Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[GaryTaylor]

Yes Mary was born without sin, but we don’t believe anyone is born with sin. So I guess if you want to define it that way, everyone is immaculately conceived.

Well perhaps I’m hallucinating. Is this really stating “We don’t believe anyone is born with sin”

How does that square with this…

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

And this…

The question is simple. Why do you then “confess one Baptism for the remission of sin”? So what it Is it you defined here?

BTW who is the “we” referred to above? Do you follow John Romanides also? Is that the we referred to?

 

[ConstantineTG]

And the Greek is clear even now.

I’d rather stick with the original than go for the (mis)translation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Revelation of the full deposit of Christ ended at the Council of Nicea when Christ was affirmed True God and True Man, and this profession we profess as Catholic/Orthodox in recitation of the Nicene Creed.

Subsequently the aposotlic, universal Church proclaimed the fullness of the deposit of faith in Jesus Christ, just as she compiled and affirmed the books of Sacred Scripture.

Check your catechism. Revelation ended with the Apostles.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St Cyprian “letter to Donatus” 246-247

“I indulged my sin as is they were actually part and parcel to my life. But afterwards when the “STAIN” of my past life had been washed away by means of water of re-birth; a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart, afterward through the Spirit that is breathed from heaven, a second birth made me a new man, Thus it had to be acknowledged that what was of the earth and born of the flesh and had lived submissive to sins, had now begun to be of God, inasmuch as the HS was animating it”

and

“Letter to the Council to the number of sixty-six”- 251-252

“In the case of the worst sinners and of those who formally sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sin is granted and no-one is held back from Baptism and Grace, how much more, then. should an infant not be held back, who, having recently been born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contacted the contagion of that old death from his being first born. For this very reason does he approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another”

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
If the ECs believe that East and West are compatible, and the Orthodox don’t, how can they be believing in the same thing?

After posting ^^ this, I noticed that Constantine has gone cold turkey.

 

[KathleenGee]

Constantine does not know his church history.

Revelation ended at the Council of Nicea because the revelation of Jesus Christ as True God and True Man needed to be clearly defined against Arianism, and both Latin and Eastern Churches affirmed this teaching in the face of 90% of who bishops didn’t have clear understanding of Christ either and His two natures.

Even the Bishop of Rome originally entertained the idea, but later rejected it through the heroic work of St. Athanasius.

Objections to the Immaculate Conception and purgatory is as it has been said, ‘making a tempest in a teapot’. This denial comes across as more emotional than anything.

Such objections do not in any way justify schism.

 

[jimmy]

Constantine does not know his church history.

Revelation ended at the Council of Nicea because the revelation of Jesus Christ as True God and True Man needed to be clearly defined against Arianism, and both Latin and Eastern Churches affirmed this teaching in the face of 90% of who bishops didn’t have clear understanding of Christ either and His two natures.

Even the Bishop of Rome originally entertained the idea, but later rejected it through the heroic work of St. Athanasius.

Objections to the Immaculate Conception and purgatory is as it has been said, ‘making a tempest in a teapot’. This denial comes across as more emotional than anything.

Such objections do not in any way justify schism.

Constantine’s history isn’t so bad. Catholicism declares that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Read dei verbum.

If you want to speak of the controversies of history and say that Nicaea was part of revelation because of its definition of the divinity of the Son, you have to also include all of the first seven councils because they all were about the identity of Christ. Nicaea doesn’t complete Christology.

There are real theological and philosophical differences that lead those in the east to reject the IC and purgatory. Those who reject purgatory and the IC are anathema according to Catholicism, so why wouldn’t someone break communion with Rome if they reject these doctrines? Rome has declared it a schismable offense. It seems that you would have people submit to ideas they reject.

 

[Peter_J]

Constantine does not know his church history.

Constantine is probably one of the most knowledge posters here.

At any rate, he isn’t the one who said that “Revelation ended at the Council of Nicea”.

 

[Peter_J]

Those who reject purgatory and the IC are anathema according to Catholicism, so why wouldn’t someone break communion with Rome if they reject these doctrines? Rome has declared it a schismable offense.

I think precision is needed here: Catholic canon law doesn’t automatically excommunicate a Catholic who rejects those teachings. It’s up to the pope to decide whether to excommunicate him/her or not.