Catholic vs Orthodox?

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine-Two,

If Mary is the New Eve then she must be able to make a conscious decision. The doctrine of the IC takes this decision from her.

As this decision (free will) is something that defines us as humans, taking that from her makes her something different.

Well, the doctrine is pretty clear that the immediate cause of the IC is the merits of Jesus Christ. In Latinspeak, that means the Grace of salvation from the Cross. This is the same Grace we receive at Baptism, except that Mary received it at a different point in her life.

Are you claiming that receiving the Grace of salvation deprives us of free will? That’s what some Protestants teach, so I hope you as an Orthodox can reassess your rhetoric on this matter…

Please clarify your claim further because it doesn’t really make sense. When I was not yet in communion with Rome, I shared the same viewponit as you do now. But after I understood what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY taught about the IC, I realized my viewpoint did not make any sense whatsoever.

Now, I’m sure you’ve heard this rebuttal from Catholic apologists before (that the Grace Mary received at her conception is no different from the Grace that we receive at Baptism). That rebuttal made sense to me, so I let go of my misconception (that this Grace deprived her of free will). I’m just wondering what else it is that causes you to maintain your misconception of the IC. Please respond.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The problem here is that having the Holy Spirit receive the divine essence was not the intent of the fathers in using the verbs procheo/proeimi.

This statement puzzles me. You seem to be claiming that the Holy Spirit receiving of the Son is some sort of distinct event apart from the Procession. This all happens in Eternity where there is no time as we know it. All we know is that all that the Father does is THROUGH the Word. That the Father is the unoriginate origin of all, and performs all His actions THROUGH the Word is part of the hypostatic property of the Father as Father. It sounds like you are denying this basic teaching of the Fathers.

For St. Cyril, saying that the Holy Spirit is poured forth from the Son, or that It progresses naturally from Him is meant to stress the consubstantiality of the Son (particularly of the one incarnate Word) with the Father.

This is exactly what is meant by filioque. So please clarify your objections/concerns more succinctly.

Just as the Spirit is poured forth from the Father, so too does Jesus, the Word, pour the Spirit forth, and just as the Spirit progresses essentially from the Father, so too does the Spirit progress essentially from the Son (and therefore belong to the Son). I honestly do not see how the affirmation that the Spirit progresses naturally from the Son can be interpreted as anything more than stressing the essential belonging of the Spirit to the Son

This part of your explanation – no problem.

or the energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, as Gregory Palamas makes clear in that quote.

This is the part that breeds questions and concerns. I’ve met EO who interpret this to mean that the Energetic manifestation is merely temporal. But St. Palamas is clear that the Energetic manifestation belongs to the order of Eternity. What occurs in Eternity properly belongs to the Godhead alone, and in this context, God is simple. There is no actual distinction of Essence/Energy within God Himself. In other words, the distinction does not occur for God considered in Himself, but occurs only from our limited creaturely perspective in our relationship to Him.

I think it would be interesting to find out exactly what verbs Palamas uses in his statement. Here’s the issue:
If Palamas stated: “The Holy Spirit belongs to Christ by essence and by energy, because Christ is God; nevertheless, according to essence and hypostasis, it belongs but does not proceed (ekporeusai), whereas, according to energy, it belongs and proceeds (proienai/procedit),” then this is almost identical to the Latin teaching on filioque.

BUT if Palamas stated: “The Holy Spirit belongs to Christ by essence and by energy, because Christ is God; nevertheless, according to essence and hypostasis, it belongs but does not proceed (ekporeusai), whereas, according to energy, it belongs and proceeds (ekporeusai),” this actually goes beyond the Latin teaching on filioque.

If the latter is the case, it means that Palamas is introducing TWO distinct Sources into the Godhead, since it makes the Son the SOURCE/ORIGIN of the Energy of the Spirit. That is even more problematic theologically than the Latin filioque.

If the latter is the case, the only way out I see is that Palamas, in responding to the Latin use of procedit, was sometimes using ekporeusai in the sense of “originates” and sometimes in the sense of “flowing through” (proienai/procedit). I mean, it may have been the case that Palamas was under the misconception that procedit was perfectly equivalent to ekporeusai? That would complicate matters. I wonder how well Palamas knew Latin?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are we not less than God made us to be? Perhaps it would be better to say we are less than human then. At any rate the IC makes the Theotokos into something greater than ourselves.

