Calling All Orthodox!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jon_S_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GaryTaylor said:
Accountable for your own sin stems from a incorrect understanding then application to the West of Augustine, Do you understand that?

And I don’t understand the less judgment view, help me out. Is it the view that leads to remission for sin through the Sacraments (baptism) isn’t required?

This is contrary to above your accountable for Adam and Eves sin here above your ONLY accountable for your own, and the confusion continues.

This is incorrect show it to me in the early church. The best one could link is convoluted thinking by St John. Baptism is the in Creed for the remission of sin … YES or NO?

Again the CREED among other issues should never come up if this is the case. Long list of issues evolve from here.

This is wrong also as its spiritual and physical death.

There was ONLY one Church, and one teaching, you mean recently unless you have the early Church documentation I fail to see your point.

Sorry I see no difference historically, and I see no mention of Ancestral sin.
Click to expand...
This is the theology and teaching of the Eastern Church. If the East has chosen not to accept the Western understanding why are you signally out the East as if this Church was incorrect. The West had their interpretation and the East theirs. This interpretation only meant the East was more lenient than the West. Why can’t you understand that? If the West has their understanding, the East their understanding, this meant that certain disciplines were in place because of these two degrees on how both Churches had judged sin. The West moved more on the side of Justice while the East moved more towards the side of Mercy. Since God exhibits both Justice and Mercy it was good that one Church leaned more the way God disciplines while the other Church leaned more towards the way God exhibits mercy. By the way St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his sermon on Original Sin that it was not possible that God would judged babies if they were not baptised. I don’t want to discuss the implications of Original Sin to you because my differences are very hard for you to accept. You have quite misunderstood everything I was trying to say. I have no problem with the Western Churches understanding. I only had mentioned that the Eastern Church thinks differently on this issue on Original Sin. I will say this to you. It doesn’t really matter which Church thinks the way they do as long as they understand what the final product is.

My only point in all of this was the Catholic Church was more disciplined while the Eastern Church was more lenient. I grew up in the West and was raised more Catholic from my early years up until my late 20’s. I know of the discipline towards sin in the West because I experienced it first hand. I grew up in fact more unaware of God’s mercy because of the type of teaching I was given. When I entered the Eastern Church to find how they view things I found a different way of growing up within the same “Catholic” Church. My understanding to know of God as a more merciful God began to sink in while I was experiencing God within the Orthodox Church. That for me was what I experience.

I don’t want to argue with you about Original Sin because it only brings out this kind of misunderstanding that one tends to see. Whatever Original Sin is has all been taken care of at our Baptism. You and I agree Ok. I have no quibbles with this. We should as Christians think ahead and not look back. Forget the Original Sin for it is always been taken care of at our Baptism. Does it really matter what interpretation each Church has when it is always taken care of anyway in the Sacrament of Baptism. We should look ahead and never more the past for it is the power of Grace that counts and each Church has that power to give. Our saints in both our Churches has shown us that.
 
GaryTaylor said:
No I’m not confusing “:anything” its a repetitive, documented, proclaimed fact here and everywhere else I have been., And its nothing but confusion every time it comes up for the very reason mentioned…It makes no sense.

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/452/romanides-holy-baptism/

My response to this some time ago was, its “accepted” teaching in the EO.

I think it was Augustine obsession.
Click to expand...
What is a fact? That we deny the power of baptism or that we apparently have nothing we agree upon? I remember the basic jist of the words at my own baptism, I was forced to renounce satan, it was for the remission of sins, I had to confess the creed, it was for me to enter in and start the Christian life, so I do not understand why you think baptism means little in orthodoxy or that the position of the orthodox is denial of the creed.
 
RyanBlack said:
My statement that he is ill-informed was actually a charitable statement. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that his false claims about the Orthodox are the result of his ignorance about Orthodoxy, as opposed to being acts of slander.
Click to expand...
“Romanizes does not speak for Orthodoxy.”

So what was I ignorant of Ryan? That Romanizes doesn’t speak for Orthodoxy? How about all the poison he spreads. Like professed on their thread and every one that comes up on sin? How about them the ignorant speaking for the Orthodox? But they aren’t ignorant?

