You make it sound as if St. Augustine is an arch-heretic to rival Arius. You do realize that we was praised as one of the holy Fathers of the Church whose writings on the faith were to be followed at the 5th Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Constantinople) and a most wise teacher at the 6th Ecumenical Council (Third Council of Constantinople).The fact that the Immaculate Conception is based on the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin means it will never be accepted in Orthodoxy. If we’re just talking about the Theotokos not committing any sin of her own, that is perfectly acceptable. But to be exempted for something that we don’t even believe that is there in the first place, that cannot be acceptable.
Being a Holy Father and a Saint doesn’t mean you are infallible and impeccable. St. John Chrysostom wrote in one of his Homilies that Mary committed sin, which is against Roman Catholic dogma. Yet he hasn’t been stricken off as a Doctor of the Church, much less as a Saint.You make it sound as if St. Augustine is an arch-heretic to rival Arius. You do realize that we was praised as one of the holy Fathers of the Church whose writings on the faith were to be followed at the 5th Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Constantinople) and a most wise teacher at the 6th Ecumenical Council (Third Council of Constantinople).
The truth is constant, it is unchanging, it is eternal. What is true 2000 years ago is true today. If by “stagnant” you mean that the faith changes, then we do not agree with that again. The nature of Christ was always understood the same way. The way it is explained evolved, but the Apostles knew Christ to be fully man and fully God, co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Even if they never used the terms “hypostatic” and other terminologies that came out of the Councils, their understanding of the truth is the same as the Fathers of those councils who used these definitions.You do realize that our understanding of the faith is not stagnant. The Holy Spirit is constantly leading us to truth. It took us quite a while to wrap our heads around the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, just like it took us a while to wrap our heads around the truth of Jesus’ nature. And we can still say we are trying to grapple with our faith and God’s revelation. It’s like a divine sudoku puzzle…the entire picture is there, but we have to work to discover where everything goes. But the truth was always there, even if we were oblivious to it before.
As St. John Chrysostom reflected while preaching on the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man:
Thus many also before us have spoken on this subject; many perhaps after us will speak on it; but no one will be able to exhaust the whole store of wealth. For such is the nature of this abundance, that the more deeply you dig down, the more plentifully divine instruction wells forth: it is a fountain never failing.
No, but it does mean that there is a presumption of correction (a wise teacher) and of good conduct (a holy saint). The burden of proof is on the one who would claim that there is a fault in either a teaching or conduct…and I would argue it is untenable to throw the whole body of works out the window lock, stock, and barrel.Being a Holy Father and a Saint doesn’t mean you are infallible and impeccable. St. John Chrysostom wrote in one of his Homilies that Mary committed sin, which is against Roman Catholic dogma. Yet he hasn’t been stricken off as a Doctor of the Church, much less as a Saint.
The faith for us is constant. It was once delivered to the Apostles and with the death of St. John public revelation has come to a close.The truth is constant, it is unchanging, it is eternal. What is true 2000 years ago is true today. If by “stagnant” you mean that the faith changes, then we do not agree with that again. The nature of Christ was always understood the same way. The way it is explained evolved, but the Apostles knew Christ to be fully man and fully God, co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Even if they never used the terms “hypostatic” and other terminologies that came out of the Councils, their understanding of the truth is the same as the Fathers of those councils who used these definitions.
Hi DJLake.From a Catholic and Orthodox perspective, I woudl like to hear opinions on this question. Can a Catholic be in two worlds: attend Divine Liturgies vs. the Mass (except for days of Catholic obligation), grow in holiness as a result of practicing the tenets of Orthodoxy outside of reception of the Sacraments, and at the same time remain technically Catholic?
Interesingtingly I read a declaration from the Conference of Catholic Bishops that Catholics married to Orthodox spouses may raise their children Orthodox with the blessing of the Catholic Church so that a family would be combining the two faiths.
DJL
That’s not too surprising. “Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other”It is only my experience. I was in the Eastern Catholic Church for quite some time…and I saw zero conversions from Orthodoxy to Eastern Catholicism. But in my time in the Holy Orthodox Church…I have seen many coming from Eastern Catholicism.
Saying they’re different from Eastern Orthodox is pejorative??Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
My point is that Eastern Catholics and Orthodox are not the same. Telling people that they are getting Orthodoxy in the Eastern Catholic Church is misleading them. You think you are preventing them from becoming Orthodox, but it is a more sure fire way that they become Orthodox. Because they go to the Eastern Catholic Church and find out what they are looking for is not there, so where else do they go to but the Orthodox Church.
