Difficulties with difference in Catholic & Orthodox theology (possible convert)

[Shamati]

If the Orthodox have resorted to the use of pejoratives to justify their lack of Communion with the “first among equals”, it is a very sad state for them. Fortunately, I don’t think that is the case for most Orthodox but of a virulent few.

I honestly don’t know why you still claim a problem with the Assumption. If anything, the dogma says less about Mary’s entry into Heaven than the Orthodox teaching on the Dormition, leaving more room for mystery in the West than in the East. read more

On the Immaculate Conception, itself, you can find mysteries to examine if you just look at the text:
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.
—Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

The emphasized words provide quite a depth of mystery to explore even before we assemble them into phrases. The East, lacking such a dogma, doesn’t even know to explore this area of faith. Thus, they miss out on an opportunity for mystery.

Im neither orthodox nor catholic but I believe i have collected the amount of information I need to make a descision that will benefit me in the Great Work of Salvation. I have come across extreme views on both sides. However it is a valid opinion among orthodox scholars that the Frankish during the carolingian empire used positions within the church ti durther their rule amd that clear ffelubg if apparrnt need to formulate specific dogmas of what could just as well be philosophical speculation. Thus the view is that paganism has infested the western churches thought ultimately giving rise to endless division of christendom. Ideally i want to be in communion with Rome. But i just cant convince myseöf that the part of the church that has stuck to what was agreed upon by majority consensus and the 7 ecumenical councils to be the schismatic, protestant, heretics. While hold the western church who had “developed” theology out of philosophical speculation which has seemingly separated it from its non dualistic hebraic roots and has developed a clergical monarchy which it used the Bible to claim its spiritual authority to change anything and all things Christian. Basically the King of christianity. It is problematic for me to accept this view which was not present in the ancient world and i can not accept that the catholic church is inavel to teach error, sorry.
I mean, both views are extreme.

Orthodox Christians observe the feast of the Dormition or Falling Asleep of the Theotokos on the same day (adjusted to calendar if applicable) as the Roman Catholic Church, and some Orthodox parishes are named “Assumption of the Virgin / Theotokos”) although this is more of a Western expression. Orthodox Christians believe, not as a dogma but as an ecclesiastical conviction that the Theotokos was not in any sense of form captive to death and thus translated to the fullnest of life in Christ, body, soul and spirit. This belief in not dogmatized in the Orthodox Churches (as it was done by the Roman Catholic Church in 1950).

Again, the difference is the western will of Top Down control by dogma, which is probably a result of the rationalist, legalistic approach continued on from examples set by St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine. The most important thing for the catholic church seems to be: CONTROL. Which is why I dont see how one can hold orthodox theological beliefs and be eastern catholic because ALL members of the church must submit to the authority of the pope and the teachings of the Magistereum must be held as Divine Revelation.

What bothers me most about catholicism pf today us that it seems to almost lack spirituality. This is why i started to investigate orthodoxy which always seems very spiritually oriented to me and I cant say I have yet seen more pious men than certain Orthodox monk Father Tadej of Serbia or the minks of Mt. Athos. I happen ti believe this lack if spiritual emphasis is due to the western rationalist approach which goes deep. Thus I no longer care if i belon to the church of The successor of st Peter or not because i can clearly see that there’s a deep spiritual crisis in the western church which is evident in the death of its monastic life contra the flourishing if eastern monastic life.
When I go to mass I go to meditate on God and worship. So the fact that the catholic mass where i live is a slightly more Reverent copy of lutheran or vice versa is a symptom of the spiritual decay apparently spread through all of western christianity.

The orthodox has developed less than the catholic church and has retained a very present ascetic spirituality that is clearly related to (maybe even the very same handed down) the teachings of Jesus, St Paul and the apostles. The church has not changed.

The catholic church had developed its understanding of christianity and papal authority and from this she has not been able to withdrawn the spiritual decay spread by post modernism which itself originates from the very beginning schism of western christendom as a result of teachings on papal authority.