Who’s being ignorant now Ryan?

So I was ignorant of the heterodox writing of Romanizes. But he was ignorant of the Truth all who promote it are also ignorant? But I notice you have nothing to say about all that. Just be uncharitable and carry on as usual for you? Don’t say a word about the stone. It will be on the next thread also for sure. So how does that help unity? Oh it doesn’t.

Or was I ignorant of the difference of Ancestral and Original sin, which you would rather talk uncharitable than address and it doesn’t seem anyone can articulate?

So who is speaking for Orthodoxy today?
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
What is a fact? That we deny the power of baptism or that we apparently have nothing we agree upon?
Click to expand...
The fact is no-one has a word to say about the rampent heterodox teaching called Orthodox by Romanides or bothers to correct the teaching, that’s the fact.

And the other fact here no-one can articulate a difference which all claim there is though.

Unity is not only a fairy tale on that path its an obstacle to it.
 
GaryTaylor said:
The fact is no-one has a word to say about the rampent heterodox teaching called Orthodox by Romanides or bothers to correct the teaching, that’s the fact.

And the other fact here no-one can articulate a difference which all claim there is though.

Unity is not only a fairy tale on that path its an obstacle to it.
Click to expand...
And what is Romanides teaching exactly? Not that I am any sort of authority mind you.
 
chimo said:
This is the theology and teaching of the Eastern Church. If the East has chosen not to accept the Western understanding why are you signally out the East as if this Church was incorrect. The West had their interpretation and the East theirs. This interpretation only meant the East was more lenient than the West. Why can’t you understand that? If the West has their understanding, the East their understanding, this meant that certain disciplines were in place because of these two degrees on how both Churches had judged sin. The West moved more on the side of Justice while the East moved more towards the side of Mercy. Since God exhibits both Justice and Mercy it was good that one Church leaned more the way God disciplines while the other Church leaned more towards the way God exhibits mercy. By the way St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his sermon on Original Sin that it was not possible that God would judged babies if they were not baptised. I don’t want to discuss the implications of Original Sin to you because my differences are very hard for you to accept. You have quite misunderstood everything I was trying to say. I have no problem with the Western Churches understanding. I only had mentioned that the Eastern Church thinks differently on this issue on Original Sin. I will say this to you. It doesn’t really matter which Church thinks the way they do as long as they understand what the final product is.

My only point in all of this was the Catholic Church was more disciplined while the Eastern Church was more lenient. I grew up in the West and was raised more Catholic from my early years up until my late 20’s. I know of the discipline towards sin in the West because I experienced it first hand. I grew up in fact more unaware of God’s mercy because of the type of teaching I was given. When I entered the Eastern Church to find how they view things I found a different way of growing up within the same “Catholic” Church. My understanding to know of God as a more merciful God began to sink in while I was experiencing God within the Orthodox Church. That for me was what I experience.

I don’t want to argue with you about Original Sin because it only brings out this kind of misunderstanding that one tends to see. Whatever Original Sin is has all been taken care of at our Baptism. You and I agree Ok. I have no quibbles with this. We should as Christians think ahead and not look back. Forget the Original Sin for it is always been taken care of at our Baptism. Does it really matter what interpretation each Church has when it is always taken care of anyway in the Sacrament of Baptism. We should look ahead and never more the past for it is the power of Grace that counts and each Church has that power to give. Our saints in both our Churches has shown us that.
Click to expand...
I know Chimo your a good man. But the head in the sand approach doesn’t help. Does it matter? You tell me after you google Ancestral and Original sin? Watch the wealth of misinformation come up and by the Orthodox.

Did it matter to other posters claiming boldly Romandes and I should return to the real church? Did it matter that a heterodox is promoted while its insinuated I’m heterodox and should return to the Church?

