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

[Shamati]

Hi,
I was raised agnostic/atheist, baptised and confirmed into state lutheranism for traditions sake and because of various events in life I came to the realisation there is indeed a “force” in and above the universe that is the source of creation and that animates all living things. Years later my explorations of the unseen lead me through studies of hellenized and orthodox judaism to basically come to the conviction that Christ was incarnated and that the teachings of His is most purely perserved within the Catholic and Orhodox churches.

I have now been inquiring into the Catholic Church for about a year (have not yet started RCIA) but i have found some differences in theology between orthodoxy and catholicism that to me has profound implications and where I now prefer the orthodox viewpoint. The orthodox utilizes the apophatic principles or “negative” theology because they hold that the essence of God is beyond and above any human reference point. Thus to really “know” God is not possible with knowledge but requires the opposite.
I think St Gregory of Nyssa said it best in his biblical commentary “The life of Moses”:

The true knowledge and vision of God consists in this—in seeing that He is invisible, because what we seek lies beyond all knowledge, being wholly separated by the darkness of incomprehensibility.

The catholic church (being a western tradition) seems to have emphasized cataphatic or positive teology which bases itself on revelation and speculates around it to arrive at Dogmas. This principle is also used in the east but never without completing a statement with a negative one (ie: God is everywhere. But we do not know everywhere where God exists) but the negative is seen as superior by the orthodox.

Aristotelean philosophy was seen as pagan and scholasticism is thus absent in the east who holds than no one can become a theologian simply by getting a masters degree from university studies but have to resort to ascetical practises to achieve the Theoria = “vision of God” (Theoria is obtained according to Eastern Orthodox theology by way of contemplative prayer called hesychasm and is the vision of God as the uncreated light i.e. the light of Tabor)

I have a problem with this. To me, the actual deification and vision of God is more in line with the traditional revelation than speculating on biblical revelation and metaphysical philosophy that developed with and out of pagan culture (platonism, neoplatonism & atistotelean)
From this difference I have a hard time coming to terms with certain dogmas such as Marys immaculate conception because couldnt such a Dogma also be a natural dogmatic consequence from starting the dogmatic definition of Original sin? Given that I as an inquirer and not et catholic does not yet have the firm conviction that. The catholic church is protected from teaching Error.

I also agree more with the orthodox and to a degree jewish view of original sin: that it separated Man & Woman from perfect existence in Union with God to a flawed existence but that no Man or Woman has any personal guilt from this first sin but rather beats the consequences. That the fear of death is the cause for sin and not that we die because we sin. If all people inherited the guilt of Adam and Eves sin, wouldnt that mean that all who are not baptised is automatically destined to go to Hell?

Maybe i am wrong or have misses something but I feel that the Dogmas is something i need to wholeheartedly believe and for this I have to reconcile these differences. I feel this way of speculative development of theology is painting oneself into a corner. The other converts at church say they dont accept all dogmas as true (immaculate conception of Mary, Marys assumption of body and soul etc) but I dont know, it just dont feel right to NOT with my whole heart be willing to die for the faith if i shall convert. Because the catholic church dont accept an eastern rite Christian who rejects dogmas?

Can anyone help me and correct me if there are wrong understandings and point me in the right direction? I tie these differences in theology together with the reformation and all western christianity is based on this theology, which I believe has cause a great decline of the sense of mystery and mysticism and ultimately resulted in the enlightenment and todays secularisation.

Bless all, pray for me that Christ may show me His path and make me willing to tread it

 

[capablanca911]

A) You sound like an Eastern Rite Catholic.

B) When in the West we talk about the “guilt of original sin” we need to remember this line from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“… And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.” Paragraph 404

 

[SonCatcher]

Even in Western spirituality, adhering to the dogma definitions only gets you so far. Western mystics don’t seem to dwell on the definitions Western scholars offer of these things, preferring to dwell in the presence of God, instead. That does not mean the philosophical methods of mining the depths of Sacred Mysteries is wrong. It just means it isn’t suited to everyone.