I was listening to Fr. John Behr at a talk about a couple of weeks ago, and he said that none of us right now are completely human. Only upon death will our creation be completed, which is why Christ said on the Cross, “It is finished!” He was referring to the creation of man which began from Genesis. A close examination of the language used in the 6 days of creation points to that God did not will for man to be completed within the 6th day. Got said, “let there be…” the first 5 days and everything came into existence and was created. But God did not say, “let there be man.” Instead He formed man carefully and the completion of man’s humanity is only accomplished by our death and being resurrected in glory by God.

 

[Nine_Two]

Quite the reverse. How does being without original sin decrease your free will? This makes no sense. Eve, after all, certainly did not have original sin! Whatever original sin is–even if it’s just disordered passions as in the Eastern tradition–it weakens free will (how far it weakens it is a matter of debate).

Edwin

It isn’t being without Original Sin, it is the idea that Original Sin is where our sinful nature comes from, and that not only was she not tempted, but she couldn’t have sinned.

 

[Nine_Two]

Taken alone, the Augustinian notion of Original Sin and doctrine of Grace would seem to deny human agency, hence the deterministic predestination of various “hyper-Augustinian” theologies over the centuries, whether Protestant or Baianist, Jansenist, etc. However when Augustine is placed in dialogue with the rest of the Fathers, the importance of free will is clear. (Indeed the error seems to arise when one focuses too much on Augustine to the exclusion of all others, as Calvin did. Jansen even referred to Augustine as “the only authoritative Father.”)

I’m saying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, not the doctrine of Original Sin denies free will.

The Catholic Church as a whole has always affirmed the free will of the human being to choose or reject the means of salvation offered by God through Christ. From this background, the IC does not in any way revoke the Blessed Virgin’s freedom to reject her role, and indeed her response of “May it be done to me according to thy word” has always been interpreted as her voluntarily submitting to the will of God for the salvation of the world.

To me just saying “but believing this doesn’t impact on that” just doesn’t cut it. It would be like if I said “All cars are red.” and “My car is green” and then insisted these two beliefs didn’t impact on each other.

Now as a related aside, much of Augustine’s theology on grace and free will was developed as a result of the controversy in the Western Church with Pelagianism, which posited that salvation rested in simply making a decision not to sin. (i.e. “Be good, and go to heaven”). To my knowledge, the Eastern Church never had to contend with any major movement like this. What would be an Orthodox response to the Pelagian heresy?

Pelagianism was pretty minor compared to Arianism, Nestorianism, Docetism, etc. which we dealt with.
I understand the conditions in which St. Augustine wrote. While I, and the tradition of my Church, disagrees with him on his formulation of Original Sin, he is still a Father of the Church. However it is quite possible to answer error with error.

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother Nine-Two,

Well, the doctrine is pretty clear that the immediate cause of the IC is the merits of Jesus Christ. In Latinspeak, that means the Grace of salvation from the Cross. This is the same Grace we receive at Baptism, except that Mary received it at a different point in her life.

Are you claiming that receiving the Grace of salvation deprives us of free will? That’s what some Protestants teach, so I hope you as an Orthodox can reassess your rhetoric on this matter…

Please clarify your claim further because it doesn’t really make sense. When I was not yet in communion with Rome, I shared the same viewponit as you do now. But after I understood what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY taught about the IC, I realized my viewpoint did not make any sense whatsoever.

Now, I’m sure you’ve heard this rebuttal from Catholic apologists before (that the Grace Mary received at her conception is no different from the Grace that we receive at Baptism). That rebuttal made sense to me, so I let go of my misconception (that this Grace deprived her of free will). I’m just wondering what else it is that causes you to maintain your misconception of the IC. Please respond.

Blessings,
Marduk

The problem with the comparison to a simple baptized state is that the idea behind it is that Original Sin was not passed on to Mary, and hence not passed on to Jesus, making it a hereditary freedom. The fact that I was baptized as an infant does not and will not affect anyone who is a descendant of myself. Mary, according to Catholic theology, certainly did not have the same grace which I gained through Baptism.

