Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[dvdjs]

Based on your reasoning, we have much in common with Buddhists as we haven’t anathemized any of the teachings of the various Buddhas. Come to think of it, was Muhammad ever anathemized?

I suppose that it is fair to demand a further clarification. But I think it is obvious that we have councils to take up issues of significance within our religious tradition - not to rule on matters that are removed from it. Given the long, common history of the Rome and the East, the comparison to Buddhism is more that a bit absurd. Councils were convened that judged the Christological thinking that led to the separation of the OOs. And no such thing has happened in the schism of the EOs and Cs. That is a simple and significant fact.
.

The same that is disregarded from St. John’s teachings is that original sin is disregarded. Did we anathemize St. John Chrysostom? No. We don’t have to anathemize St. Augustine to not accept original sin. Not just because one is canonized means we accept all their teachings.

It was not a Church dividing issue, true. But today the various theologies of the West that spawned from Original Sin prevents any sort of union. In fact, Original Sin itself is a gigantic mountain that needs to be scaled towards union. Why was it not debated in the early Church? There are various opinions. Some even say that Rome’s adherence to the Augustinian view flew virtually under the radar of the East, and it may not have even developed as must until St. Aquinas who came well after the schism.

I think that this is getting muddled. So I will try to reprise the chain of discussion,

1. St Augustine’s writing on original sin cannot honestly be raised to a more significant level than adjudicated Christological heresies, because those writings are not adjudicated as heretical.
2. That fact puts St Augustine’s putative errors in their proper relative to significant, church-dividing Christological heresies.
3. It does not, of course, ipso facto, make them right.
4. The idea that " Original Sin itself is a gigantic mountain that needs to be scaled towards union" has no basis in reality. Some distorted views, sometimes attributed to St. Augustine, may present obstacles, but real obstacles are not to be found in the teachings of the CC, which are highly congruent with the teachings in the East, and with teachings found in EOrthodox catechisms. (See links above, for example.)
5. Some may say that Augustine or questionable teachings were under the radar in the East. But they would be wrong. Augustine was cited with admiration, but not altogether uncritically, by numerous Fathers - Photious the Great for example.
6. Theologies spawned from original sin … Are these theologies actually Catholic? Are they spawn? Are they really preventing union?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I suppose that it is fair to demand a further clarification. But I think it is obvious that we have councils to take up issues of significance within our religion tradition - not to rule on matters that are removed from it. Given the long, common history of the Rome and the East, the comaprison to Buddhism is more that a bit absurd. Councils were convened that judged the Christological thinking that led to the separation of the OOs. And no such thing has happened in the schism of the EOs and Cs. That is a simple and significant fact.

My point was simple, something need not be anathemized before it is deemed unacceptable. Otherwise we’d be preoccupying our theologians of studying everything out there and anathemizing everything except what is deemed Christian belief. It does not work that way. Only teachings that gains wide acceptance and eventually proves to be heretical are anathemized. For example, has the Prosperity Gospel ever been anathemized? The fact that it is not taught inside the Orthodox Church doesn’t necessitate any move bu the Church to anathemize it. When people start confusing it for Orthodox teaching, that is the only time the Church will speak about the matter.

Original Sin never took root in the East. Even in the West, it wasn’t until after St. Aquinas that Original Sin became the de facto belief about the Fall and the basis for soteriology in the West. But it wasn’t a sudden development of course, there was a gradual growth in this theology in the West through the mid to late First Millennium, but not in a scale that made the East took notice and worry about it. Not just because it wasn’t one of the issues that were prominent in the bringing about of the Great Schism, it doesn’t mean it isn’t one of the prevailing issues today that keeps us separated.
.

I think that this is getting muddled.

1. St Augustine’s writing on original sin cannot be raised to a more significant level than adjudicated Christological heresies, because that are not adjudicated as heretical.
2. That fact puts St Augustine’s putative errors in their proper perspective relative to significant, church-dividing Christological heresies
3. It does not, of course, ipso facto, make them right.
4. The idea that " Original Sin itself is a gigantic mountain that needs to be scaled towards union" has no basis in reality. Some distorted views, sometimes attributed to St. Augustine, may present obstacles, but real obstacles are not to be found in the teachings of the CC, which are highly congruent with the teachings in the East, and in teachings found in Orthodox catechisms. (See links above, for example.)
5. Some may say that Augustine or questionable teachings were under the radar in the East. But they would be wrong. Augustine was cited with admiration, but not altogether uncritically, by numerous Fathers.
6. Theologies spawned from original sin … Are these theologies actually Catholic? Are they spawn? Are they really preventing union?