Plz correct menig i’m wrong.

So COULD the catholic church “take back” a Dogma?

 

[SonCatcher]

It seems your issues are not dogmatic at all. Rather, you seem to be offended by hierarchy. (We don’t have an ecclesiastical monarchy unless you count Christ Himself as the Monarch.)

It is the same error (rejection of God’s order) that led to Protestantism and Orthodoxy is not immune (Old Believers, for example, as well as any Orthodox Church that declares itself autocephalus, not granted by its mother church).

 

[Shamati]

It seems your issues are not dogmatic at all. Rather, you seem to be offended by hierarchy. (We don’t have an ecclesiastical monarchy unless you count Christ Himself as the Monarch.)

It is the same error (rejection of God’s order) that led to Protestantism and Orthodoxy is not immune (Old Believers, for example, as well as any Orthodox Church that declares itself autocephalus, not granted by its mother church).

No its not. It is theological and spiritual and i believe that the current definitions of the papacy is an indication of the vast theological difference between orthodoxy and catholicism. I dont believe it to be Gods order anymore. I just cant convince myself that the strain that kept ther faith pure to the dogmas of the councils are the ones in error and schism with the ones that has developed dogmas from rationalism and authority to something other than said councils. If i have to choose I must choose orthodoxy and because i acknowledge I could very well be wrong the presence of a living spiritual tradition available to all, not just scholars or monastics is an indication that it had something the west now lacks for me.
I dont believe it to be “Gods Order” as in His will for His people to have a hierarchy with the extreme centralization of catholicism and still claim it to be truly catholic as in encompassing the universal beliefs of christians from all cultures. In orthodoxy the unity is not primarily in an earthly hierarchy but in the faith itself. Ideally it should be in both but we know this wont happen since everyone who accepts the authority of Rome must submit to all dogmatic statements and t eachother on papal authority to be divinely revealed teachings, regardless of them differing with views of the early church. If it was truly “catholic” the dogmas would only be those accepted by the original church after the 7 ecumenical councils and maybe the now specifically catholic dogmas as to be accepted by catholics of a “latin rite” instead of the opposite. I must look at both orthodoxy and catholicism as the same church and that one can not choose wrong from either one since they all go back to the beginning and was United in te formation of the faiths fundamentals. To say that the orthodox today are the schismatic heretics would be equivalent of saying that the beliefs of the early fathers was wrong wouldnt it?

What it comes down to is that I can not be an catholic of the byzantine rite even if I wanted to if I do not accept all dogmas to divine revelation and as authoritative as the 7 councils, correct? Thus it becomes impossible to keep the “meat and bones” faith of eastern christianity without being a heterodox catholic.

 

[SonCatcher]

Friend, your statement that Catholicism is heterodox is appalling.

It seems that you have too many issues (and possibly anger) to deal with effectively in a forum. The only proper solution is to become involved in a local parish community and enter inquiry classes so that you may discern for yourself.

 

[thenobes]

As far as I’m aware, any notion of the “inherited guilt” of original sin is completely foreign to Orthodox thought, and was also completely unknown to the Eastern Church before the schism (and was once foreign to the Western Church as well, I might add).

Any “guilt” of original sin is on Adam’s shoulder’s, and Adam’s alone. The Orthodox have a term for, as you put it, “the separation from communion with God, due to Adam and Eve’s sin, that is restored through Baptism”. That term is either “the separation from communion with God, due to Adam and Eve’s sin, that is restored through Baptism,” or more simply, “The Fall.” Why would they call it “guilt?” That makes no sense.

My biggest problem in commenting on the canons of Trent is that the West eventually started using an entirely different vocabulary from the East to describe sin and man’s relationship with God. Having adjusted myself to the Eastern terminology, the language used in the canons of Trent are, quite frankly, baffling to me. So I’m finding myself having a lot of “yes, but no” reactions to the language being employed in the canons you provided. I’m not sure whether there’s real disagreement between the East and West on this issue, or if the West is in agreement with the East, but just has a really wacky way of putting things.