On the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception: You seem to be correct that it is a natural consequence of the Western understanding that sin is what brought death. Eastern Catholics tend to give intellectual assent to the dogma for this reason. IIRC, Eastern Orthodox may also believe that Mary possessed sanctifying grace from the very beginning of her life, which is essentially the same thing. Since they have not addressed this at a council, there is not any uniformity, however (they may also believe that Mary received grace when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her).

Eastern Orthodox and Catholics even hold that Mary’s body is with her spirit. They just place emphasis on her dormition, instead.

The understanding of Original Sin itself seems to be a difference in interpreting Romans 5:12. It seems that the Greek is somewhat ambiguous over whether sin caused death or death caused sin. I simply look at this dilemma and take it that sin and death came into the world together. A mystery which we won’t really understand the causality of.

The Catholic Church does not teach that unbaptized people go to Hell because of Original Sin. If someone never hears or understands the Gospel, God can make a way for that person to be saved. We cannot know how because baptism is the way He gave us, but God is not bound by the sacraments even though it is still through Christ that any person (even a pagan) could be saved.

 

[Shamati]

I am not an eastern catholic or any catholic but have been discerning as best I can what church can help me heal my separation from God.

If one speculates with philosophical principles is one thing but to establish Dogmas, which is set in stone for all catholics to hold as true revelation from God correct? I believe this to be a mistake. Indeed many orthodox may believe that Mary was conceived without the “stain of sin” and that she was bodily and spiritually assumed into heaven but wouldnt it be to alienate potential followers of Christ to say that “all who does not with his heart believe these dogmatic statements to be true, which has been arrived at by intellectual theological speculation, rejects Gods revelation”?
Even if orthodox do believe these things I dont see how they can be considered as valid as dogmas as what Christ and his apostles explicity said was established at the 7 ecumenical councils.

Ok, that original sin is a state is pretty much the eastern understanding too as I understood it only they say that because of Adam we are more susceptible to sin because of our separation from God. Not that its a law set instigne that we must sin and indeed tjis is the way I understood their teachings of the Virgin Mary who was born in perfect union with Christ. It just makes more sense to me at this point of my understanding of christianity.

What if baby is born who will never during his or her life commit a sin, yet still dies? Think about all babies who are born sick and only live days/hours? If Death is a consequence of Sin, the surely the consequence of such deaths must be considered inherited in catholic theology?

What about the redemptive works of Christ? What mad me able to see Christianity as a continuation of Judaism and eventually accept it as the Truth was this understanding of the work of Christ:
“For even the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). The “ransom” is paid to the grave. As the Lord revealed to the Prophet Hosea (Hosea 13:14), “I will ransom them (us) from the power of the grave, I will redeem them from death.” In a sense, He pays the ransom to the devil who has the keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14).
The man Christ voluntarily gave Himself on the Cross. He died for all (“a ransom for many” or “the many”). But He rose from the dead in His crucified body. Death had no power to hold Him. It has no power over anyone. The human race is redeemed from the grave, from the devil. Free of the devil is to be free of death and sin. To be free of these, we become like God (deification) and may live with Him forever.

I always understood the Fear of death to be the cause of all of mans suffering and Jesus Christ conquering death itself is the most powerful teaching i ever known and that we by following him can be freed from the dominion death holds over us!! These are Good News indeed and i never heard about it in lutheranism.

My understanding of Catholic and all western christianities view if Christ is that God became man in order to satisfy the divine Justice which was offended by the sin of Adam. In other words, by his sin Adam offended the infinite God and, therefore, his sin had infinite consequences. It was not within the power of sinful and finite man to make amends, for the sin of Adam (“original sin”) passed to us; but it is our obligation to do so. Only Christ, Who was God and man, could pay this “debt of honor.”

Did he not conquer Death and redeem mans nature or whas redemption solely a consequence of the sacrifice in payment of the debt of original sin?