Speaking of rhetoric though, I would appreciate it if you would tone down yours (And it pains me to abuse the word rhetoric so). When you keep it to a minimum you are a great person to talk to, but saying we should reassess our thoughts because “that’s what protestants believe” makes it very difficult to speak to you (Some Protestants believe everything that Catholics do. Does that mean you need to reassess everything you believe?). Additionally there is no need to speak down on what I believe. You’ll get a lot further curing me of my “misconceptions” if you would avoid such loaded language.
It is always easy to believe that we hold the enlightened position, that we were once “like you”, but people always think that way when they change beliefs, whether toward truth or error.

 

[Contarini]

It isn’t being without Original Sin, it is the idea that Original Sin is where our sinful nature comes from

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Again, our “sinful nature”–or in more Catholic terms, our concupiscence–limits free will. It doesn’t enable us to have free will, as you seem to be implying.

and that not only was she not tempted, but she couldn’t have sinned.

Where do you find Catholics teaching either that Mary was not tempted or that she couldn’t have sinned? Insofar as that’s true, it would be true in terms of divine predestination–God chose her and wouldn’t have chosen her if she was going to sin, and Catholics can then have the standard arguments about how predestination is compatible with free will and what the relationship is between predestination and foreknowledge. What all Catholics agree is that we do have free will, and that whatever predestination means, it doesn’t contradict this.

Mary had free will to sin or not to sin. Ask any Catholic you like. She differed from the rest of us in having more freedom, not less.

Edwin

 

[mardukm]

The problem with the comparison to a simple baptized state is that the idea behind it is that Original Sin was not passed on to Mary, and hence not passed on to Jesus, making it a hereditary freedom.

No, that is not what the IC teaches. St. Palamas and many other Eastern Fathers teach the necessity of the purity of the flesh of Mary for the purpose of bearing Jesus, but that is not the point of the IC. The IC has nothing to do with the physical condition of Mary (being subject to death, pain, emotional trials, etc.) only her spiritual condition.

The fact that I was baptized as an infant does not and will not affect anyone who is a descendant of myself.

True, and if you want to assign error on St. Palamas and other Eastern fathers on this point, that is fine, but the doctrine of the IC does not claim that the IC was necessary for the incarnation to occur, only that it was fitting for the Theotokos to never be spiritually separated from God during her whole existence. Your objections are directed to certain theologoumena about the IC, but not the dogma itself. Can you provide any objections to the actual dogma?

Mary, according to Catholic theology, certainly did not have the same grace which I gained through Baptism.

According to Catholic theology, the effective cause of the IC are the merits of Jesus Christ. According to Catholic theology, the effective cause of the Sacrament of Baptism are the merits of Jesus Christ. Same Grace. The effects, on the other hand, are different because Mary received the Grace at a different point in time than you or me.

Speaking of rhetoric though, I would appreciate it if you would tone down yours (And it pains me to abuse the word rhetoric so). When you keep it to a minimum you are a great person to talk to, but saying we should reassess our thoughts because “that’s what protestants believe” makes it very difficult to speak to you.

Why? Protestant is not Catholic or Orthodox. You should be reassessing your thoughts when your rhetoric aligns with something not Catholic/Orthodox. To claim that Grace somehow diminishes free will is a Protestant error. Are you claiming that the idea that Grace diminishes free will is a valid Orthodox theologoumenon? If that is so, I can understand your concern. But if you recognize the error of your pov, then why complain that you are asked to reassess it?

(Some Protestants believe everything that Catholics do. Does that mean you need to reassess everything you believe?).

What Protestants believe that are aligned with Sacred Tradition is not Protestant. But beliefs that contradict Sacred Tradition are Protestant and should be reassessed. Is the belief that Grace diminishes free will part of Catholic/Orthodox belief, or was it introduced by Protestants?

Additionally there is no need to speak down on what I believe. You’ll get a lot further curing me of my “misconceptions” if you would avoid such loaded language. It is always easy to believe that we hold the enlightened position, that we were once “like you”, but people always think that way when they change beliefs, whether toward truth or error.

