Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

  • Thread starter Thread starter DJLake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cavaradossi said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree. And find that fascinating. It really shows how close we are.
 
Cavaradossi said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sure. And I am not about to speculate on who or what will be criticized 500 years from now.
 
GaryTaylor said:
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.
Click to expand...
He was a great scholar and his teachings were popular everywhere, but that doesn’t make what he said true. Yes, he was eastern, and it was the east that condemned his teachings. Are you saying that the west is Origenistic?

Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls, so you can’t even consider Original Sin in his case. According to Origen it wasn’t Adam’s sin that made me fall, it was my own. I sinned, and that is the cause of my soul descending and being joined to flesh. My soul existed in contemplation of God, but I sinned and fell, which led to me being incarnated in a body.
 
ConstantineTG said:
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.
Click to expand...
Very good. Not a good idea to interject an implicit “only” when it is not actually there. No go back to John15:26.
 
Cavaradossi said:
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.
Click to expand...
To argue this you would have to uphold that a separation of Grace does not concede a inclination to sin. Transmission of a propensity to chose the world is mans non cooperation with Grace. And without the Sacraments this leaves man outside the Ark swimming alone in his own idea of Faith.
 
dvdjs said:
Sure. And I am not about to speculate on who or what will be criticized 500 years from now.
Click to expand...
I sometimes suspect that a bunch of the great scholars of our day might in five hundred years wind up being anathematized posthumously like Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, if they are not careful what they teach. But hopefully nobody runs wild with some of their more speculative ideas (like the Origenists did with Origen), and that doesn’t happen. 😃
 
jimmy said:
He was a great scholar and his teachings were popular everywhere, but that doesn’t make what he said true. Yes, he was eastern, and it was the east that condemned his teachings. Are you saying that the west is Origenistic?

Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls, so you can’t even consider Original Sin in his case. According to Origen it wasn’t Adam’s sin that made me fall, it was my own. I sinned, and that is the cause of my soul descending and being joined to flesh. My soul existed in contemplation of God, but I sinned and fell, which led to me being incarnated in a body.
Click to expand...
I’m not attempting to prove the validity of one or another of Origen, what it shows is that the thinking of stain related to sin is not originated in Western thinking. That thinking existed prior to the suggested opinion which is represented on this thread. That is my point.
 
Cavaradossi said:
I sometimes suspect that a bunch of the great scholars of our day might in five hundred years wind up being anathematized posthumously like Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, if they are not careful what they teach. But hopefully nobody runs wild with some of their more speculative ideas (like the Origenists did with Origen), and that doesn’t happen. 😃
Click to expand...
I think it unlikely that great theological scholars of today will be remembered at all 500 years from now. Maybe B16.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Point is you have a personal “opinion” about Ware and Romanides.
Click to expand...
My opinion is irrelevant. The Orthodox do not have to accept the theory of the IC (and for good reason because it is not patristic). You however, must accept the doctrine of the IC or you would be excommunicated, right?
 
GaryTaylor said:
I’m not attempting to prove the validity of one or another of Origen, what it shows is that the thinking of stain related to sin is not originated in Western thinking. That thinking existed prior to the suggested opinion which is represented on this thread. That is my point.
Click to expand...
What does the place of origin matter? Most Christian thought of any sort originated in the East.
 
Mickey said:
My opinion is irrelevant. The Orthodox do not have to accept the theory of the IC (and for good reason because it is not patristic). You however, must accept the doctrine of the IC or you would be excommunicated, right?
Click to expand...
:confused: What is relevant is you get to have various opinion’s as mentioned which does make it irrelevant by your own words?

Yes I do believe the IC is most fitting.
 
GaryTaylor said:
I’m not attempting to prove the validity of one or another of Origen, what it shows is that the thinking of stain related to sin is not originated in Western thinking. That thinking existed prior to the suggested opinion which is represented on this thread. That is my point.
Click to expand...
And interestingly, it doesn’t mention Original Sin. Who cares if Origen spoke of sin as a stain. He wasn’t talking about OS, so I don’t see the connection to the discussion.
 
jimmy said:
And interestingly, it doesn’t mention Original Sin. Who cares if Origen spoke of sin as a stain. He wasn’t talking about OS, so I don’t see the connection to the discussion.
Click to expand...
As with the link I posted earlier neither Ancestral or Original are in patristic writing from his period. So the connection proposed that sin and stain is directly related to original sin and Augustine is false.
 
jimmy said:
Read his post again. Baptism is for the forgiveness of all sins, even those after baptism.
Click to expand...
Really?! So the Sacrament of Reconciliation is pointless? It must be if all of our sins have already been forgiven by our baptism. So if a baptized man becomes a mass murderer and a heretic and never repents, he’ll still go to heaven because those post-baptismal sins were covered by his baptism? Surely ye jest.
 
jimmy said:
No council ever invoked infallibility.
Click to expand...
ConstantineTG said:
I told you this already before, there is no concept of infallibility in Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
Mickey said:
Nevertheless, the IC is not an infallible doctrine in the Holy Orthodox Church.
Click to expand...
So if there is no concept of infallibility in the Eastern Orthodox Church, how do you know that any Ecumenical Council is correct? How do you know that the Council of Nicea is true and that the Arians weren’t actually correct (as just one example)?
 
GaryTaylor said:
What is relevant is you get to have various opinion’s as mentioned which does make it irrelevant by your own words?
Click to expand...
What is relevant is: the Holy Orthodox Church is not forced to believe what we consider a non-patristic doctrine. 🤷
 
dvdjs said:
Very good. Not a good idea to interject an implicit “only” when it is not actually there. No go back to John15:26.
Click to expand...
Except that procession is mutually exclusive. You’re arguing semantics while ignoring the fact of the matter.
 
JMJ_coder said:
So if there is no concept of infallibility in the Eastern Orthodox Church, how do you know that any Ecumenical Council is correct? How do you know that the Council of Nicea is true and that the Arians weren’t actually correct (as just one example)?
Click to expand...
The truth is the truth regardless if one person is infallible or not. How do you think mathematic principles are discovered? Is there an infallible math person?

We were given a revelation by God. Through that we know what the truth is. One person does not magically know more than someone else. Anyone who knows revelation and lives it can discern the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top