No basis in reality? There is no Orthodox theologian in their right mind today will accept Western soteriology because of Original Sin. The whole reason the East rejects the IC is because of Original Sin (the IC is only necessary in Western theology because of Original Sin). To say that this is a non-issue is a lack of understanding of the Eastern faith and how much this is incompatible to the Eastern faith. Of course there are other fish to fry, like the main issues 1000 years ago that lead to the schism. But those aren’t the only issues we need to resolve. Let’s not kid ourselves here, let us be honest that there is a huge gap between East and West on many levels of theology. To keep brushing it off as “minor” or even a non-issue is not being honest to the discussion. Unity shouldn’t be for the sake of unity, it should be for the sake of Truth. There is such a thing as false union. It seems that many people like yourself just want that paper of unity signed no matter what, and you are willing to brush aside this huge issues just to get to that agreement. Union is more than just an agreement, if we are really to share communion, every level, every aspect of our faith must be the same, or at least compatible.

 

[steve_b]

They taught obedience to God, not to faith.

That contradicts scripture. ( [Romans 1:5 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 1) , [Romans 16:26 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16) ), Paul opens and closes Romans with obedience of faith. Since it is the HS that gave Paul that teaching, [John 14:25-26 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 14) And that means it ultimately came from Jesus [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16), we know then, obedience of faith comes from God, therefore, obedience of faith IS obedience to God and vs versa.
C:

I don’t recall any Church Father telling people they are Church Fathers and thus everyone should be obedient to them.

Weren’t most ECF’s bishops? I can think of all sorts of quotes dealing with obedience to their direction.

• Clement requiring obedience of the Corinthians in settling their sedition,
• Ignatius when giving instruction by letter on following the bishop as one follows Christ
• etc etc

 

[dvdjs]

My point was simple, something need not be anathemized before it is deemed unacceptable.

But that point is apropos of nothing. The point is that St Augustine’s writings on original sin were elevated to a more significant level than adjudicated Christological heresies. That just doesn’t fly,

Original Sin never took root in the East.

Where do you get this stuff?

Not just because it wasn’t one of the issues that were prominent in the bringing about of the Great Schism, it doesn’t mean it isn’t one of the prevailing issues today that keeps us separated.

This is a fantastic idea! Status quo ante is insufficient, when grounds can always be found for division.
But the reality is that this is still not on the radar in any joint discussions.

No basis in reality? There is no Orthodox theologian in their right mind today will accept Western soteriology because of Original Sin.

Sure. Except for the ones that accept the CC teachings on Original Sin. Gee I’ve even linked to a couple. (PS “Western” or Catholic?)

The whole reason the East rejects the IC is because of Original Sin (the IC is only necessary in Western theology because of Original Sin).

Ahhh is this the spawn?
Please go back and read the link, where this idea was dispatched.

To say that this is a non-issue is a lack of understanding of the Eastern faith and how much this is incompatible to the Eastern faith.

IC is considered to be an issue by some Eastern theologians, but others don’t see it as a significant issue. The EOC certainly teaches the sinlessness of the Theotokos, and recognizes singular grace of God
in this sinlessness; it doesn’t say whether this goes back to conception, neither does it say that that idea is incompatible with Orthodoxy,

.Union is more than just an agreement, if we are really to share communion, every level, every aspect of our faith must be the same, or at least compatible.

I agree. But, I wouldn’t agree that every aspect of our faith must be the same - EOs couldn’t pass that test within their own communion! I agree that there must be compatibility. There is work to do in this regard on the role of the Pope. That is about it, from my perspective, formed over many, many years. The rest is willful divisiveness.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

That contradicts scripture. ( Romans 1:5 , Romans 16:26 ), Paul opens and closes Romans with obedience of faith. Since it is the HS that gave Paul that teaching, John 14:25-26 And that means it ultimately came from Jesus John 16:12-15, we know then, obedience of faith comes from God, therefore, obedience of faith IS obedience to God and vs versa.

Obedience TO Faith vs. Obedience TO God is what was being debated.