Yes it matters. What doesn’t the East accept aside form the dogmas? That which they think Catholics believe along with false accusations… The EAST don’t believe in guilt. :rolleyes:
 
Peter_J said:
Without attempting to assess the merits of any or all of GaryTaylor’s posts on this thread
Click to expand...
Please do and come back and report to Ryan. 👍 And your right Ryans insulting language doesn’t speak well for any “Christian”
 
Not that it matters to me one way or another, but the fact that Moss identifies Romanides as “new calendarist” makes me think that Moss himself is an old calendarist and maybe not in union with canonical Eastern Orthodoxy (I’m not entirely sure the status of every old calendarist group, but I know that some identify themselves as “real/true/genuine” Orthodox churches as a means of marking their schism from the rest of the EO). As such, and especially because the article by Moss has no footnotes, so there is no way to know from where and in what context the Romanides quote is supposedly taken (if it is an accurate quote in the first place).
 
dzheremi said:
Not that it matters to me one way or another, but the fact that Moss identifies Romanides as “new calendarist” makes me think that Moss himself is an old calendarist and maybe not in union with canonical Eastern Orthodoxy (I’m not entirely sure the status of every old calendarist group, but I know that some identify themselves as “real/true/genuine” Orthodox churches as a means of marking their schism from the rest of the EO). As such, and especially because the article by Moss has no footnotes, so there is no way to know from where and in what context the Romanides quote is supposedly taken (if it is an accurate quote in the first place).
Click to expand...
“Christians who cannot point their fingers at this enemy of mankind are the same people who illogically claim that in Christ there is remission of this unknown original sin. This is a far cry from the certitude of St. Paul,” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, Vol. IV, Nos. 1 and 2, 1955-6. Romanides

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Romanides
 
“Thus the post-Augustinian West saw the Sin of Adam as a fall from the greatest height and an offense of the highest order against the Divine Nature and the very honor of God. Necessity [a pagan idea] in the Divine Nature Itself, dictated certain adjudications: the retributive death of Adam; the imposition of guilt for Adam’s Sin and, therefore, the just penalty of death on the entire human race; the Incarnation, suffering, and death of the Son of God for the Infinite Satisfaction of Divine Justice and the restoration of the Divine Honor; the appeasing of the just “wrath” of the Father by the merits of His Son’s suffering and death on the Cross, enabling God to absolve men of their sins; and, at the Second Coming of Jesus, to finally lift the penalty of death. In this scheme, the expiatory nature of redemption and of spiritual life is consequent to and built on the presuppositions of the Latin teaching of Original sin.”

From the book-Ancestral Sin by Dr. John S. Romanides, George S. Gabriel translated and provided the excerpt.

Sad you know I have read a PDF on line. he can be completely orthodox for one chapter and the come off the chain in the next.

Needless to say he doesn’t help the current situation.
 
Seems to me the only difference is based on false assumptions. That is unless someone is officially speaking for Orthodoxy pre Augustine since the post Augustine theology through 1955-56 is a “fall from the greatest heights”. This should be easy?
 
GaryTaylor said:
“Thus the post-Augustinian West saw the Sin of Adam as a fall from the greatest height and an offense of the highest order against the Divine Nature and the very honor of God. Necessity [a pagan idea] in the Divine Nature Itself, dictated certain adjudications: the retributive death of Adam; the imposition of guilt for Adam’s Sin and, therefore, the just penalty of death on the entire human race; the Incarnation, suffering, and death of the Son of God for the Infinite Satisfaction of Divine Justice and the restoration of the Divine Honor; the appeasing of the just “wrath” of the Father by the merits of His Son’s suffering and death on the Cross, enabling God to absolve men of their sins; and, at the Second Coming of Jesus, to finally lift the penalty of death. In this scheme, the expiatory nature of redemption and of spiritual life is consequent to and built on the presuppositions of the Latin teaching of Original sin.”
Click to expand...
  1. Our creation and God’s Incarnation most intimately connected. As by the Word man was called from non-existence into being, and further received the grace of a divine life, so by the one fault which forfeited that life they again incurred corruption and untold sin and misery filled the world.
St Athanasius (the East) 🤷

newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm

“so by the one fault which forfeited that life they again incurred corruption and untold sin and misery filled the world.” Athanasius

Above :“Necessity [a pagan idea] in the Divine Nature Itself, dictated certain adjudications: the retributive death of Adam; the imposition of guilt for Adam’s Sin and, therefore, the just penalty of death on the entire human race; the Incarnation, suffering, and death of the Son of God for the Infinite Satisfaction of Divine Justice and the restoration of the Divine Honor”

Romanides

“6. The human race then was wasting, God’s image was being effaced, and His work ruined. Either, then, God must forego His spoken word by which man had incurred ruin; or that which had shared in the being of the Word must sink back again into destruction, in which case God’s design would be defeated. What then? Was God’s goodness to suffer this? But if so, why had man been made? It could have been weakness, not goodness on God’s part.”