Hi, Shiranui,

Are you then saying the writer of Hebrews is mistaken when he says that the Levites may be said too have tithed Melchisedek?

Hebrews 7

8 The priests who collect tithes are men who die, so Melchizedek is greater than they are, because we are told that he lives on. 9 In addition, we might even say that these Levites—the ones who collect the tithe—paid a tithe to Melchizedek when their ancestor Abraham paid a tithe to him. 10 For although Levi wasn’t born yet, the seed from which he came was in Abraham’s body when Melchizedek collected the tithe from him.

If they could be said to have “tithed”, why couldn’t we be said to have incurred the guilt of Adam’s sin?

peace
steve

 

[Shiranui117]

Hi, Shiranui,

Are you then saying the writer of Hebrews is mistaken when he says that the Levites may be said too have tithed Melchisedek?

If they could be said to have “tithed”, why couldn’t we be said to have incurred the guilt of Adam’s sin?

peace
steve

Hi Steve,

Huh. You are the first one to ever point that out. Bravo, well done, very insightful; you’ve given me something good to chew on for a while… :clapping: :yukonjoe:

Nonetheless, I’m going to attempt to offer an answer to your question, even though I might end up doing a terribad job of it. No, I don’t think the author of Hebrews was mistaken. But I think paying a tithe is different than committing a sin; God DID say that “The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity.” (Ezekiel 18:20)

So while we do reap the consequences of Adam’s sin, we don’t necessarily share in his “guilt,” i.e. the blame for his sin.

Like I said, though, I’mma keep chewing on that bit in Hebrews 7. Thanks for that

In the meantime, perhaps you could explain to me the Latin Catholic teaching of the guilt of original sin? I’ve read the relevant bits on original sin in the Catechism already, but I feel like I often view Latin theology through a Byzantine lens, so I might have ended up not quite understanding it right. Would you mind giving me the Latin theology on original sin from a Latin viewpoint, so I could understand it better?

Peace,
-Shiranui

 

[Cavaradossi]

Friend, your statement that Catholicism is heterodox is appalling.

Heterodox is already the “nice” term, which is simply used to say that the beliefs of one group depart from orthodoxy according to the perspective of another group. If even such a term, already used for its lack of a pejorative connotation is off-limits, how in the world can we express our differences in belief?

It seems that you have too many issues (and possibly anger) to deal with effectively in a forum. The only proper solution is to become involved in a local parish community and enter inquiry classes so that you may discern for yourself.

Perhaps he does, and perhaps he doesn’t, but I don’t think such a conclusion is warranted based on what little he has written here on this forum.

 

[Cavaradossi]

A lot of things you mentioned as an either/or between East and West are and/both within Catholicism.

I just wanted to point out that the Orthodox Churches teach that those who have not had original sin cleansed do go to Hell just like the Catholic Church (or at least the EO used to teach this). At the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, they taught:

crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

Granted, like the Catholic Church they acknowledge that God can cleanse original sin in extraordinary ways, but the point is we both believe we need to be cleansed of it to be saved (or at least the EO used to teach this alongside Catholics).

Also, I saw this post a while back, and never had a chance to respond to it.

The Orthodox objection to the Western (namely, the Protestant) understanding of Original Sin hinges mainly on the rejection of inherited guilt. Dositheos in his confession, for example, draws the patristic distinction between the inherited hereditary sin, and sins: the former consists only of the burden of Adam’s transgression (mortality, damage to the intellective faculties, etc.), and does not consist of any guilt, guilt being a personal and not natural consequence of using the will not in accordance with its logos. See the sixth point of the confession:

We believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And as a result hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that everyone who is born after the flesh bears this burden, and experiences the fruits of it in this present world. But by these fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature.