Your Scripture quotes promote Obedience OF Faith, not Obedience TO Faith. No one has denied Obedience OF Faith.

I know it seems slight, but ‘to’ rather than ‘of’ causes a different meaning altogether.

Words are so important when attempting to convey the Truth.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But that point is apropos of nothing. The point is that St Augustine’s writings on original sin were elevated to a more significant level than adjudicated Christological heresies. That just doesn’t fly,

The only thing that didn’t fly is Original Sin in the early Church. It is absent in any of the teachings of all other Church Fathers in the East. And in the West it didn’t really take on such a prominent role in its theology until much later.

Where do you get this stuff?

History. Theology books.

This is a fantastic idea! Status quo ante is insufficient, when grounds can always be found for division.
But the reality is that this is still not on the radar in any joint discussions.
Sure. Except for the ones that accept the CC teachings on Original Sin. Gee I’ve even linked to a couple. (PS “Western” or Catholic?)

Which is none really. Whenever you see the words “original sin” in Orthodoxy, we are not talking about the same thing. Unfortunately scholasticism arose in the East in the 17th and 18th century when the Russians tried to become more Western, including the use of Latin as a scholastic language. A lot of RC terminology crept into Eastern traditions (which at the time was mostly Russia as many of the Eastern Churches were subjugated, like those by Islam). But if you look closely, the belief of a stain that is passed on from generation to generation is not compatible with Orthodox belief. It is just not. I don’t know why you, who is not Orthodox, claim to know more about Orthodoxy than those who live and breathe it. You don’t have to accept what we believe in, I’m not here to make you accept it. But I am here to address the false claims you are hurling against our faith. If you want to accept Original Sin as a legit soteriological theology, then so be it. I am not trying to force that out of you. But do not force it unto us as well. There are plenty of resources today from the Orthodox Church that clearly outlines what we have always believed.

Ahhh is this the spawn?
Please go back and read the link, where this idea was dispatched.

IC is considered to be an issue by some Eastern theologians, but others don’t see it as a significant issue. The EOC certainly teaches the sinlessness of the Theotokos, and recognizes singular grace of God
in this sinlessness; it doesn’t say whether this goes back to conception, neither does it say that that idea is incompatible with Orthodoxy,

The issue about the IC isn’t about the blamelessness of the Theotokos (we maintain that only Christ is sinless, but the Theotokos is blameless, there is a difference). The issue is about the Theotokos being exempted from something (original sin) which makes her a break from humanity. First of all, we do not believe in the Western understanding of original sin, so if everyone does not have original sin, what is the purpose of the IC? None. Second, Mary to us is the epitome of Christian life, something ALL OF US are striving to be. If she is something different from us (IC), then what hope do we have? For example, the Dormition (Assumption) revolves around this very premise. Christ resurrected because He is God. But our belief in the resurrection of the Theotokos gives us hope that resurrection isn’t reserved for the God-Man Jesus Christ, but for all humans. But if Mary is the Immaculate Conception and the rest of us are not, what hope does her resurrection give us? It only shows that the resurrection is either for the God-Man, or for those who are immaculately conceived. The whole point of the Dormition was the fulfillment of God’s divine plan of salvation, culminating in the resurrection of all human beings. So to set Mary apart from everyone else through the IC negates the theological significance of the Dormition itself.

I agree. But, I wouldn’t agree that every aspect of our faith must be the same - EOs couldn’t pass that test within their own communion! I agree that there must be compatibility. There is work to do in this regard on the role of the Pope. That is about it, from my perspective, formed over many, many years. The rest is willful divisiveness.

And what do you mean pass the test within their own communion? We have no problems within our own communion when it comes to dogma and doctrine. Or are you one of those who are confused between EOs and OOs?

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

That contradicts scripture. ( Romans 1:5 , Romans 16:26 ), Paul opens and closes Romans with obedience of faith. Since it is the HS that gave Paul that teaching, John 14:25-26 And that means it ultimately came from Jesus John 16:12-15, we know then, obedience of faith comes from God, therefore, obedience of faith IS obedience to God and vs versa.

Obedience TO Faith vs. Obedience TO God is what was being debated.

Your Scripture quotes promote Obedience OF Faith, not Obedience TO Faith. No one has denied Obedience OF Faith.