I know that i shall not intellectually investigate too much but the opposite to know God in heart but conversion is important and I believe specific Dogmas to be of life importance because they will establish boundaries which one will orient himself and all his future life around, wether consciously or unconsciously.

 

[thenobes]

I am not an eastern catholic or any catholic but have been discerning as best I can what church can help me heal my separation from God.

If one speculates with philosophical principles is one thing but to establish Dogmas, which is set in stone for all catholics to hold as true revelation from God correct? I believe this to be a mistake. Indeed many orthodox may believe that Mary was conceived without the “stain of sin” and that she was bodily and spiritually assumed into heaven but wouldnt it be to alienate potential followers of Christ to say that “all who does not with his heart believe these dogmatic statements to be true, which has been arrived at by intellectual theological speculation, rejects Gods revelation”?
Even if orthodox do believe these things I dont see how they can be considered as valid as dogmas as what Christ and his apostles explicity said was established at the 7 ecumenical councils.

Ok, that original sin is a state is pretty much the eastern understanding too as I understood it only they say that because of Adam we are more susceptible to sin because of our separation from God. Not that its a law set instigne that we must sin and indeed tjis is the way I understood their teachings of the Virgin Mary who was born in perfect union with Christ. It just makes more sense to me at this point of my understanding of christianity.

What if baby is born who will never during his or her life commit a sin, yet still dies? Think about all babies who are born sick and only live days/hours? If Death is a consequence of Sin, the surely the consequence of such deaths must be considered inherited in catholic theology?

What about the redemptive works of Christ? What mad me able to see Christianity as a continuation of Judaism and eventually accept it as the Truth was this understanding of the work of Christ:
“For even the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). The “ransom” is paid to the grave. As the Lord revealed to the Prophet Hosea (Hosea 13:14), “I will ransom them (us) from the power of the grave, I will redeem them from death.” In a sense, He pays the ransom to the devil who has the keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14).
The man Christ voluntarily gave Himself on the Cross. He died for all (“a ransom for many” or “the many”). But He rose from the dead in His crucified body. Death had no power to hold Him. It has no power over anyone. The human race is redeemed from the grave, from the devil. Free of the devil is to be free of death and sin. To be free of these, we become like God (deification) and may live with Him forever.

I always understood the Fear of death to be the cause of all of mans suffering and Jesus Christ conquering death itself is the most powerful teaching i ever known and that we by following him can be freed from the dominion death holds over us!! These are Good News indeed and i never heard about it in lutheranism.

My understanding of Catholic and all western christianities view if Christ is that God became man in order to satisfy the divine Justice which was offended by the sin of Adam. In other words, by his sin Adam offended the infinite God and, therefore, his sin had infinite consequences. It was not within the power of sinful and finite man to make amends, for the sin of Adam (“original sin”) passed to us; but it is our obligation to do so. Only Christ, Who was God and man, could pay this “debt of honor.”

Did he not conquer Death and redeem mans nature or whas redemption solely a consequence of the sacrifice in payment of the debt of original sin?

I know that i shall not intellectually investigate too much but the opposite to know God in heart but conversion is important and I believe specific Dogmas to be of life importance because they will establish boundaries which one will orient himself and all his future life around, wether consciously or unconsciously.

Don’t confuse us with Protestants who see OS as a debt that needs to be paid. Instead remember the anger of the Father needed to be propitiated by perfect obedience. This removed the power of death by allowing us to return to the friendship of the Father. The sacrifice of Christ metaphorically redeemed us from death by giving His Life to His Father on our behalf.

The power of the grave is the power that the perception of loss has on our psyche. When we see ourselves as losing something, we see it as a death in some way, and so we fight to forestall that death, leading us into sin. If we never saw ourselves as losing anything, we would never care what we gave away or what was taken from us.

So sin is the power of death essentially means sin comes from reaction to perception of loss.

But when we are with God, we have everything and loss should not be perceived. And it is Christ who has provided this friendship with God and sharing of His Life.

peace
steve

peace
steve

 

[Shiranui117]

I am not an eastern catholic or any catholic but have been discerning as best I can what church can help me heal my separation from God.