Incidentally, this also means we understand differently from the West (again, mainly Protestants) why the unbaptized go into punishment. They suffer in the Orthodox understanding, because their souls have not been healed of the sickness of Adam, and so they will experience the presence of God as punishment, but not because they are guilty of Adam’s sin. You are right that both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy teach that the unbaptized may still be saved by God’s grace. I disagree strongly, however, with your assertion that Orthodoxy does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

[ericc]

Hi Steve,

So while we do reap the consequences of Adam’s sin, we don’t necessarily share in his “guilt,” i.e. the blame for his sin.

i

Certainly agree. It is clear in Rev 20:12 that we are judged by what we had done, not what A & E did. This verse helps to clear some doubt for me but doesn’t solve the problem of unbaptised aborted babies, infants or mentally incapabled. They certainly didn’t have personal sin and I think OS should not be a problem. At the end of it, trust God to do the right thing.

 

[guanophore]

No its not. It is theological and spiritual and i believe that the current definitions of the papacy is an indication of the vast theological difference between orthodoxy and catholicism.

Actually the theological difference are not vast at all. You are right that authority is a major point of contention, and out of that authority, the doctrinal developments. However, Catholicism and Orthodoxy have much more in common than either have with Protestantism. I see that your affiliation is listed as Protestant. Do you come from a Zwinglian faith formation? Were you taught sola scriptura?

I dont believe it to be Gods order anymore. I just cant convince myself that the strain that kept ther faith pure to the dogmas of the councils are the ones in error and schism with the ones that has developed dogmas from rationalism and authority to something other than said councils.

If this is the case, then clearly you are not ready to be Catholic.

But you seem to be misinformed. There are no elements of the Councils that are not agreed upon by both East and West. When those councils were held, there was no schism.

Your issues seem to be with those things that occurred after the schism between East and West. I think this is the issue for all of Orthodoxy.

If i have to choose I must choose orthodoxy and because i acknowledge I could very well be wrong the presence of a living spiritual tradition available to all, not just scholars or monastics is an indication that it had something the west now lacks for me.

At least you are making your decision based upon a false premise. Decisions that are made upon such ignorance and errors are much more easily corrected when the individual comes to realize they had the wrong impression from the start.

The living spiritual tradition of the Catholic faith is available to all, not just scholars and monastics. Apparently you are stuck in a mideaval mindset. From reading your posts, it seems clear that you have a great many misunderstandings about the CAtholic faith. This is understandible.

I dont believe it to be "Gods Order" as in His will for His people to have a hierarchy with the extreme centralization of catholicism and still claim it to be truly catholic as in encompassing the universal beliefs of christians from all cultures.

I think you will come to find that the Orthdox are having much more difficulty with universality than the Catholics. Orthdoxy has been trapped in cultural traditions, languge, and ethnicities since before the Schism. There is a great effort now to follow the canons here in America, where there are competing cultural expressions of Orthodoxy that exist in violation of their own heirarchy. Perhaps it is more common here because we are such a melting pot.

In orthodoxy the unity is not primarily in an earthly hierarchy but in the faith itself.

Yes, I would say this is true about any faith tradition. The unity that both Catholics and Orthodox have with Protestants lies completely in the unity of the faith itself. Where were share the Apostolic doctrine, there is unity. Where there is departure from what the Apostles believed and taught, there is disunity.

Ideally it should be in both but we know this wont happen

Again you deny the power of God!

Mark 10:27
27 Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.”

How will you give an account of yourself when you are calling Him a liar?

since everyone who accepts the authority of Rome must submit to all dogmatic statements and t eachother on papal authority to be divinely revealed teachings, regardless of them differing with views of the early church.

I think it is most likely that an acceptance will come that the dogmas are not a departure from the faith that was once for all deposited to the Saints.

If it was truly "catholic" the dogmas would only be those accepted by the original church after the 7 ecumenical councils and maybe the now specifically catholic dogmas as to be accepted by catholics of a "latin rite" instead of the opposite.