I know it seems slight, but ‘to’ rather than ‘of’ causes a different meaning altogether.

Words are so important when attempting to convey the Truth.

 

[steve_b]

Obedience TO Faith vs. Obedience TO God is what was being debated.

Your Scripture quotes promote Obedience OF Faith, not Obedience TO Faith. No one has denied Obedience OF Faith.

I know it seems slight, but ‘to’ rather than ‘of’ causes a different meaning altogether.

Words are so important when attempting to convey the Truth.

there is no difference in meaning. Faith comes from God. We are to be obedient to both. It’s not either / or but both. Obedience that comes from faith.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

there is no difference in meaning. Faith comes from God. We are to be obedient to both. It’s not either / or but both. Obedience that comes from faith.

Sorry, but TO & OF have totally different meanings. My daughter doesn’t have obedience OF me, she has obedience TO me. Human Beings are not made up mostly TO water but OF water.

Obedience OF Faith means Faithful Obedience while Obedience TO Faith means Obedience TO the object of Faith. The first makes sense & the second is non-sense.

If you read the Scripture passages again, OF Faith aka Faithful is what the passages say.

Faith is an action. God is 3 Persons. Those passages are saying that we are to be (use the action of) Obedience OF Faith (which describes the type of obedience) TO (the Persons) God.

 

[steve_b]

Sorry, but TO & OF have totally different meanings. My daughter doesn’t have obedience OF me, she has obedience TO me. Human Beings are not made up mostly TO water but OF water.

Obedience OF Faith means Faithful Obedience while Obedience TO Faith means Obedience TO the object of Faith. The first makes sense & the second is non-sense.

If you read the Scripture passages again, OF Faith aka Faithful is what the passages say.

Faith is an action. God is 3 Persons. Those passages are saying that we are to be (use the action of) Obedience OF Faith (which describes the type of obedience) TO (the Persons) God.

With all due respect,

When I post an answer I often times give a link to my answer. Not for my convenience but for the person reading the post so they don’t have to go searching where I got my answer. Here’s the links I posted for a readers convenience.

Romans 1:5 , Romans 16:26

Rom 1:5 says By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name;

Rom 16:26 says Which now is made manifest by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the precept of the eternal God, for the obedience **of **faith, known among all nations

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ancestral sin and Original sin was one of the same in the Church. The development of the idea that God punished Adam and Eve is what is new. That’s called the [g]ospel according to Paul which some chose to relgate the [G]ospels thereafter and then create a new sequence from creation foward. Banishment from the Garden was not punishment. It was, as hard as this is to say…LOVE![there I got it out] Object being to save their souls from the immortality of sin. Which again the solution to mans present dilemma again was LOVE, the Incarnate Word of God. And once again in LOVE the Mother of God which again extends in LOVE to mans salvation. Hypostatic Union=Uncreated/created without confusion. As Pope Francis states’ “We are in the middle of a LOVE story” Granted depending which moment we are in that may be difficult to digest. That’s the message passed down to us for sure though.

Sin “itself” was defined through controversy as usual. Adam and Eve had the same issue we all have in this sense to place the world before God. That’s the paradox, sinners who must strive not to sin. Its the vocation of salvation in Jesus Christ =LOVE!

Cyril of Alexandria - “Man’s nature became diseased through the sin of one”

“Theodorus of Mopsuestia opened this controversy by denying that the sin of Adam was the origin of death. (See the “Excerpta Theodori”, by Marius Mercator; cf. Smith, “A Dictionary of Christian Biography”, IV, 942.) Celestius, a friend of Pelagius, was the first in the West to hold these propositions, borrowed from Theodorus: “Adam was to die in every hypothesis, whether he sinned or did not sin. His sin injured himself only and not the human race” (Mercator, “Liber Subnotationem”, preface). This, the first position held by the Pelagians, was also the first point condemned at Carthage (Denzinger, “Enchiridion”, no 101-old no. 65). Against this fundamental error Catholics cited especially Romans 5:12, where Adam is shown as transmitting death with sin.”