May the Lord bless you in your discernment and spiritual journey.

If one speculates with philosophical principles is one thing but to establish Dogmas, which is set in stone for all catholics to hold as true revelation from God correct? I believe this to be a mistake. Indeed many orthodox may believe that Mary was conceived without the “stain of sin” and that she was bodily and spiritually assumed into heaven but wouldnt it be to alienate potential followers of Christ to say that “all who does not with his heart believe these dogmatic statements to be true, which has been arrived at by intellectual theological speculation, rejects Gods revelation”?
Even if orthodox do believe these things I dont see how they can be considered as valid as dogmas as what Christ and his apostles explicity said was established at the 7 ecumenical councils.

This is something I’m also grappling with. But, say you become an Eastern Catholic. You can still affirm this Western dogma as a legitimate view without rejecting it, and you’d be in good standing with the Church (as far as I’m aware, anyway).

What if baby is born who will never during his or her life commit a sin, yet still dies? Think about all babies who are born sick and only live days/hours? If Death is a consequence of Sin, the surely the consequence of such deaths must be considered inherited in catholic theology?

Death is the consequence of sin. But what is the consequence of physical death, in your view?

What about the redemptive works of Christ? What mad me able to see Christianity as a continuation of Judaism and eventually accept it as the Truth was this understanding of the work of Christ:
“For even the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). The “ransom” is paid to the grave. As the Lord revealed to the Prophet Hosea (Hosea 13:14), “I will ransom them (us) from the power of the grave, I will redeem them from death.” In a sense, He pays the ransom to the devil who has the keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14).
The man Christ voluntarily gave Himself on the Cross. He died for all (“a ransom for many” or “the many”). But He rose from the dead in His crucified body. Death had no power to hold Him. It has no power over anyone. The human race is redeemed from the grave, from the devil. Free of the devil is to be free of death and sin. To be free of these, we become like God (deification) and may live with Him forever.

All of this is both perfectly correct, and you will find this teaching in both Orthodox and Catholic circles–but it’s much more obvious in the Orthodox Church.

I always understood the Fear of death to be the cause of all of mans suffering and Jesus Christ conquering death itself is the most powerful teaching i ever known and that we by following him can be freed from the dominion death holds over us!! These are Good News indeed and i never heard about it in lutheranism.

You have spoken rightly.

My understanding of Catholic and all western christianities view if Christ is that God became man in order to satisfy the divine Justice which was offended by the sin of Adam. In other words, by his sin Adam offended the infinite God and, therefore, his sin had infinite consequences. It was not within the power of sinful and finite man to make amends, for the sin of Adam (“original sin”) passed to us; but it is our obligation to do so. Only Christ, Who was God and man, could pay this “debt of honor.”

I made a thread recently asking the same question as you. It’s quite short, and perhaps it will help you better understand the Catholic position. It’s really not too terribly different from the Orthodox teaching, and is rather complementary to it, IMHO.

Did he not conquer Death and redeem mans nature or whas redemption solely a consequence of the sacrifice in payment of the debt of original sin?

Jesus making amends for our sins to God is only one part of the Catholic view on why He died and rose from the dead–conquering death and redeeming man’s nature is another part.

 

[Shamati]

Unfortunately, here in Sweden we have no Eastern Rite catholic churches. Its either full on Julian calendar orthodoxy or novus ordo catholicism.
Sweden have 100.000 Roman Catholics and at least 120.000 Orthodox believers out of 10 million.

Had I not been so very dissapointed with the fact that the catholic mass so very much resembles the Lutheran mass i’d probably take these differences mor lightly. Byt lately I have started to really take in the consideration the fact that Catholicism has changed very much since the schism and especially in the last centuries and particularly the last 100 years it seems.