Yes, a truly Catholic faith is one that is embraced by all who are members of Christ, who is the Head of the Church. To some extent, we must go back and find the unity that existed during and after the forst 7 councils before we can move forward together.

How people conceptualize the nature of original sin does not need to separate us from each other. We are all in agreement that humans fall short of the Glory of God, and that we need a saviour.

 

[guanophore]

I must look at both orthodoxy and catholicism as the same church and that one can not choose wrong from either one since they all go back to the beginning and was United in te formation of the faiths fundamentals.

I am not sure I am following your thought here, but I do think that certain parts of the world needed to receive certain dogmas to combat heresies that did not affect other parts of the world. You mentioned the Immaculate Conception as one divisive issue. Orthodoxy does not struggle with the modern incarnations of Arianism, Gnosticism and Nestorianism as the Latin faith does with the plethora of heresies contained in the Protestant Reformation. They would have no need to develop dogmas around these things.

To say that the orthodox today are the schismatic heretics would be equivalent of saying that the beliefs of the early fathers was wrong wouldnt it?

Yes, it is wrong to say that about the orthodox, in fact, specifically contrary to the teaching of the CC. That being said, some of the early fathers did have schismatic and heretical ideas.

What it comes down to is that I can not be an catholic of the byzantine rite even if I wanted to if I do not accept all dogmas to divine revelation and as authoritative as the 7 councils, correct?

I think this is a question that requires a personal exploration on your part. ARe there any Byzantine Catholics where you are?

The Byzantine spirituality is more like the Orthodox than it is like the Latins.

Thus it becomes impossible to keep the “meat and bones” faith of eastern christianity without being a heterodox catholic.

This is a conclusion that only you can reach in your own conscience. Suffice to say that you have a great many misunderstandings of the Catholic faith. If you wish to make such a decision based upon misunderstandings, that is your perogative.

 

[guanophore]

 Ok. Maybe i understoodnit wrong than but the most important difference I found is that the orthodox church does not teach that anybody is born with original or ancestral sin. Only that the implications of Adam and Eve disobeying the Law of God has had the consequence of their descendants being more likely to react or behave improperly because of the consequences of death.

This is a Catholic view.

The “implications” in the West are called “concupisense” or the tendency toward sin (not actual sin). In scripture this is called the “old man” or the “flesh”, that which is innate in the fallen human person that tends away from God/is contrary to God.

The CC does NOT teach that we are guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve, or that we have “ancestral sin”.

This makes it unnecessary for a Dogma on Marys immaculate conception for the Orthodox.

The fact that the Orthodox were not facing the heresies of the Reformation may leave them without a need to declare so many dogmas to combat those heresies. That does not make them unnecessary for the Latin Church. The Church has the responsibility to protect the faithful from falling into error.When there is rampant heresy, she must stand up and loudly/definitively proclaim the Truth. Those who already adhere to the Truth are not in need of such declarations. They are for those who are in danger of falling away from the One Faith that need them.

The Reformers radically redefined the terms used by the Apostles. It was necessary to point out the error.

Also the catholic cathecism does teach that sin is “transmitted” to us and that we are all afflicted by Original Sin from birth.

Meaning we are afflicted by the effects of the sin. Disease, death, decay, etc. As well as the concupisence that was the result of the Fall.

Such a Dogma demands another Dogma on Marys immaculate conception to make the Dogmas on Jesus Christs purity & Marys purity hold up. (Cathecism paragraphs 403-404)

I think you are just stuck on the language that is used to explain the theological perspective. The Eastern Church shares the Apostolic understanding of the effects of original sin, in contrast to the Protestant Reformers, who seem to claim that the nature of sin has changed, or the nature of humanity has changed, such that such sins and fallen condition will no longer separate us from God. These are significant departures from the Apostolic faith, which did, indeed, require Dogmas to correct them.

 

[thenobes]

G4, no.

The CC does NOT teach that we are guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve, or that we have “ancestral sin”.

