East and West is the approach we take in teaching about God. But what really counts is not the approach but the final product. Since both Churches have a surplus of saints in their respective Churches than their approaches seem to be working. The problem though between East and West is this lack of knowledge by what approach each other has come to learn by. We do not know the approach! And surprisingly we judge each other because of these differences in our own approaches. Does it really matter that one Church goes about it in a different way to give out God than what the other does? If I have a wife whom I love will I complain she is not brought up the same as I am? Are we not going to have some differences? Are not the approaches in teaching us going to be the same or are they going to be different? Does it really matter that we have these differences in our Churches, both East and West? Is not the final product that counts?

Perhaps if we will only see this in the same light as young couples do than these differences would not matter at all. In fact they would make us even grow more to become more. They say a woman when she marries her man makes him a better man and a man when he marries a certain woman will help make her to be a better woman. May be we are looking at this the wrong way? May be what is in the Catholic Church will make the Orthodox a better Orthodox and what is in the Orthodox Church will make the Catholic a better Catholic. It depends on how you look at it. If we will not see it in this light than how are we ever going to unite?

And that my friends is ecumenical spirit! LEts make it happen!

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Perhaps we need to think of this in a different way. We are not that different if you really check it out. We can both love and serve God. What is different in East and West is the approach we take in teaching about God. But what really counts is not the approach but the final product. Since both Churches have a surplus of saints in their respective Churches than their approaches seem to be working. The problem though between East and West is this lack of knowledge by what approach each other has come to learn by. We do not know the approach! And surprisingly we judge each other because of these differences in our own approaches. Does it really matter that one Church goes about it in a different way to give out God than what the other does? If I have a wife whom I love will I complain she is not brought up the same as I am? Are we not going to have some differences? Are not the approaches in teaching us going to be the same or are they going to be different? Does it really matter that we have these differences in our Churches, both East and West? Is not the final product that counts?

Perhaps if we will only see this in the same light as young couples do than these differences would not matter at all. In fact they would make us even grow more to become more. They say a woman when she marries her man makes him a better man and a man when he marries a certain woman will help make her to be a better woman. May be we are looking at this the wrong way? May be what is in the Catholic Church will make the Orthodox a better Orthodox and what is in the Orthodox Church will make the Catholic a better Catholic. It depends on how you look at it. If we will not see it in this light than how are we ever going to unite?

It seems to me we really are that different otherwise there would be no reason to prevent union. I would never suggest we stop talking but what has to admitted first is the fundamental difference which really do prevent communion. Those differences, the place of the Pope, Filoque and other emphasises of both the church communions respectively are not a trifle but are fundamental to the character of the respective churches. Roman catholics see an absolute need for authority to be located in one individual, the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Orthodox see each church as needing to administer itself and its own affairs, being in communion in both faith and practice with the other churches, we value an autonomy the roman church simply doesn’t.

This might make me the villian but unless our differences are resolved and they are by no means trifles there is no possibility of communion. Patriarch Jeremiah would not compromise the faith as he saw it with the Lutherans any more than the Pope at the time of Luther would compromise the faith as he saw it with Luther himself. Optimism in the face of what seperates does nothing except give empty platitudes.

 

[dzheremi]

Well said, IgnatianPhilo.

I have been described here and elsewhere as being “negative” or “desiring disunity” or in many other similar ways, but knowing how seriously each church ultimately takes its ecclesiology, theology, and other unique points of its particular religious culture, I think it is those who recognize all our differences and take them as seriously as they take their own particular dogmas who will make the most progress in any given ecumenical endeavor, whether on a personal, laity level (as here), or in dialogues among conferences of bishops. This doesn’t mean that we’ll all be united (in fact, barring a profound transformation in our ontological beings, we won’t, because we have very different ideas of what it means to be united), but it does mean that conversations like this one can cease to be labelled a waste by the people who start them, for whatever that’s worth…