How can I come to the conviction and faith that the catholic church is the Only true church protected from teaching any Error if its Dogmas have developed from speculative positive theology out of a faith that is still to this day kept by the Orthodox churches??
I know the catholic church holds that the Christian theology evolves because not all truths Christ spoke could be understood until much later. But the way you can also see it is that when you start tanig these positive statements regarding dogmas and theology in general without complementing with the negative statements its sort of like a snowboard that keeps growing larger and larger. One Dogma leads to an inevitable consequence for aborter oart of faith and so on.
Wouldnt it be safe to say that negative statements of theology is superior converting anything not explicitly states by Christ? I have always been fascinated with Byzantine christianity but i always believed what I was told by catholics that the ONLY difference is that the now orthodox does bot accept the successor of Saint Peter as te rightful leader of christendom which I personally believe an think all early evidence points to. However, these are pretty major theological differences it at least seems like and considering the changes in catholicism and the doctrine of faith developing ine can understand why some orthodox can have a difficulty abandoning the Faith of their fathers and submit ti the authority of the Pope and the magisterium.

The latest agreed on faith before the split must be considered as the reference point which is why i have a problem with accepting Catholicism 2013 as the “true” faith and rejecting the faith of so many great saints. This is tve sad thing about these dogmas.
Would i want my kids to grow up with guilt for ancestral sin? Its deeply embedded in the western psyche and I believe a great sadness which is the very core of the existence of todays radical secularism, modernism, atheism and all other heresies which have developed out of the enlightenment understanding that we are not inherently in guilt towards God and therefore need the church, thus enabling an intellectual and cultural liberation.

So is Christ a sacrifice by God on behalf of humanity, taking humanity’s penalty for sin upon himself, and propitiating God’s wrath. In other words, God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve? This to le has always sounded distant and pagan even though it was the only christianity inwas familiar with growing up. It very much resembles pagan ideas of appeasing the Gods.
The sacrificial part i can subscribe to is that where the sacrifice of Christ is made to change man, to heal us and make us more godlike.

Because of the Dogma that te church is Infallable, they can no “go back” a few dogmas if one would prove to be wrong right? I know catholics believe this to be impossible but consider it from my outside perspective.

Is there really any room for heterodoxy within catholicism? Can one “pick and choose” to accept the theological viewpoint of orthodox and call it eastern catholic or must not all catholics accept the dogmas from the magistereum of Rome to be divine revelation?

I believe we Sin because we Die, which we all fear. The very reason that we fear it points to a reference point which is not finite. By dying to this world death will have No power over us and thus also te Adversary / Satan. There are however many Holy Men who have lived very long and some even choosing to die after a certain amount of time claims g bodily immortality within Chinese Taoism so I guess sin and its consequence have bodily consequences.

St. Anthony the Great (fourth century):

“God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God’s goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind.”

God bless you and thank you for your help!

 

[SonCatcher]

St. Anselm’s satisfaction theory of atonement is losing sway in Catholicism. One is not required to believe that Jesus’ death was a vengeance. Even Pope Benedict wrote against the idea.

The idea that Latin Catholics have somehow become wayward because some elements of the Mass and spirituality resemble Protestant services is incorrect. Many of the changes instituted at Trent were reactionary to the Reformation. Unfortunately, that resulted in such things as a prolonged lack of use of the vernacular (where the Eastern Churches have always used the vernacular). Much has actually been restored to us because the Council Fathers listened to the Holy Spirit.

The mysteries of faith are unfathomable. It is impossible for anyone to understand them from all sides. That is why the Eastern Church sees things differently from the Western Church. By growing separate from each other, East and West understand the mysteries very differently, yet can recognize the truth in the other’s development of doctrine.

 

[Shamati]

St. Anselm’s satisfaction theory of atonement is losing sway in Catholicism. One is not required to believe that Jesus’ death was a vengeance. Even Pope Benedict wrote against the idea.

The idea that Latin Catholics have somehow become wayward because some elements of the Mass and spirituality resemble Protestant services is incorrect. Many of the changes instituted at Trent were reactionary to the Reformation. Unfortunately, that resulted in such things as a prolonged lack of use of the vernacular (where the Eastern Churches have always used the vernacular). Much has actually been restored to us because the Council Fathers listened to the Holy Spirit.