If the Catholic Church does not teach the guilt of OS, why does Session 22 of TRENT say this:

1. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted;

or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.

peace
steve

 

[thenobes]

As far as I’m aware, any notion of the “inherited guilt” of original sin is completely foreign to Orthodox thought, and was also completely unknown to the Eastern Church before the schism (and was once foreign to the Western Church as well, I might add).

Any “guilt” of original sin is on Adam’s shoulder’s, and Adam’s alone. The Orthodox have a term for, as you put it, “the separation from communion with God, due to Adam and Eve’s sin, that is restored through Baptism”. That term is either “the separation from communion with God, due to Adam and Eve’s sin, that is restored through Baptism,” or more simply, “The Fall.” Why would they call it “guilt?” That makes no sense.

Guilt is what was incurred by Adam’s sin. We shared in Adam’s punishment, therefore we shared in the guilt. Or are you saying God punished us for nothing?

In Hebrews, Paul says that the Levites tithed Melchesidek when Abraham tithed him, since they were his, Abraham’s, descendants, presumably because they were in his loins, just as the descendants of Adam were in Adam’s loins.

So the descendants of Adam can be said to share in Adam’s sin.

Now I can see that your point might be that, yes, Adam was punished, and as such, his guilt was expiated upon return to communion with God. But was it expiated prior to Christ’s Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection, with its subsequent hallowing of the grave?

And by that time, was our guilt already set in his descendants’ spirits for us to overcome by Baptism in the future?

Just some thoughts.

peace
steve

peace
stev

 

[thenobes]

Hi Steve,

you’ve given me something good to chew on for a while…

Gotta give the HS the credit on that one.

I’mma keep chewing on that bit in Hebrews 7. Thanks for that

In the meantime, perhaps you could explain to me the Latin Catholic teaching of the guilt of original sin? I’ve read the relevant bits on original sin in the Catechism already, but I feel like I often view Latin theology through a Byzantine lens, so I might have ended up not quite understanding it right. Would you mind giving me the Latin theology on original sin from a Latin viewpoint, so I could understand it better?

Peace,
-Shiranui

I don’t believe I’m really up too that. However the New Advent website has a nice outline of the history and theology of OS.

New Advent Original Sin Webpage

Seems to be that St. Augustine was the one who develped most of the arguments in his fight against the Pelagians.

peace
steve

 

[guanophore]

G4, no.

If the Catholic Church does not teach the guilt of OS, why does Session 22 of TRENT say this:

peace
steve

Both things are true. We are not guilty of the SIN of Adam and Eve, but we are tainted by the consequences of the Fall, by which means we are born into a condition in which we are separated from God.

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.

408 The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, “the sin of the world”.300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men’s sins.301

 

[guanophore]

 Guilt is what was incurred by Adam's sin.  We shared in Adam's punishment, therefore we shared in the guilt.  Or are you saying God punished us for nothing?

We are not guilty of Adam and Eve’s sin. We have shared in the consequences of that sin, which is found in "the sin of the world’ and the wounded human nature (concupiscence).

 In Hebrews, Paul says that the Levites tithed Melchesidek when Abraham tithed him, since they were his, Abraham's, descendants, presumably because they were in his loins, just as the descendants of Adam were in Adam's loins.

So the descendants of Adam can be said to share in Adam’s sin.

1 Cor 15:20-22
21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; 22 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.

We don’t share in Adam’s sin, but the consequence of his sin.

  Now I can see that your point might be that, yes, Adam was punished, and as such, his guilt was expiated upon return to communion with God.  But was it expiated prior to Christ's Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection, with its subsequent hallowing of the grave?

No one returned to full communion with God prior to the Ascension. Until then, the Gates of Heaven were closed.

  And by that time, was our guilt already set in his descendants' spirits for us to overcome by Baptism in the future?

So it would seem.

Eph 1:3-4
4 just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.