People much smarter than me have observed that true unity can only proceed when the members of one church look to those of another and see in them an image of their own life and faith. For many, many reasons, this does not happen when Orthodox look at Roman Catholics or any other Western Christian group. So for as nice as it may make some people feel to focus primarily on our similarities and say many kind and lofty words to those with whom we are not in communion, realistically if we can’t see ourselves in the other church, then reunion will never, ever happen.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Who says I hate Thomas Aquinas just because I’ve brought him up here as an example of a Catholic philosopher who realized later in his life how his earlier pursuits had been inferior to received wisdom? That’s your reading of my posts, not anything I’ve actually written. And, yes, I have read the Summa (when I was still RC, I owned a copy for myself). And, no, the Filioque controversy was not a result of theologians “philosophizing themselves into separate corners”. It was the result of the Church of Rome adding to the Creed after they had already agreed much earlier not to do that, and then as time goes on building a whole theology around that addition that was wrong.

I don’t know why threads are started here asking for Orthodox viewpoints on anything if nobody ever wants to hear those viewpoints, but instead only wants to use them as an excuse to argue and make grand declarative statements. Of course you are free to feel that the Church of God includes anyone you want it to, and the that Roman Catholic Church has never erred and never will err, but why then bother me with attempts to set right my “hatred” by affirming the Catholic line regarding these issues and people that I’m already well aware of and reject because they are alien to my faith? If that’s “hatred”, then okay…being Orthodox is hateful insofar as it conflicts with a priori views of Catholics regarding the kinds of matters we are discussing. But this is not dialogue. It’s people being baited in an environment where we already know that we won’t agree, but still keep hoping that somehow maybe this one is a genuine chance to discuss a viewpoint different than that of RCism. Y’know, hope springs eternal and all, but the reality is probably that we’re all wasting our time here because even threads that ask for that viewpoint quickly degenerate into “nuh uh!” “yeah huh!” style pseudo-debate wherein the very basis of our disagreement (i.e., the thing that we are asked about in the OP) is seen as hatefulness and something that is in need of correction by repeating again, just one more time (until the next time), why it is that the RCC is correct and the Orthodox are not. Fine. This is your place in the first place, but geez…quit asking for things you don’t really want to hear. It’s confusing, being welcomed and unwelcome at the same time among fellow Christians.

First, I want to apologize if my post was emotionally offensive. I didn’t intend that. Although your post is the reason I made my post, it was not directed at you in particular, which is why I didn’t quote it.

Secondly, I would like to defend the OP on the basis that I am not the OP, and my post was not about the original topic of the thread (sacramental validity), but a new topic which you brought up. For those reasons, I don’t think its fair to accuse the OP of “baiting” anyone.

Regarding, Thomas Aquinas, I was responding to a few things. First, the common meme that St. Thomas was too philosophical/scholastic and not spiritual/mystical, which is a false dichotomy. Second, a misrepresentation of Thomas’s vision, as if it were a repudiation of scholasticism rather than a lifestyle change after a deeply personal experience. Third, an inconsistent standard of judging St. Thomas vs. the Eastern fathers, as if the Eastern fathers did not make use of philosophical arguments and terminology.

 

[GaryTaylor]

How does one see the image of Christ in the East, in particular when the remission of sin is boldly denied and supported by the erroneous belief that “some early church fathers believed this” In fact to me its utter nonsense as it denies the redemption of Jesus Christ!!!

Then one would slap up the Filoque as a point of contention when the Creed is so clear. Let alone baptism. Absurd.is what I see.

So when its said one doesn’t see Christ in the West, where is Christ in this nonexistent theology in the East which undermines the redemption of Jesus Christ?

And yes we do think very differently about what it means to be united, that’s self evident also.

When one proves that novel philosophy of unity claimed above historically I will be impressed. That has never occurred., never will.

In other words how can you argue Creed when your wrong about the remission of sin, how can you argue Baptism when the remission of sin is thought to be unneeded.

How can you argue the primacy when there is no historic view as we see on this thread to support the novel theory?

Then to suggest you don’t see the image of Christ in the West, is plain absurd and when the “redemption” of Jesus Christ himself is denied.

