Disagree w/ or want argue Orthodox Church teaching? Please post here.

  • Thread starter Thread starter SingleMomMonica
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear sister SMM,
My friends were born and raised in the Coptic Church. They state that today, their Church now teaches that Christ is fully God and fully Man, but that both His Humanity and Divinity in one unique Nature but that unlike their anscestors who believed that Christ’s Humanity was swallowed up by His Divinity, their Church now teaches that the Divinity and Humanity are equal and unmixed. Their current teaching is not far from Orthodoxy these days.
Whatever your Coptic friends thought the Coptic Orthodox Church once taught is wrong. The Christology of the Coptic Orthodox Church, along with the other Oriental Orthodox Churches, have always been Catholic and Orthodox. The difference was one of semantics - how each Tradition defined certain words. If I have more time, I will post more, if no other OO comes on to explain before then.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I translated to Catholicism from Coptic Orthodoxy.
 
Thank you Andrew Phillip,

I am a convert and a revert to Orthodoxy (both times from the Catholic Church). The other Orthodox Christians here know much more than me and have educated me and helped me back into the Faith after I left it over a silly miss understanding of a quote of St. John Chrysostom along with a lot of pressure from Catholic family friends.

Your questions are very good ones. I will be happy to try to provide you with the answers and I hope our fellow Orthodox Christians will chime in as well - they often word things much better than I do. 🙂

But a quick answer is that Orthodox and Catholic understanding of Original Sin is very different.

It would have been impossible for the Theotokos to have died a physical death if she’d been preserved from Original Sin as physical death is the primary consequence of Original Sin as described in Genesis in the Old Testament.

Orthodox celebrate in August each year the Dormition of the Theotokos where our Tradition specifically teaches that Mary died a physical death, but was then taken body and soul by Jesus.

Catholics celebrate the Assumption of Mary (I don’t remember when) each year and their teaching is very vague as to leave it up to the believer as to whether or not she died physically first before her Assumption into heaven body and soul. The Catholics who taught me the Catholic Faith said that although it’s okay to believe she died or not since the Church leaves it open, they believe that she did not die and referenced a couple of Old Testament people who also did not die, Enoch and Elijah.

While I believe that with God all things are possible, I do believe the Orthodox Traditon in this matter as it is, what I have found to be , the most ancient and the most detailed Tradition. You can read about it in Vol. 4: The Life of the Virgin Mary, The Theotokos. ISBN # 0-944359-03-5.

I’s now after 3am, so I have to say good night,
Monica
Hey there SingleMomMonica!

Wow!!! You really know your stuff, and I have learned so much about my own Church just by reading your amazing posts.

I am very new to this forum, and am from Australia. I am a member of a Ukrainian Orthodox congregation since childhood.

I would like very much to learn a lot more about my Orthodox faith, and hope you can help me with information.

To start with, could you please explain the difference between Orthodox and Catholics on the “Immaculate Conception” of the Most Holy Virgin dogma? This may sound elementary to you, but it has always puzzled me.

For example, do our Churches agree on the concept of original sin, the wages of sin etc?

How can the Most Holy Virgin have died a mortal death if she was conceived without original sin? How could she have then been assumed bodily into heaven, after her earthly death?

Can you help??? :confused:
 
Thanks SMM (Monica),

I am very grateful for your explanatory post. I think I get the difference now.

I always was taught about the dormition, and bodily death of the Most Holy Virgin, and of her bodily assumption into Heaven after her mortal earthly death. That’s why it didn’t make sense to me. I did not know that Catholics either leave this question open, or reject that teaching. Thanks for the heads up!

We were also taught that the MHV also declared that Jesus Christ was her Saviour - which would be redundant and uneccessary if she was immaculate and blameless herself. Successfully resisting sin, and being obedient to God are two of her many virtues, we are told - although Christ did rebuke her at the wedding at Cana… which some Orthodox say indicates she did sin herself, during her life (although very minor).

Do you have a perspective on the above paragraph - have I got this muddled up, or am I basically steering right on Orthodox teachings?

It does seem a little vague for our Catholic friends to leave the question of her earthly mortality open - but this obviously becomes necessary for Catholics if the “Immaculate Conception” dogma is to be adhered to. Otherwise their teaching and dogma would simply make no sense at all - or worse, be self contradictory.

Clearly, the Catholic Church, at some point in history (post schism?) must have repudiated the ancient Church teaching about the dormition of the Godbearer - and departed from the Orthodoxy on this issue. Is that correct?