Athanasius

How about St Athanasius does he speak for Orthodoxy pre Augustine?
 
Quick google search of Ancestral Sin. These are but the first two sights which come up.

“The doctrine of ancestral sin focuses on human death as an inheritance from Adam. The notion of inheritance of the guilt of Adam is excluded.” 🤷

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_sin

“The Eastern Church, unlike its Western counterpart, never speaks of guilt being passed from Adam and Eve to their progeny, as did Augustine. Instead, it is posited that each person bears the guilt of his or her own sin. The question becomes, “What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?” The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: death. (I Corinthians 15:21)”

preachersinstitute.com/2010/04/27/ancestral-sin-versus-original-sin-by-fr-anthony-hughes/

No one sees an issue with this continued path East to West? Seriously

And I would be wrong to call this ignorance, yes I would but its sad and disturbing.

The Filioque?
 
Gary, it has not been my experience that the Eastern Orthodox reject original sin, although they may teach it in a different way or have different emphases. While I agree that “ancestral sin vs. original sin” is an artificial debate, it does not appear to be a mainstream one from what I have read of Orthodox articles. The belief that the Western doctrine is radically opposed to what is taught by the Greek fathers appears to be a fringe position and usually repeated only by those who are laboring under misapprehensions of what the Latin fathers taught (for example, that Catholics believe Adam’s actual sin of eating the fruit is literally imputed to all his descendents as an actual sin of their own).

Your recent posts in this thread have come across as very aggressive as well as cryptic, making them seem more aggressive that you probably intended them to be (the use of shoulder-shrugging and eye-rolling emoticons does not help). What your posting about is a worthy topic, but it would be better to do so in a way that did not offend people any more than necessary. It might also merit a thread of its own since it’s beginning to deviate from the question of the thread, which is the Orthodox view of the validity of Catholic sacraments.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Originally Posted by Peter J
Without attempting to assess the merits of any or all of GaryTaylor’s posts on this thread
Click to expand...
When spending much time on the internet, one of the most obvious things is the need to pick-and-choose (so to speak) what to read. Here on CAF we’ve got the “Ignore List” feature, which, experience tells me, more people ought to use (although I admit that I don’t use it myself, because for me deciding which posts to read is more of an art than a science).

Sorry for going off on a tangent and/or waxing philosophical, but hopefully some readers can benefit from my thoughts.
Click to expand...
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
Gary, it has not been my experience that the Eastern Orthodox reject original sin, although they may teach it in a different way or have different emphases. While I agree that “ancestral sin vs. original sin” is an artificial debate, it does not appear to be a mainstream one from what I have read of Orthodox articles. The belief that the Western doctrine is radically opposed to what is taught by the Greek fathers appears to be a fringe position and usually repeated only by those who are laboring under misapprehensions of what the Latin fathers taught (for example, that Catholics believe Adam’s actual sin of eating the fruit is literally imputed to all his descendents as an actual sin of their own)…
Click to expand...
Its mainstream enough to appear on just about every thread.
QNDNNDQDCE said:
Your recent posts in this thread have come across as very aggressive as well as cryptic, making them seem more aggressive that you probably intended them to be (the use of shoulder-shrugging and eye-rolling emoticons does not help). What your posting about is a worthy topic, but it would be better to do so in a way that did not offend people any more than necessary. It might also merit a thread of its own since it’s beginning to deviate from the question of the thread, which is the Orthodox view of the validity of Catholic sacraments.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your personal advice and opinion.

What’s Cryptic? You mean mysterious comments like “The doctrine of ancestral sin focuses on human death as an inheritance from Adam. The notion of inheritance of the guilt of Adam is excluded.” 🤷 With no footnotes from Wiki Pedia?

The emotions are here why? So you can use them? I believe your the only individual to comment on their appropriate use which I have ever heard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top