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

Catherine of Siena used the word bridge when describing the Incarnate Word. Christ bridged the gap between us and the mud we are in, in LOVE. 1 Corinthians 3 [good chapter] Paul “synergy” co-workers in the cooperation of divine grace and us being free, which is “prayer” “Church” consistency and obedience…“the vocation”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ancestral sin and Original sin was one of the same in the Church. The development of the idea that God punished Adam and Eve is what is new. That’s called the [g]ospel according to Paul which some chose to relgate the [G]ospels thereafter and then create a new sequence from creation foward. Banishment from the Garden was not punishment. It was, as hard as this is to say…LOVE![there I got it out] Object being to save their souls from the immortality of sin. Which again the solution to mans present dilemma again was LOVE, the Incarnate Word of God. And once again in LOVE the Mother of God which again extends in LOVE to mans salvation. Hypostatic Union=Uncreated/created without confusion. As Pope Francis states’ “We are in the middle of a LOVE story” Granted depending which moment we are in that may be difficult to digest. That’s the message passed down to us for sure though.

Sin “itself” was defined through controversy as usual. Adam and Eve had the same issue we all have in this sense to place the world before God. That’s the paradox, sinners who must strive not to sin. Its the vocation of salvation in Jesus Christ =LOVE!

Cyril of Alexandria - “Man’s nature became diseased through the sin of one”

“Theodorus of Mopsuestia opened this controversy by denying that the sin of Adam was the origin of death. (See the “Excerpta Theodori”, by Marius Mercator; cf. Smith, “A Dictionary of Christian Biography”, IV, 942.) Celestius, a friend of Pelagius, was the first in the West to hold these propositions, borrowed from Theodorus: “Adam was to die in every hypothesis, whether he sinned or did not sin. His sin injured himself only and not the human race” (Mercator, “Liber Subnotationem”, preface). This, the first position held by the Pelagians, was also the first point condemned at Carthage (Denzinger, “Enchiridion”, no 101-old no. 65). Against this fundamental error Catholics cited especially Romans 5:12, where Adam is shown as transmitting death with sin.”

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

Catherine of Siena used the word bridge when describing the Incarnate Word. Christ bridged the gap between us and the mud we are in, in LOVE. 1 Corinthians 3 [good chapter] Paul “synergy” co-workers in the cooperation of divine grace and us being free, which is “prayer” “Church” consistency and obedience…“the vocation”.

But that is the thing, our nature is diseased. If what makes our nature diseased is original sin, and Mary was exempted from Original Sin, then Mary is like the pre-fall Adam and Eve, not the post fall man. And that is unacceptable for many reasons. For one thing, if God can will someone back into the pre-fall state, why didn’t he do it for everyone else? Why make humanity suffer through centuries of the fallen state? And why make His own Son suffer something that is not needed at all? To satisfy his own divine justice? That makes God nothing but a sadistic masochistic God. But that is not who God is. And again going back to “On the incarnation,” St. Athanasius writes that becoming man was the only way for God to save us. Which means the IC was out of the question and that Original Sin is not how it is understood in the West (as something that God can remove by sheer will).

 

[GaryTaylor]

But that is the thing, our nature is diseased. If what makes our nature diseased is original sin, and Mary was exempted from Original Sin, then Mary is like the pre-fall Adam and Eve, not the post fall man.

So you have the two thoughts

First we have to concede St Irenaeus with the new Eve and forward to add perspective. Then we have to look at the actual transgression. Sin became sin after the transgression in the spiritual law and in the physical effect on man in death, along the rest described in Genesis. Its mans issue with wanting to be like God, or God, or Gods right hand man etc. They confuse the order forget the purpose “love” perfect giver/receiver relationship, and free-will which is a fact for man, becomes the issue which incites through temptation. inclination to sin.

We all agree Mary was subject to the fall. The aspect of Marys Grace becomes the focus. Its safe to say Mary needed a savoir and believed in one for sure, one might argue more than anyone because of Her vocation/free-will. God did the watering and from way back in the beginning before the fall. Grace was the separation through transgression-sin which is why God asked “Where are you” because they were just beginning to understand what they didn’t know, what they were receiving for wanting to be like God, they were not in His grace, that’s what He knew, they were not present-grace, links to Gods grace. Mary Full of Grace.

Free-will is the issue God will not remove. Him, or the world, and immortality in either. Adams sin was the sole cause of death, which I mention above, immortality of sin. And as the link said; “we can discern no natural connexion between any sin and death”.