Overl-generalizing won’t get us anywhere. We are speaking here specifically of the idea that Grace somehow diminishes free will. If you accept that such an idea cannot be aligned with Sacred Tradition, then I’m sorry but I cannot fathom your concerns about the rhetoric, or your objections to the IC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MariaG]

And what this thread shows quite well is that if you want to know dhat the orthodox believe go and ask them but kindly cut them off when they try to point out the differences with Catholic belief.

Let each explain their beliefs without comparing to the other since as is obvious from this thread as a Catholic, at least one Orthodox on this site has no idea what the Catholic teaching on the IC really is.

I will not pretend to explain Orthodox beliefs.

But I will say as a Latin rite catholic, if you are attracted to Othodox, but lean towards Catholic, eastern Catholic rites are a great way to go.

But I would say looks like marduk is a great resource:thumbsup:

 

[ConstantineTG]

But I will say as a Latin rite catholic, if you are attracted to Othodox, but lean towards Catholic, eastern Catholic rites are a great way to go.

Since you are talking about not talking about something you know nothing about, I would suggest never to make this suggestion under this context unless you have sufficient knowledge of what is in the Orthodox Church and what is in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

But I would say looks like marduk is a great resource:thumbsup:

Again, speaking about not making comments on things you don’t know about…

 

[Cavaradossi]

This statement puzzles me. You seem to be claiming that the Holy Spirit receiving of the Son is some sort of distinct event apart from the Procession. This all happens in Eternity where there is no time as we know it. All we know is that all that the Father does is THROUGH the Word. That the Father is the unoriginate origin of all, and performs all His actions THROUGH the Word is part of the hypostatic property of the Father as Father. It sounds like you are denying this basic teaching of the Fathers.

Surely you should know that the affirmation of things being done through the Son is not just a teaching of the Fathers, but that it is derived from the Scriptural affirmation that all things are made through the Son. But the Scriptural affirmation that all things are made through the Son obviously cannot apply to the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The property of things being done through the Son, in this case, does not apply to the procession of the Holy Spirit, which happens according to nature, but only to the progression and manifestation of the Spirit, which are both according to energy. Otherwise, it would be an admission that the Holy Spirit is a creature, having been created by the Son.

This is exactly what is meant by filioque. So please clarify your objections/concerns more succinctly.

You keep saying filioque means that the Spirit receives the divine nature from the Son. That is not consistent with Eastern theology.

This is the part that breeds questions and concerns. I’ve met EO who interpret this to mean that the Energetic manifestation is merely temporal.

I’ve met Roman Catholics who think that the Eucharist is symbolic. So what?

But St. Palamas is clear that the Energetic manifestation belongs to the order of Eternity. What occurs in Eternity properly belongs to the Godhead alone, and in this context, God is simple. There is no actual distinction of Essence/Energy within God Himself. In other words, the distinction does not occur for God considered in Himself, but occurs only from our limited creaturely perspective in our relationship to Him.

This reasoning is fallacious, because you build your case on the untrue assumption that the simplicity of God can only have one meaning (that is, the Thomistic meaning). The simplicity of God has been understood in multiple ways, even in the West. Duns Scotus, for example, believed that the divine attributes were formally distinct from each other and from the essence of God (a formal distinction was the same type of distinction that Scotus used to distinguish between the Trinitarian persons). Your argument does not hold because even Western Scholastics (ones who were never condemned of heresy) considered that there could be distinctions within God which are not mere conceptual distinctions. If even Western Scholastics could come to such a conclusion, why would you find it so incredible to think that the Eastern Fathers had a similar understanding of God?

I think it would be interesting to find out exactly what verbs Palamas uses in his statement. Here’s the issue:

After dragging out the original quote from the Apodictic Treatises, it seems that the only verb he uses is ‘to be’. The translator made a bad choice in using the verb ‘proceeds’. To translate it very literally, he wrote something along the lines of: "The Holy Spirit is Christ’s, because [Christ is] God, both according to energy and according to essence. But on the one hand, according to essence and according to hypostasis, [the Holy Spirit] is His [Christ’s], but not from Him, and on the other hand, according to energy, [the Holy Spirit] is both His and from Him.