Anyhow, i am not really interested in any kind of argument so to speak. I would really appreciate a respectful fleshing out of both Orthodox and Catholic teachings on these details so I can better understand them both.

Sorry it’s so late over there - here downunder, it’s just past midnight… I am off to sleep myself, but would really like to hear both Orthodox and Catholic teachings/ perspectives on these issues - discussed by anyone with superior knowledge than mine - which means virtually everybody I guess!!!
 
… The Athanasian Creed reflects it [The filioque] …
The Athanasian Creed is a good place to start as it does NOT teach orthodoxy, nor was it written by St. Athanasius. The most probable author was Ambrose of Milan. I take issue with it’s teaching of the filioque and even more so do I take issue with it’s diophysite view, and I rather think that St Athanasius himself would take issue with both as well!

I am Orthodox but I believe that the EO share a common error with the RC by holding to the diophysite view. And yet most Orthodox seem to actually believe the miaphysite view (as I also do) without realizing that they do! When explaining the 2 natures an EO may say “Christ is 100% human and 100% divine, yet these do not add up to 200%, Christ is still 100%”. In explaining it in this way an EO has unwittingly agreed with the OO and actually believes the miaphysite view! For if the EO wishes to maintain the official view of the EO church that comes from Pope Leo and the 4th Ecumenical Council they would have to say that the 2 natures add up to 200% in Christ. Because many EO do not, it is a sign to me that the EO still have the Holy Spirit. So I don’t necessarily disagree with the EO people, but I disagree with the EO official diophysite teaching, as I believe St Athanasius would as well.

Correcting the diophysite view of the Orthodox (as well as RC) would also cure several other issues as well. For one, there is no room for the filioque for those who hold a consistent miaphysite view. The Holy Spirit is NOT human, only divine. So, you see, if the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son (as well as the Father) He would have to proceeded only from the divine nature of Christ and not His human nature. This is impossible if Christ has but one nature (i.e. one composite nature both human and divine); hence, if you are consistent, and miaphysite, and wish to also believe in the filioque then you must also confess that the Holy Spirit is both human as well as divine. And, of course, you cannot!

This issue was really settled at the 3rd Ecumenical Council when the church said that Mary is the “Mother of God”. By calling Mary the “Mother of Christ” instead ends up dividing Christ into different parts, some human and some divine. By confessing that Mary is the “Mother of God” says that even Christ’s human nature (Which came from Mary) is divine; because all of Christ is both human as well as divine. Our very salvation depends on this fact, as St Athanasius said, “God became man, that man may became God”. Eternal salvation and deification are really the same thing. Whatever is not assumed into the divine is not redeemed. Without God’s nature, all of humanity will go to hell forever. That is why that there is hope ONLY in Christ as our savior. He is the ONLY true mediator between God and man; and He has achieved this hope for mankind by being both true God and true man and subjecting this one composite nature to the Cross and being raised from the dead He has brought salvation to all who became one with Him by faith and by baptism.

So, if any EO wish to agree with the Roman Pope Leo who declared the diophysite view at the time of the 4th Ecumenical then I wish to disagree with them. By the way, most of the eastern bishops at that council wanted to make Pope Leo the “Universal Bishop” on the basis that he is the successor to St. Peter. Pope Leo did not wish to except the title, but had he done so, then the RC could say that the Pope has universal jurisdiction on the basis of an Ecumenical Council. I think Pope Leo rejected the title because he saw himself as fallible. Adopting the miaphysite view would also mean that Pope Leo was not infallible and that an ecumenical council is not infallible either. This would bring badly needed humility both to RC and EO alike, and would facilitate true Christian unity and charity.

Thank you [user]John Larocque[/user] for first making the point:
…Needless to say, Rome’s view of itself evolved after Chalcedon, with the loss of Alexandria and Antioch.
 
As for Photios and Mark of Ephesus, they both seemed to have double motives.

As for Mark, he was a rebel.

Thoughts?
My thoughts are that it is a shameful thing to lower yourself to such a level that you would say such things about Saints who stood so valantly for the Truth during a time when the whole world was bent on rejecting the Truth.

My thoughts are that you ought to get to know Sts. Photius and Mark by praying to them and reading the full account of their lives and the miracles that surrounded them in life and after their deaths, rather than speak ill of them.

My thoughts are that it’s simply not polite to call recognized Saints “rebel” and persons with “double motives”.

My thoughts are that this type of behavior will certainly not get any Orthodox Christian to believe in the Catholic point of view of things.