The mysteries of faith are unfathomable. It is impossible for anyone to understand them from all sides. That is why the Eastern Church sees things differently from the Western Church. By growing separate from each other, East and West understand the mysteries very differently, yet can recognize the truth in the other’s development of doctrine.

The thing I have a hard time wrapping my head around are specifically the dogma of marys immaculate conception. I see this dogma as a logical consequence of the western view of original sin; that man by his very nature is a sinner, as opposed to having an inclination towards sin as a result of the fall
I agree with what you have said here about the worship language in particular. But there is a pretty radical difference between the Mass of the catholic church today and the older mass or the Orthodox Divine Lithurgy. In some ways I think the church either went to far with the lithurgical reform in particular or the individual churches ascross the western world has not been following the instructions.

 

[Michael_Allen]

Hi Shamati

Here are just a couple of personal reflections…

Firstly I think with all theology we start from what is most certain. The way I look at it those teachings that are common to Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and that are explicit in scripture give us those very strongest foundations. Where there is disagreement between Catholic and Orthodox Churches and/or when scripture is less clear then we have less certainty - perhaps in those cases we can listen to all views as perhaps shining a light from different angles, or perhaps the differences may simply alert us that we’re possibly/probably dealing with teachings with less certainty.

Secondly, in the Catholic Church you’ll find both apophatic and cataphatic approaches. Yes, the scholastic tradition is more cataphatic and if you are reading about doctrine (or using the Catholic Catechism as a reference) then you’ll probably see this approach more. But there is an apophatic strand that is more common in the monastic movements - from the “Cloud of Unknowing” through to more modern movements such as John Main’s popular revival of the contemplative tradition, now championed by Laurance Freeman (see wccm.org/), or in the writings of people like Sr. Ruth Burrows (see Love Unknown as a key example). In “debate” arenas (such as this) you’re much more likely to come across the cataphatic approach, but there is also a large movement of those more influenced by the apophatic approach (though many probably don’t know the term) - you just won’t find too many of those on internet discussion forums as they are not nearly so invested in analytic discussions.

God bless +

 

[SonCatcher]

The thing I have a hard time wrapping my head around are specifically the dogma of marys immaculate conception. I see this dogma as a logical consequence of the western view of original sin; that man by his very nature is a sinner, as opposed to having an inclination towards sin as a result of the fall
I agree with what you have said here about the worship language in particular. But there is a pretty radical difference between the Mass of the catholic church today and the older mass or the Orthodox Divine Lithurgy. In some ways I think the church either went to far with the lithurgical reform in particular or the individual churches ascross the western world has not been following the instructions.

While that is a Western view of original sin, it is not the Catholic view. Only Protestants teach that fallen humanity is sinful by nature.

The Catholic teaching is that we have an inclination to sin (called “concupiscence”). We wholly reject the Protestant idea of a sinful nature.

As for the liturgical changes that have run rampant, we may yet see a settling toward a practice more similar to what we see in the Anglican Ordinariates. It is too early to tell.

 

[Shamati]

While that is a Western view of original sin, it is not the Catholic view. Only Protestants teach that fallen humanity is sinful by nature.

The Catholic teaching is that we have an inclination to sin (called “concupiscence”). We wholly reject the Protestant idea of a sinful nature.

As for the liturgical changes that have run rampant, we may yet see a settling toward a practice more similar to what we see in the Anglican Ordinariates. It is too early to tell.

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 makes it unnecessary for a Dogma on Marys immaculate conception for the Orthodox.
Also the catholic cathecism does teach that sin is “transmitted” to us and that we are all afflicted by Original Sin from birth. 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)

 

[Genesis315]

Hi,
I also agree more with the orthodox and to a degree jewish view of original sin: that it separated Man & Woman from perfect existence in Union with God to a flawed existence but that no Man or Woman has any personal guilt from this first sin but rather beats the consequences. That the fear of death is the cause for sin and not that we die because we sin. If all people inherited the guilt of Adam and Eves sin, wouldnt that mean that all who are not baptised is automatically destined to go to Hell?