Let me ask; Do you see why so many in the West do not see the image of Christ in the East???

Prove your point, and leave the drama, the sublime insults and novel claims behind.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Gary, it is not clear to me who your post is directed towards, nor who is denying the (need for?) remission of sin. Can you elaborate on what you are trying to say?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary, it is not clear to me who your post is directed towards, nor who is denying the (need for?) remission of sin. Can you elaborate on what you are trying to say?

It wasn’t to you. My point is the usual incorrect understanding of “And we do not believe [original sin] it’s a state, but an act. A child has the ability to sin, but they do not sin until THEY sin.”

Which denies the remission of sin through baptism in the Creed, and appears on every single thread along with “guilt” . Its an obsession which apparently leads to multiple issues as mentioned right above by me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here allow me to show you another example of the same thing on another forum and thread. Same theory…

rejects the Western notion of Original Sin.

“How do the Orthodox view it the West and Original Sin”?

(That there is no such thing. Instead, we refer to the sin of Adam or ancestral sin which is not our sin at all nor is it “on” our souls at our conception but rather the corruption wrought by Adam;s sin is passed on to us sort of in our spiritual DNA. For this reason, when speaking of the baptism of infants, many of the Fathers comment that for them Baptism is not for the remission of their sins but rather for initiation into the Body of Christ by symbolically dying with Him and rising into new life with our potential for theosis, lost in the Fall, restored. )

Follow the chain of events in this dilemma.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Now lets take this a step farther. There is no universal eastern thinking as mentioned directly above, and this is allowed. Obviously the Coptic and EO have a very different understanding in the above sense of sin. The ecclesiology, theology is not the same. Its the same when “like” points are agree’d upon. So as suggested maybe the difference here ought to be addressed?

So how does one make this like claim to “Orthodoxy” in general, when this stark difference exists?

 

[chimo]

It seems to me we really are that different otherwise there would be no reason to prevent union. I would never suggest we stop talking but what has to admitted first is the fundamental difference which really do prevent communion. Those differences, the place of the Pope, Filoque and other emphasises of both the church communions respectively are not a trifle but are fundamental to the character of the respective churches. Roman catholics see an absolute need for authority to be located in one individual, the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Orthodox see each church as needing to administer itself and its own affairs, being in communion in both faith and practice with the other churches, we value an autonomy the roman church simply doesn’t.

This might make me the villian but unless our differences are resolved and they are by no means trifles there is no possibility of communion. Patriarch Jeremiah would not compromise the faith as he saw it with the Lutherans any more than the Pope at the time of Luther would compromise the faith as he saw it with Luther himself. Optimism in the face of what seperates does nothing except give empty platitudes.

You are forgetting we as Orthodox do not live anymore in the East. We are now in the West. We need to pick up what is good in the West (the Catholic Church) to make it part of our own. Why? It is because we will suffer. We will be losing much. Our young people are not interested to remain in the Church. This problem is going to escalate for us Orthodox. We are losing our young peoples towards the secular way of life which the West (the Western culture) presents. One of the answers in helping our young people to remain in Church will actually come from Rome. We must allow to put our “political” differences aside and allow what teachings and methods that Rome has to be in the hands of our younger peoples. This problem that is in the West will effect the Orthodox who are here and in fact it is growing at an alarming rate. I believe that God sent the Orthodox here so that we hopefully will put our differences aside (which are only politics) and find out how Rome can help us. If we do not do this our young peoples which are the hope for any Church are going to leave in big numbers. I also sense the Catholic youth will also benefit from us as well in ways they have not discovered. In either case both Churches will be able to help the youth of the other.

 

[Peter_J]

It seems to me we really are that different otherwise there would be no reason to prevent union.

Well, depends what you mean by “that different”. Our differences may be significant enough to prevent full communion (for now) but they are not so great that I would encourage an Eastern Orthodox to convert to Catholicism. (For the record, I don’t discourage anyone from doing so either, if he/she wants to of his/her own volition.)