My thoughts are: I wonder what Melchior’s motives are in saying such terrible things about these two Saints? :confused:

My thoughts are - whatever the motive is, it can’t be good.
 
I don’t like arguing with Orthodox anything, and love the Divine Liturgies I have attended. Love the iconography, and the kissing, and the crossing, and the moving around more, and the singing (most sing, not just mouth the words) and how children are baptised and given the Eucharist and confirmation? All at once. I heard this from a friendly Greek Orthodox grandfather, even whipping out photos of his grandchild’s baptism/communion/confirmation? out for me to see. He was so proud of his family, and faith. He took the time to show me the finer points of their parish.
Lots of insence, and lots of happy faces.
Afterward, there was a greeting meeting place decked out with all kinds of yummy treats. It was a real feast and lots of laughter, talking, and just plain happy people.

My objection is that there were no Strawberries in the place. Please explain this.
 
I don’t like arguing with Orthodox anything, and love the Divine Liturgies I have attended. Love the iconography, and the kissing, and the crossing, and the moving around more, and the singing (most sing, not just mouth the words) and how children are baptised and given the Eucharist and confirmation? All at once. I heard this from a friendly Greek Orthodox grandfather, even whipping out photos of his grandchild’s baptism/communion/confirmation? out for me to see. He was so proud of his family, and faith. He took the time to show me the finer points of their parish.
Lots of insence, and lots of happy faces.
Afterward, there was a greeting meeting place decked out with all kinds of yummy treats. It was a real feast and lots of laughter, talking, and just plain happy people.

My objection is that there were no Strawberries in the place. Please explain this.
I’m so glad that you enjoyed your experience!

:)The strawberries and other snacks or a meal is provided after Divine Liturgy in the Parish Hall. Usually during Strawberry season, there are strawberries:thumbsup:
 
Come on Monica, I’d love a reply! 🙂
Papal primacy and supremacy isn’t negated just because popes didn’t always summon councils. Men like Constantine and Ossius of Cordoba were responsible for Nicaea, not the pope. True, but what does this prove? The Holy Spirit worked and continues to work through us all, and through great men like Athanasius even when all the dark powers are against him. But it is the Holy Father who has the final say and always did.

The statement you made that the Fathers are all unanimous about the equality in powers of bishops is nonsense. You can find many statements indeed by ECF’s that the confession of Peter was the rock and not Peter himself. But likewise you can find a plethora of statements by ECF’s pointing toward the man Peter being the rock and the pope and the bedrock of the Church.

I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’m going to post just a five quotes here. What I’d like you to do is this–do NOT counter my quotes with other quotes, just react and explain the Orthodox argument and refute these quotes, ok? Do NOT counter-quote, react. Explain these away please …

"… and although he [Jesus] assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair." --Cyprian

**“The Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; **and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
–Tertullian

**"*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. ***For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
—Origen

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, **that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" **–**Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). **

"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, **and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. **. . . **Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
–Optatus of Milevus **
 
Generally, I have nothing to argue about with Orthodox Church teaching. It is only when their apologetics turn into polemics against the Catholic Church that I find a lot of errors.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Do NOT counter-quote, react. Explain these away please …

"… and although he [Jesus] assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair." --Cyprian

You have provided this quote that supposedly St. Cyprian wrote, yet you give no reference for me or anyone else to access it, verify that it is indeed a valid quote and if it is to read it in it’s entire context. Please advise which of the 80 letters he wrote this quote is supposed to be found in.

For you or anyone interested, here is some information about St. Cyprian: benedictseraphim.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/our-father-among-the-saints-cyprian-of-carthage-bishop/
 
**“The Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; **and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
–Tertullian
You and any other interested person may want to read this quote in context: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.viii.xxi.html

When Chapter 21 is read in its entirety…doesn’t seem to support the Catholic position. In fact, even when just the full paragraph is read it doesn’t.

Your quote makes it seem like the sentence begins with “The”, but it actually begins with: If, because…then goes into your quote and then ends saying that if because of that the reader presumes that what was given to St. Peter was handed down, then it asks the reader what kind of person he is that he would dare to change the meaning of Jesus’ words. This is not something that, when read in context supports the Catholic position.

That being said, my understanding is that Tertullian is not considered a Saint because he held heretical views at some point in his life. It is possible that this was written during that time of his life? I don’t know, but I’d like to be able to at least give Catholics the benefit of the doubt on this one considering Tertullian’s reputation of not always being orthodox, for lack of a better word. The writings of Tertullian shouldn’t be allow to make or break a Church’s position on anything since he wasn’t always faithful to the Church’s teachings. I believe he died separated from the Church, but it’s possible I’m confusing him with another.
 