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:
Council of Jerusalem:

“And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord showed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Savior would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” 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.”

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).

 

[SonCatcher]

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 makes it unnecessary for a Dogma on Marys immaculate conception for the Orthodox.
Also the catholic cathecism does teach that sin is “transmitted” to us and that we are all afflicted by Original Sin from birth. 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)

Correct. But the transmission of Original Sin is not to be confused with guilt. Sin is separation from God in this context. Eastern Catholics also see these dogmas as unnecessary to Eastern Catholic theology. They give intellectual assent to them as necessary in the West.

I do hope you will also examine the position of the Bishop of Rome as well in your studies. Since it is possible to adhere to Eastern theology and be in Communion with Rome. I understand there aren’t any Eastern Catholic parishes in your region but if you petition your bishop, he may be able to make it happen.

 

[Shiranui117]

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.

Actually, the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin (tendency to sin, image of God within us distorted, corrupted human nature, bondage to death, suffering, etc.) is what the Orthodox Church defines as “ancestral sin.” Ancestral sin is the consequences of Adam’s and Eve’s sin passed onto us, since they kinda ruined it for everyone. But you are right in saying that the Orthodox teaching is that we do not inherit any actual sin or guilt of sin from Adam and Eve–that’s completely on those two.

 

[thenobes]

Actually, the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin (tendency to sin, image of God within us distorted, corrupted human nature, bondage to death, suffering, etc.) is what the Orthodox Church defines as “ancestral sin.” Ancestral sin is the consequences of Adam’s and Eve’s sin passed onto us, since they kinda ruined it for everyone. But you are right in saying that the Orthodox teaching is that we do not inherit any actual sin or guilt of sin from Adam and Eve–that’s completely on those two.

What do the Orthodox call the separation from communion with God, due to Adam and Eve’s sin, that is restored through Baptism? I believe this is the “guilt” of OS, so-called by the Catholic Church.

From the session on Baptism in the Council of Trent, the canons:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

1. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

1. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

1. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

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. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

peace
steve

 

[Bookcat]

The catholic church (being a western tradition) seems to have emphasized cataphatic or positive teology

The Catholic Church originated in the Middle East and is not “Western” but both rather Western and Eastern. Hoping of course to be fully reunited with our Eastern Orthodox brothers.

Also one will find Apophatic and Cataphatic in the Catholic Church Theology and Spiritual Theology.

 

[Shiranui117]

What do the Orthodox call the separation from communion with God, due to Adam and Eve’s sin, that is restored through Baptism? I believe this is the “guilt” of OS, so-called by the Catholic Church.

From the session on Baptism in the Council of Trent, the canons:

peace
steve

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.

 

[Shamati]

The Catholic Church originated in the Middle East and is not “Western” but both rather Western and Eastern. Hoping of course to be fully reunited with our Eastern Orthodox brothers.

Also one will find Apophatic and Cataphatic in the Catholic Church Theology and Spiritual Theology.

No it didnt. Its a western rite by nature and according to orthodox view all joining its ranks must submit to western authority and accept the Frankish pagan interpretation of christianity as superior.
Only the westerners actually believe the catholic church to be the true Heir of the new testament church. Ask the peoples of the middle east what church they belong to and consider the church of christ.

Where is the apophatic ? Only to excuse what legal language cannot express or explain. Where is the room for mystery in statements about Marys immaculate C. and assumption.

 

[SonCatcher]

No it didnt. Its a western rite by nature and according to orthodox view all joining its ranks must submit to western authority and accept the Frankish pagan interpretation of christianity as superior.
Only the westerners actually believe the catholic church to be the true Heir of the new testament church. Ask the peoples of the middle east what church they belong to and consider the church of christ.

Where is the apophatic ? Only to excuse what legal language cannot express or explain. Where is the room for mystery in statements about Marys immaculate C. and assumption.

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.