Could someone help clarify EOs position on original sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seekingthetruth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just to add to my post above, at the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, the EO patriarchates agreed to the following justification of infant baptism, founded on the understanding of original sin common with the Roman Church (even citing St. Augustine approvingly):
And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptized is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptized. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptized, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who says expressly, “And they are guaranteed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine says that it is an Apostolic tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church gives to babes the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnishes them with a particular heart.”

Now the matter of Baptism is pure water, and no other liquid. And it is performed by the Priest only, or in a case of unavoidable necessity, by another man, provided he is Orthodox, and has the proper intention to Divine Baptism. And the effects of Baptism are, to speak concisely, firstly, the remission of the hereditary transgression, and of any sins of any kind that the baptized may have committed. Secondly, it delivers him from the eternal punishment, to which he was liable, as well for original sin and for mortal sins he may have individually committed. Thirdly, it gives to the person immortality; for in justifying them from past sins, it makes them temples of God.
 
Last edited:
This is why the doctrine of the IC is a head-scratcher to the east–not denial of it, but bafflement as to calling it a dogma, as noone else has such guilt, either. To the eastern mind, it is like declaring that “2+2=4” is a dogma . . .
To put the IC a different way, let’s for now put aside the language that “the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without Original Sin,” and instead frame it as “the Blessed Virgin Mary from the moment of her conception was sanctified and given grace by God.” In the Latin sense, she was justified from the moment of her conception (based on the merits of Jesus Christ being retroactively applied to her).
 
Last edited:
We are both the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic as stated in the Creed.
I get we’re in the non-Catholic religious sections, but in case anyone is confused, this is your personal doctrine, not Catholic doctrine. The EO Churches cannot be said to be the one Church of Christ–they are not included in that sole, unique, perduring existence–that subsistence–of the one Church professed in the Creed.

Dominus Iesus
The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium. “The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one ‘subsistence’ of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which — being elements of that same Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church.”
Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church
Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7]

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]
The Decree on the Eastern Churches from Vatican II itself notes that “[t]he Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government…”

Lumen Gentium says the Church is “an entity with visible delineation” and those visible bonds “are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion” and that said government consists of “the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.”

If we were all one Church, we wouldn’t have ecumenism. EOs themselves will vigorously deny being one catholic Church with us.
 
Last edited:
Also, RCC never found EO to be heretical, but only schismatical. Anyway - what they were talking about was EC, not EO.
You’ll have to excuse me, I’m just an outside observer so I’m not really “in the know” haha. What is the difference between being schismatical and being heretical? And i didn’t realize the distinction, my apologies
 
Last edited:
Awesome! Thanks for the long replies that helps out a lot!!
 
There are a few common errors regarding Catholic teaching in this article.
Hi, @fhansen:
Thanks for your feedback. I put up the link without comment. To be honest, I’m not a theological egghead. As such, I’m not qualified to respond to the errors point by point.

Thanks again for the feedback. May God richly bless you.
 
So the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox to be true particular Churches and sister Churches along with having apostolic succession meaning a valid Eucharist. How can the Roman Catholic Church claim that the Orthodox are true particular Churches yet not part of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?” How can one have apostolic succession and the Eucharist but not be part of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?”

ZP
 
Their succession begins with the origins of the Christian faith, such that their priesthood must be valid, and therefore the Holy Sacrifice as well. This cannot be denied regardless of whether or not they’re in communion with Rome.
 
This cannot be denied regardless of whether or not they’re in communion with Rome.
That’s kind of my point. How can one have apostolic succession and the sacraments but not be part of the Church?

ZP
 
It is part of the Church; the Church subsists in both. EO doesn’t cease being Church just because it doesn’t listen to papa-because the lineage is correct and intact.
 
Does the RCC not find EO heretics anymore?
Take a look at the statements of the last half dozen or so popes, particularly on what is necessary for communion between the RCC and the EO. (Hint: only the fact of communion is needed).
I believe that this issue is a question of semantics where we say the same thing in different ways.
wait a minute . . . I’m usually the one saying that around here 🤣🤔😲

They are indeed expressing the same truth. That said, as expressed in the East (i.e., without Augustus), the dogma is unnecessary and doesn’t really say anything.
and instead frame it as “the Blessed Virgin Mary from the moment of her conception was sanctified and given grace by God.”
But that still, to the Eastern ear, leaves it in the “2+2=4” category . . .
What is the difference between being schismatical and being heretical?
Schism is the status of institutional separation, while heresy is believing differently than what the speaker’s church believes.

At the moment, the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox are in schism . . .
EO doesn’t cease being Church just because it doesn’t listen to papa-because the lineage is correct and intact.
a family spat is the best comparison I have. My grandmother and her siblings had a split where the two sides didn’t speak for over a generation . . .
 
40.png
Wesrock:
and instead frame it as “the Blessed Virgin Mary from the moment of her conception was sanctified and given grace by God.”
But that still, to the Eastern ear, leaves it in the “2+2=4” category . . .
I’m curious what you mean by this, as it sounds like you’re saying all men and women are conceived with the graces of baptism and specially sanctified such that baptism does not regenerate or effect any change in babies and young children. I’m not speaking of forgiving guilt, but of conferring grace.
 
Last edited:
I am in agreement with you, that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are together the true Church. @dochawk has a great analogy, a family dispute. Two siblings out of contact with one another but whether they like it or not, they are still part of the same family.

ZP
 
Lex orandi lex credendi.
I once heard an Orthodox priest say how they didn’t believe in the Immaculate conception. I picked up one of their akathists and read the words addressed to the Blessed Virgin, “Oh spotless one…” If she is spotless then how could she be spotless without having been concieved immaculately? He had no answer except to say that in the Orthodox Church one could not accuse someone of heresy if they denied the immaculate conception.
 
Under Eastern theology, the stain of sin isn’t part of conception, so the IC isn’t necessary in that regard.

That isn’t to say that Mary wasn’t particularly pure, just the the IC doesn’t really say anything.

I don’t think you will find an Orthodox (or EC) that claims Mary was born with any taint of sn.
 
That is another issue that I beleive is really semantical that when the people get tired of being seperated will resolve itself.
 
Uhm, one is about being outside Church hierarchy and not under the Pope- Schismatic.
Heresy is about denial of truth about dogmatical or doctrinal thing, excluding Papacy.
 
How can one have apostolic succession and the Eucharist but not be part of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?”
How not? I think concept is easy to grasp. Valid Eucharist does not equate unity, and our Lord has prayed for us to be one- something Catholic Church does follow. I don’t get how would “valid Eucharist” need to be followed by “authentic and full part of Church of Christ” by anything but logical leap, and herculian at that.
@dochawk has a great analogy, a family dispute. Two siblings out of contact with one another but whether they like it or not, they are still part of the same family.
Matthew 12:25 “But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.”
Matthew 16:18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

Church will not fall, but every kingdom divided against itself will. This means Church divided against itself (which would be this syncretic Catholic-Orthodox Church you speak of, while having very different ecclesiology and hierarchy but nominally united or not even that at all actually) would fall and since Church can not fall, we can be sure this analogy is not correct. I don’t believe there is actually anything dogmatical or binding from either side (Catholic East/West or Orthodox) supporting this analogy, but there are many binding things against it’s interpretation in sense that Church is visibly disunited yet remains “One”.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top