**"*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. ***For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
—Origen

You are quoting Origen here. Knowing that some of Origen’s ideas and his writings were condemned in the 5th Ecumenical Council, I’m a little wearing to believe something written by him.

As of now, I’ve not been able to locate the “Commentary on Matthew” to read it in it’s entirety.

At this point I don’t know 2 things:
  1. I’m not sure if it even exists or if it does if it is a forgery
  2. I’m not sure if this is one of Origen’s writings that was condemned. It will require more research on my part, which I’m not sure I’m really committed to doing at this point.
 
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, **that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" **–**Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). **
St. Irenaeus of Lyons is celebrated in the Orthodox Church on August 23rd each year: orthodoxchristian.info/pages/St_Irenaeus.htm

Now, when we read the writings of the early Church Fathers, they should be read in context. Here is a link to Book 3: textexcavation.com/irenaeusah3.html When Chapter 3 of Book 3 is read in context it is clear that the author St. Irenaeus is not ignoring the other Apostolic Successions besides Rome, but even states that because of what he is doing, it would be ridiculous for him to attempt to include each and every one of the Apostolic Successions in this work of his. The writing gives honor and glory to both Sts. Peter and Paul for founding the Church in Rome (most Catholics seem to think that only St. Peter founded the Church in Rome) and that all the faithful should agree with the Church in Rome because the Church in Rome, like the Church everywhere has has maintained the apostolic tradition.

Then reading further on in Book 3, in Chapter 4 Section 1 we find that the author tells the readers that there is no need to seek truth anywhere besides the Church was founded everywhere by the Apostles and has all the Truth…and then says that if there is a dispute over an important matter, it should be taken to the most ancient Churches - plural - founded by the Apostles - plural.

This all sounds like the Orthodox understanding.

I recommend for you and anyone here to read Book 3 in it’s entirety, rather than just pick out one part which seems to fit with a teaching of a particular Church.

If Book 3 is too big, then at least read Chapters 2, 3 and 4 so you get more of the understanding of the author in regards to Section 2 of Chapter 3.

Oh and it is not saying that the Church in Rome was the most ancient of Churches established, But the author was indicating that the tradition of the Apostles are of the most ancient Church and that Sts. Peter and Paul had founded the Church in Rome (this was after the various Apostles had founded the Church in other cities like Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus).

It would be so nice If I could just quote sentence 1 in Section 2 of Chapter 3 of Book 3, it would make life so much easier! Oh well 🙂
 
Step one: delegitimize the author of the statement, muddy the waters. Come on, Origen had his issues but he’s considered a great man in Christian early church history and theology. Some people think it was his self-castration that earned scorn against him, some people think his flirting with Novationism was controversial. He was buddies with Firmillian, whom I’m sure you’d like because Firmillian sided up with Cyprian against Pope Stephen regarding the lapsi controversy. Origen also earned the ire of popes at times as well. Origen’s statements about the lofty and supreme pope and the pope’s concerns toward him only make my point for me. Origen is considered a pillar of early Greek orthodox monastacism and Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen were collectors of Origen’s works. He was indeed anathemized at the fifth council and that is also a contested council since the Holy Father did not summon it but Justinian. That aside, I don’t like Origen’s hierarchical views of the Trinity or some of his other beliefs either. Same with Tertullian. Montanism isn’t something I relish either. But both men are not completely worthless in their beliefs and statements due to later heresy or stupidity.

Also, what leads you to believe his writings a forgery when they support a pro-papal position?
You are quoting Origen here. Knowing that some of Origen’s ideas and his writings were condemned in the 5th Ecumenical Council, I’m a little wearing to believe something written by him.

As of now, I’ve not been able to locate the “Commentary on Matthew” to read it in it’s entirety.

At this point I don’t know 2 things:
  1. I’m not sure if it even exists or if it does if it is a forgery
  2. I’m not sure if this is one of Origen’s writings that was condemned. It will require more research on my part, which I’m not sure I’m really committed to doing at this point.
 
I have read the translation that I found more often than any other and will stand by it. And Tertullian was indeed a Montanist later in life and fell out of graces with the Church. Again though, this is irrelevent. He was orthodox when he made this statement and it points toward the sentiment of that age.
You and any other interested person may want to read this quote in context: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.viii.xxi.html

When Chapter 21 is read in its entirety…doesn’t seem to support the Catholic position. In fact, even when just the full paragraph is read it doesn’t.