God didn’t announce to Mary she was full of Grace till the Annunciation, Mary was full of Grace before this was announced, and is the early church teaching. Blessed was Mary, and from birth, predestined in Gods love for man. I see nothing indicating anything but. Sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence God didn’t deny Himself His own Grace in the Incarnate Word. Nor was this an afterthought. The Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race “not only the death of the body”, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul.

 

[PIERRE4]

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

I am a Syriac Orthodox (Oriental Orthodox) and attend Mass AND receive communion at my church, the Maronite Church , the RC Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch together with all the other Oriental Churches (Coptic/Armenian etc.).

Ecumenism must start from the bottom up an di have no issue whatsoever in attending Catholic mass.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

With all due respect,

When I post an answer I often times give a link to my answer. Not for my convenience but for the person reading the post so they don’t have to go searching where I got my answer. Here’s the links I posted for a readers convenience.

Romans 1:5 , Romans 16:26

Rom 1:5 says By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name;

Rom 16:26 says Which now is made manifest by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the precept of the eternal God, for the obedience **of **faith, known among all nations

Most people here, myself included, can look up for ourselves what the Bible passage reads & both passages you quoted read ‘obedience OF faith’.

I’m remain uncertain why you are insisting that people should be obedient TO faith rather than obedient TO God?

 

[steve_b]

Most people here, myself included, can look up for ourselves what the Bible passage reads & both passages you quoted read ‘obedience OF faith’.

I’m remain uncertain why you are insisting that people should be obedient TO faith rather than obedient TO God?

All this show is that you didn’t open those links provided, and didn’t read those passages. The passages are highlighted. They do NOT both read obedience **of **faith.

As if it matters. But here they are again.

Romans 1:5 obedience to faith

Romans 16:26 obedience **of **faith

As to your 2nd question, it’s not either or it’s obedient to both, faith and God.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

All this show is that you didn’t open those links provided, and didn’t read those passages. The passages are highlighted. They do NOT both read obedience **of **faith.

As if it matters. But here they are again.

Romans 1:5 obedience to faith

Romans 16:26 obedience **of **faith

As to your 2nd question, it’s not either or it’s obedient to both, faith and God.

I own Bible. I know how to open the Bible. I know how to look up a Bible passage. I know how to read. I read each of the passages you cite.

And there have been a repeated misquotation of Romans 1:5. Shame, shame, shame on anyone who twists the Holy and Sacred Scriptures.

WHY this is being done is beyond my understanding. WHY in the world do people want us to think that the Bible wants us to be Obedient TO Faith rather than what the Bible Actually says? WHAT is the purpose behind this misrepresention of Sacred Scripture?

 

[JMJ_coder]

@steveb - Both the Nova Vulgata (the current official Latin translation) and the Clementine Vulgate both use the same phrase for both of those verses, ‘ad oboeditionem fidei’. Both the NAB (the official American English translation) and the RSV translate them both to ‘the obedience of faith’. I’m not sure about the RSV, but the NAB was translated directly from the source languages, in this case Greek (sorry, my Greek isn’t good enough to reference a Greek New Testament in this case). The DR translation does have the disparate translations, but it was translated more-or-less directly from the Latin of the Clementine Vulgate and using English from a different time that had different (sometimes subtly) forms so a comparison really isn’t fair.

@ComeHome2Rome - Is this really that big of a deal. It seems more a case of arguing for the sake of arguing than anything else.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Well, we are the same in practically everything. Where do I even start? The only major disagreement so far is how we define Christ being fully human and fully divine at the same time. Besides that, our understanding of the faith stems from the same Church Fathers until the schism, and even the Fathers after the schism still teach essentially the same things. I think the biggest one is the understanding of the Fall, with again the concept of Original Sin as taught by St. Augustine and expounded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas is virtually non-existent in both EO and OO traditions. Everything else flows from that.

I don’t buy it, and (no offense) I’m sure not going to take your word that ‘we are the same in practically everything’ in your implication that the relationships look something like this:

OO <-> EO <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>CC

Do you have source material to back up your claim?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t buy it, and (no offense) I’m sure not going to take your word that ‘we are the same in practically everything’ in your implication that the relationships look something like this:

OO <-> EO <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>CC

Do you have source material to back up your claim?

Yes, our respective faiths. Read up on it. There’s no one book or quick read on it. But look at our current day Liturgies and Traditions, they are so close to one another you wouldn’t think we were separated for 1500 years. Yet the RC is completely different.