At any rate, this quotation still illustrates what I wished to point out, that the idea of the Holy Spirit receiving the divine nature from the Father and the Son is not compatible with Palamas in general, since his tenor is that the Holy Spirit is in no way from the Son according to essence and hypostasis.

 

[MariaG]

Since you are talking about not talking about something you know nothing about, I would suggest never to make this suggestion under this context unless you have sufficient knowledge of what is in the Orthodox Church and what is in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Again, speaking about not making comments on things you don’t know about…

Actually in this case I DO have enough knowlege

Frequently, it is the culture or the “flavor” if you will that people are attracted to. Something that can be met in the Eastern Catholic rites. As someone who looked into, I CAN speak of it in the manner I referred to.

And I did say “looks like” when referring to Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually in this case I DO have enough knowlege

Frequently, it is the culture or the “flavor” if you will that people are attracted to. Something that can be met in the Eastern Catholic rites. As someone who looked into, I CAN speak of it in the manner I referred to.

And I did say “looks like” when referring to Marduk

Just to clarify my comments, some have quipped that many RC “converts” to Eastern Catholicism end up in the Orthodox Church. The thing is if an RC becomes intrigued by Orthodoxy, learns about Orthodoxy, then expects to get it in an Eastern Catholic parish, chances are they won’t. Most EC parishes especially in North America are Latinized. The pursuit of authentic Eastern spirituality is not accomplished here. Although many Orthodox parishes are Westernized as well, the chances of finding an “authentic” Eastern experience in an Orthodox parish is still much better than finding it in an EC parish.

 

[PatriciusRex]

Nine_Two:

I’m saying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, not the doctrine of Original Sin denies free will.

Immaculate Conception is the result of the doctrine of Original Sin. Augustine said all are bound to sin by a corrupt nature. Mary was without sin, therefore she did not share the corrupt nature, therefore Immaculate Conception.

Augustine’s theology makes Grace not only the means but also the cause of salvation, something that when taken to extremes seems to deny human free will, thus all the Protestant predestinarian traditions. Being born without Original Sin thus appears as much a “Bondage of the Will” (to borrow Luther’s phrasing) as being born with it. Just as Fallen Man can do nothing but sin, Mary could do nothing but good, the presence and absence respectively of Original Sin making both states a single-lane, one way street.

This is your objection, isn’t it?

However, as I said before, while that might reflect a Protestant understanding of Original Sin and the interplay of grace and free will, it simply does not reflect a Catholic one.

To me just saying “but believing this doesn’t impact on that” just doesn’t cut it. It would be like if I said “All cars are red.” and “My car is green” and then insisted these two beliefs didn’t impact on each other.

If person A says “all cars are red” and person B says “my car as green”, we as the privileged observer can determine then that cars can be at least red AND green, regardless of what the witnesses we’re basing this off said. Augustine is one Father among many. As such he’s credible except where he conflicts with others.

The Gospel of Matthew says Judas hung himself in remorse, and that after his death the 30 pieces of silver were used to buy the potter’s field. Yet Acts of the Apostles tells us Judas himself bought the field and in some fashion fell and burst apart on the ground. These accounts appear to conflict. Does that mean that only one is true and either Matthew or Acts is false? Of course not, because the truth of the Gospel is found in where they agree.

Pelagianism was pretty minor compared to Arianism, Nestorianism, Docetism, etc. which we dealt with.
I understand the conditions in which St. Augustine wrote. While I, and the tradition of my Church, disagrees with him on his formulation of Original Sin, he is still a Father of the Church. However it is quite possible to answer error with error.

Yes I’m aware that that is the Orthodox perspective. However, you didn’t answer my question. What would be the Orthodox answer to the Pelagian heresy? This isn’t a trap, I’m just genuinely curious how one can refute Pelagianism without a thesis that contains the same unfortunate implications that Augustine’s theology had (when taken to extremes and in isolation).

 

[TimeEntrance]

Thanks TIME-

I have an unique perspective on this. My father was the son of Greek immigrants from the Pontus area of the Black Sea, now North Central Turkey. My ancestors lived in that area somewhat peacefully for three hundred years, along with Syrians, Armenians, and Turks of course, even some Jews. But the Armenian genocide of WW1 and the purge of remaining Christians after the war by both the Nationalists “Young Turks” and their Muslim cohorts resulted in the extermination of several hundred thousand (perhaps more) Christians, including Greek Orthodox and Evangelical Protestants. Many of my relatives
were killed there, but my grandparents escaped and emigrated to the USA in 1922.