No, it isn’t. But he seems to view them as wholly inferior and downright treasonous for their communion with Rome. That’s just the impression I got from his posts and its possible that some nuance or subtlety didn’t make it through or I didn’t pick it up.Saying they’re different from Eastern Orthodox is pejorative??
OIC. It sounded like you were talking about the specific post you quoted.That’s just the impression I got from his posts
No. Being a Saint means they lived a holy life. Nobody is perfect, so we expect that they may have said some things that may not necessarily be consistent to doctrine. Also, I’m guessing a bit here, but St. Augustine never taught Original Sin as a doctrine. It was really St. Thomas of Aquinas who turned that into what the RCC believes today, and what the Orthodox Church rejects.No, but it does mean that there is a presumption of correction (a wise teacher) and of good conduct (a holy saint). The burden of proof is on the one who would claim that there is a fault in either a teaching or conduct…and I would argue it is untenable to throw the whole body of works out the window lock, stock, and barrel.
In Orthodoxy, Revelation ended when Christ ascended into heaven.The faith for us is constant. It was once delivered to the Apostles and with the death of St. John public revelation has come to a close.
I agree, but Doctrinal Development does introduce major aspects of faith that never existed. It is not merely a clarification.That being said, my point is not that the faith changes, but rather our understanding of it deepens, our way of expressing it varies, but the faith remains the same.
What about the Doctrinal Development of the Holy Trinity, the idea that God is Trinity: Father, Son & Holy Spirit? It’s not found in the Bible or the earliest Fathers, it was not an aspect of the Faith initially, but developed over the 2nd & 3rd Centuries until it was finally made doctrine in an Ecumenical Council.I agree, but Doctrinal Development does introduce major aspects of faith that never existed. It is not merely a clarification.
As I said over and over again, the Apostles already believed that Jesus is God and He is not the Father. Being good Jews, they also believed that there is only one God. So how do you reconcile that? They never used the word “Trinity”, the same way they never used the word “Hypostatic”, but that doesn’t mean what they believed is anything other than what the councils affirmed.What about the Doctrinal Development of the Holy Trinity, the idea that God is Trinity: Father, Son & Holy Spirit? It’s not found in the Bible or the earliest Fathers, it was not an aspect of the Faith initially, but developed over the 2nd & 3rd Centuries until it was finally made doctrine in an Ecumenical Council.
I’m just saying that if it’s “okay” for idea of God to Be the Trinity to come out of basically no where, through the discussions of the Apostle’s Successors, than why can’t Filioque, Papal Supremacy & other doctrines can’t do the same?
usccbpublishing.org/client/client_pdfs/7-050bi.pdfthis link answers the question of the thread.
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites
Do you have a link?
If a Catholic is raising his children Orthodox, that would not be combining two faiths, that would be raising his children Orthodox, or rather, allowing his Orthodox spouse to raise his children Orthodox.From a Catholic and Orthodox perspective, I woudl like to hear opinions on this question. Can a Catholic be in two worlds: attend Divine Liturgies vs. the Mass (except for days of Catholic obligation), grow in holiness as a result of practicing the tenets of Orthodoxy outside of reception of the Sacraments, and at the same time remain technically Catholic?
Interesingtingly I read a declaration from the Conference of Catholic Bishops that Catholics married to Orthodox spouses may raise their children Orthodox with the blessing of the Catholic Church so that a family would be combining the two faiths.
DJL
usccbpublishing.org/client/client_pdfs/7-050bi.pdf
Thank you for the links, Steve B, ! I look forward to reading the articles!
That’s not how I see it. the Trinity, the filioque, and Papal Supremacy didn’t come out of basically no where – if they had then they wouldn’t be legitimate doctrinal development.Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
I agree, but Doctrinal Development does introduce major aspects of faith that never existed. It is not merely a clarification.
Laugh it up, fuzzball! Any day now the Papal States will be back, and then you won’t be able to come within a hundred miles of Rome without our permission!Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
It is accurate, you and I are Orthodox in communion with Rome…
:nunchuk:
Yes, and even for Holy Days of obligation if you attend an Eastern Rite Catholic Church.From a Catholic and Orthodox perspective, I woudl like to hear opinions on this question. Can a Catholic be in two worlds: attend Divine Liturgies vs. the Mass (except for days of Catholic obligation), grow in holiness as a result of practicing the tenets of Orthodoxy outside of reception of the Sacraments, and at the same time remain technically Catholic?
Interesingtingly I read a declaration from the Conference of Catholic Bishops that Catholics married to Orthodox spouses may raise their children Orthodox with the blessing of the Catholic Church so that a family would be combining the two faiths.
DJL