Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

  • Thread starter Thread starter DJLake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GaryTaylor said:
You mean like the “opinion” on when Mary was preserved? All good. Apparently the disagreement is simply “Dogma”.
Click to expand...
The problem is you think that this is a big deal to us the same way it is a big deal to you. How does it change Christ regardless of when the Theotokos was grace-filled? How does it change our salvation?
 
Nine_Two said:
Except that what we believe isn’t the definition of those doctrines.

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. But that isn’t how your church defines it.
Click to expand...
There ya go, Neokarny!
 
ConstantineTG said:
The problem is you think that this is a big deal to us the same way it is a big deal to you. How does it change Christ regardless of when the Theotokos was grace-filled? How does it change our salvation?
Click to expand...
Apparently I don’t think its any more of big deal than others posting here with fervor.

How does Mary in the order of Grace change our salvation. Good question to pray on. 🤷
 
Some Orthodox term Fr Romanides’s writing as excellent, others brand him a heretic.
orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/345_AGAINST_ROMANIDES_3_.pdf
🤷
Romanides has been called “the supreme new-calendarist theologian”. But no
man can be called a true theologian who does not continue in the unchanging and
never-interrupted Tradition of the Holy Orthodox Church. As for those who think, like the Protestant Reformers, to make a revolution in theology and return to a supposedly purer “Early Church”, their efforts only demonstrate to the truly Orthodox that they have not understood the faith of the Church and have deviated from the straight and narrow path of the Holy Scriptures and Holy Fathers.
Click to expand...
Comme ci, comme ça.
 
Nine_Two said:
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. But that isn’t how your church defines it.
Click to expand...
Why Baptism then?
 
GaryTaylor said:
Why Baptism then?
Click to expand...
The Holy Mysteries do not exist in time. Just as when we partake of the Eucharist we do it in Communion with the Church and the Saints through all time, so is Baptism about the forgiveness of all our sins, throughout all time, and not just prior to.

Were that the case, it would be irresponsible for the Church not to wait until people were on their death beds. A practice which it fervently opposes.
 
Nine_Two said:
The Holy Mysteries do not exist in time. Just as when we partake of the Eucharist we do it in Communion with the Church and the Saints through all time, so is Baptism about the forgiveness of all our sins, throughout all time, and not just prior to.

Were that the case, it would be irresponsible for the Church not to wait until people were on their death beds. A practice which it fervently opposes.
Click to expand...
You mean the Holy Mysteries such as the “Incarnation” and Mary being preserved by Baptism?

So you confess one baptism for the remission of sins? And in infants which would apparently be before the age of reason?

So then why do you say…
Nine_Two said:
we don’t believe anyone is born with sin…
Click to expand...
 
Course that brings to mind this…

!! Orange

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).

However not being an ecumenical council I could understand the position. But you didn’t call a Synod since there were no objections?

crivoice.org/creedorange.html
 
dvdjs said:
Actually we agree on purification, but there is quibbling about the moment.
Click to expand...
But there is only quibbling over the moment because the IC was dogmatized. Were it a popularly held opinion in the Roman Catholic Church, instead of a dogma which outlawed many pious opinions of the Holy Fathers, I doubt the Orthodox would have objected so strongly.
 
dvdjs said:
Some Orthodox term Fr Romanides’s writing as excellent, others brand him a heretic.
orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/345_AGAINST_ROMANIDES_3_.pdf
🤷

Comme ci, comme ça.
Click to expand...
Romanides is like everybody else. You have to sort the dross out from what is good. His understanding of Christianity as therapeutic, for example, is obviously something which is a useful thing to revive in the consciousness of confessors, who often received little training in the art of caring for their spiritual children.
 
GaryTaylor said:
You mean the Holy Mysteries such as the “Incarnation” and Mary being preserved by Baptism?

So you confess one baptism for the remission of sins? And in infants which would apparently be before the age of reason?

So then why do you say…
Click to expand...
I’m not following. I can’t figure out how you took any of that from my post.

Holy Mysteries roughly equal Sacraments.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Why Baptism then?
Click to expand...
In the words of St. John Chrysostom:You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.
 
GaryTaylor said:
You mean the Holy Mysteries such as the “Incarnation” and Mary being preserved by Baptism?

So you confess one baptism for the remission of sins? And in infants which would apparently be before the age of reason?

So then why do you say…
Click to expand...
Read his post again. Baptism is for the forgiveness of all sins, even those after baptism.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Oh and one quick mention about “stain” and sin. We would love to credit the West here but its impossible since that honor goes to the East. 🤷

Origen “The Church received from the Apostles, the Tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of Divine mystery, knew that there is in everyone the innate “STAINS” of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.”

Commentaries on Romans, 244-AD
Click to expand...
Origen also believed in things like the eternal existence of souls, and that souls fell before entering the world.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Course that brings to mind this…

!! Orange

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).

However not being an ecumenical council I could understand the position. But you didn’t call a Synod since there were no objections?

crivoice.org/creedorange.html
Click to expand...
The canons of the council of orange were never accepted as part of the canons of the Church. Indeed, we would argue that they have the causal link backwards, that Adam, by transmitting bodily death and the fragmentation of the intellect to his offspring thereby transmitted a propensity towards sinning and spiritual death.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Is this your version of Sola Scriptura reading? So you don’t confess one baptism for the remission of sins?

I get it.
Click to expand...
Did I say it was mutually exclusive? Does baptism do only one thing?

You seem to believe that baptism is only for the forgiveness of sins.
 
Cavaradossi said:
Origen also believed in things like the eternal existence of souls, and that souls fell before entering the world.
Click to expand...
Few would argue he well deserves the title one of the greatest scholars of Christian antiquity. Which is to say the above doesn’t discredit what he did say which is correct in orthodoxy. Point being for sure “stain” related to sin, didn’t come from the West since he taught in Alexandria there’s no reason to believe his fundamental doctrines were not widely accepted and in fact taught.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top