1 Peter 1:20-21
20 He was destined before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of the ages for your sake.

 

[guanophore]

In the meantime, perhaps you could explain to me the Latin Catholic teaching of the guilt of original sin? I’ve read the relevant bits on original sin in the Catechism already, but I feel like I often view Latin theology through a Byzantine lens, so I might have ended up not quite understanding it right. Would you mind giving me the Latin theology on original sin from a Latin viewpoint, so I could understand it better?

Peace,
-Shiranui

Actually I think you are viewing Latin theology through the tainted lense of State institution Lutheranism.

If your view was Byzantine, it would be much more Catholic.

 

[sharpag]

Before this thread fell victim to Original Sin itself, it would seem that the OP has more of a problem with the way in which Catholicism seeks to rationally explain a great portion of its beliefs. But if you cannot rationally agree with a Church doctrine it seems (in my fallible opinion) one must either agree with the rationality of the Church and reject one’s own or agree with one’s own rationality and reject the Church.

Trying to rationalize away a doctrine that someone cannot rationally accept generally does not work. Sometimes the person discovers they had not properly conceived of an idea but just as often they get frustrated and the argument itself becomes repulsive. I’m not trying to be mean or anything but if someone is thinking of becoming Orthodox and not Catholic because it is too rational I (were I Catholic) would not go on rational tangents trying to explain Original Sin from its properly understood framework. Also, while Catholics may be willing to say Catholics and Orthodox are saying the same thing with semantic differences this opinion is not really felt in the reverse direction.

As someone who has struggled with a great deal of Western Christian theology because of its over-emphasis (in my opinion) on rationality, I have serious doubts as to whether or not someone with these doubts can feel at home in any Western Tradition.

 

[Shamati]

I guess the real problem I have is to accept the catholic belief that the understanding of the “deposit of faith” deepens over time. For example I hold the theology of St. Gregory of Nyssa higher than the little I know from St. Thomas Aquinas.

To sum things up about the difference in the view of original sin the orthodox has told me that in their church, what is inherited is only Adams Punishment - Mortality, Death.

This is what the Ecumenical Patriarch Batholomew has to say about the immaculate conception and Original Sin

Bartholomew I: The Catholic Church found that it needed to institute a new dogma for Christendom about one thousand and eight hundred years after the appearance of the Christianity, because it had accepted a perception of original sin – a mistaken one for us Orthodox – according to which original sin passes on a moral stain or a legal responsibility to the descendants of Adam, instead of that recognized as correct by the Orthodox faith – according to which the sin transmitted through inheritance the corruption, caused by the separation of mankind from the uncreated grace of God, which makes him live spiritually and in the flesh. Mankind shaped in the image of God, with the possibility and destiny of being like to God, by freely choosing love towards Him and obedience to his commandments, can even after the fall of Adam and Eve become friend of God according to intention; then God sanctifies them, as he sanctified many of the progenitors before Christ, even if the accomplishment of their ransom from corruption, that is their salvation, was achieved after the incarnation of Christ and through Him.

In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin, but loved God above of all things and obeyed his commandments, and thus was sanctified by God through Jesus Christ who incarnated himself of her. She obeyed Him like one of the faithful, and addressed herself to Him with a Mother’s trust. Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.
Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain.
As already said, original sin weighs on the descendants of Adam and of Eve as corruption, and not as legal responsibility or moral stain. The sin brought hereditary corruption and not a hereditary legal responsibility or a hereditary moral stain. In consequence the All-holy participated in the hereditary corruption, like all mankind, but with her love for God and her purity – understood as an imperturbable and unhesitating dedication of her love to God alone – she succeeded, through the grace of God, in sanctifying herself in Christ and making herself worthy of becoming the house of God, as God wants all us human beings to become. Therefore we in the Orthodox Church honor the All-holy Mother of God above all the saints, albeit we don’t accept the new dogma of her Immaculate Conception. The non-acceptance of this dogma in no way diminishes our love and veneration of the All-holy Mother of God.