I just learned a few months ago that I had distant relatives in the USA, one of them being the 86 year old first cousin of my deceased father. I learned a lot about my family history that had previously been a mystery to me. Turns out that my Great Grandfather was a widower who had three children with his GO first wife. Later he converted from Greek Orthodox to Evangelical Presbyterian after meeting American missionaries in the area. That separated him from his GO family totally. Then he remarried and had six more children, including my Grandfather. He eventually became pastor and built a Presbyterian church.

My Grandfather, the son of a pastor, ended up falling in love with a GO woman. They fled
and got married in Greece and then came to the USA. The rest of his family shunned him for denying his faith. So he never really kept up with them, even after a few others were fortunate enough to get to the USA. My grandparents never really talked about this, and neither did my dad, who was an only child. So I just figured I was the “last of the line” so to speak.

My dad was born in Chicago and married a Polish Catholic woman in the mid 50’s, kind of “racy” at the time since he was “kind of” Greek Orthodox. But the reality is that he had never been baptized. So my dad eventually became Catholic. My sister and I, and our families, are neither GO like some of the distant relatives or EP like most of the others (all of whom have the eldest sons as pastors, even to this day). So it is very funny for me to be known now as “the Catholic” to all the others who are either GO or EP. I cannot wait to meet them all!

Interesting story, Fast.

 

[BVMFatima]

Just to clarify my comments, some have quipped that many RC “converts” to Eastern Catholicism end up in the Orthodox Church. The thing is if an RC becomes intrigued by Orthodoxy, learns about Orthodoxy, then expects to get it in an Eastern Catholic parish, chances are they won’t. Most EC parishes especially in North America are Latinized. The pursuit of authentic Eastern spirituality is not accomplished here. Although many Orthodox parishes are Westernized as well, the chances of finding an “authentic” Eastern experience in an Orthodox parish is still much better than finding it in an EC parish.

How are the Eastern Churches westernized?

 

[ConstantineTG]

How are the Eastern Churches westernized?

Westernized just sounds better than Protestantized. Some elements of Protestant worship do creep into Orthodox parishes. Unlike Latinizations, they are self-imposed and often a result of the local congregation valuing these little things because of the cultural influence. Things like pews and the father of the bride walking the bride down the aisle, a departure from Eastern Christian tradition brought about by cultural influence.

 

[BVMFatima]

Westernized just sounds better than Protestantized. Some elements of Protestant worship do creep into Orthodox parishes. Unlike Latinizations, they are self-imposed and often a result of the local congregation valuing these little things because of the cultural influence. Things like pews and the father of the bride walking the bride down the aisle, a departure from Eastern Christian tradition brought about by cultural influence.

Interesting

 

[ConstantineTG]

Interesting

Not to mention that there are a number of Protestants converting to Orthodoxy. Some of them tend to bring some practices over. And there is a greater discussion of what really constitutes Orthodoxy. Since we know that the Orthodox faith can be practiced in different cultures. But some would argue that the Westernization is unacceptable to Orthodoxy, some would say that some of it is. Ultimately, we let time decide. Either a certain practice dies out over time, or it takes root and spreads to other Churches. It has always been like that from the early days.

 

[BVMFatima]

Not to mention that there are a number of Protestants converting to Orthodoxy. Some of them tend to bring some practices over. And there is a greater discussion of what really constitutes Orthodoxy. Since we know that the Orthodox faith can be practiced in different cultures. But some would argue that the Westernization is unacceptable to Orthodoxy, some would say that some of it is. Ultimately, we let time decide. Either a certain practice dies out over time, or it takes root and spreads to other Churches. It has always been like that from the early days.

Are you Orthodox or eastern Catholic? And I give the Protestants credit for converting to Orthodoxy, I was a Protestant and I’m now home in the Catholic Church, I was leaning towards the Orthodox Church but I found Catholicism to be the truth!