Your quote makes it seem like the sentence begins with “The”, but it actually begins with: If, because…then goes into your quote and then ends saying that if because of that the reader presumes that what was given to St. Peter was handed down, then it asks the reader what kind of person he is that he would dare to change the meaning of Jesus’ words. This is not something that, when read in context supports the Catholic position.

That being said, my understanding is that Tertullian is not considered a Saint because he held heretical views at some point in his life. It is possible that this was written during that time of his life? I don’t know, but I’d like to be able to at least give Catholics the benefit of the doubt on this one considering Tertullian’s reputation of not always being orthodox, for lack of a better word. The writings of Tertullian shouldn’t be allow to make or break a Church’s position on anything since he wasn’t always faithful to the Church’s teachings. I believe he died separated from the Church, but it’s possible I’m confusing him with another.
 
Hi Again Monica,

Here is the entire quote (and it’s a biggie):
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

You are correct that he isn’t ignoring the apostolic successions of the other apostles. The Catholic Church doesn’t either. And of course Paul was a founder of the Roman Church. No one, especially me, has ever taught otherwise. But Peter was the head of the Roman Church and this quote still has its focus on this statement that is really something you can’t shake: For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority That’s hard to run away from as an Orthodox, IMO…

I don’t think context changes a thing here…all apostles are indeed valid but one holds preeminence and heads the others…

I also did indeed read Book 3, in Chapter 4 Section 1 and the statements about going before the Church, the apostles (plural) and the churches (plural). I fail to see how this negates the final say of the papacy? It’s common knowledge that many heresies were dealt with at the local level? Many cases that could not be judged or agreed upon were taken guess where?..Rome…The Pope. Micromanagement was not the name of the game. The pope had the final say on conciliar statements and rulings and controversies. Appeals were made to Rome, people wanting things settled went to Rome. Not ALL small matters went through Rome. The Pope didn’t decide spitting on the sidewalk rulings in Cappadocia. No one ever implied he micromanaged every nuance. He was the final say. That’s what Catholics proclaim and I stick to. Book 3, in Chapter 4 Section 1 proves nothing against the papacy, it just shows the truth that all apostles were important and all churches were as well. Catholicism agrees. It’s not always either/ or.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons is celebrated in the Orthodox Church on August 23rd each year: orthodoxchristian.info/pages/St_Irenaeus.htm

Now, when we read the writings of the early Church Fathers, they should be read in context. Here is a link to Book 3: textexcavation.com/irenaeusah3.html When Chapter 3 of Book 3 is read in context it is clear that the author St. Irenaeus is not ignoring the other Apostolic Successions besides Rome, but even states that because of what he is doing, it would be ridiculous for him to attempt to include each and every one of the Apostolic Successions in this work of his. The writing gives honor and glory to both Sts. Peter and Paul for founding the Church in Rome (most Catholics seem to think that only St. Peter founded the Church in Rome) and that all the faithful should agree with the Church in Rome because the Church in Rome, like the Church everywhere has has maintained the apostolic tradition.

Then reading further on in Book 3, in Chapter 4 Section 1 we find that the author tells the readers that there is no need to seek truth anywhere besides the Church was founded everywhere by the Apostles and has all the Truth…and then says that if there is a dispute over an important matter, it should be taken to the most ancient Churches - plural - founded by the Apostles - plural.

This all sounds like the Orthodox understanding.

I recommend for you and anyone here to read Book 3 in it’s entirety, rather than just pick out one part which seems to fit with a teaching of a particular Church.

If Book 3 is too big, then at least read Chapters 2, 3 and 4 so you get more of the understanding of the author in regards to Section 2 of Chapter 3.

Oh and it is not saying that the Church in Rome was the most ancient of Churches established, But the author was indicating that the tradition of the Apostles are of the most ancient Church and that Sts. Peter and Paul had founded the Church in Rome (this was after the various Apostles had founded the Church in other cities like Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus).

It would be so nice If I could just quote sentence 1 in Section 2 of Chapter 3 of Book 3, it would make life so much easier! Oh well 🙂
 
Well, the Orthodox Church is a great Church and has a lot going for it, and Monica is doing a great job in her discussions and explanations. I don’t say that the Catholic Church is without its problems, especially as Monica has pointed out, but since this is supposed to be a thread on Orthodox teaching, one thing that I can’t agree with as far as Orthodox teaching is concerned is the denial of the difference between Mortal and Venial sins and the subsequent denial of Purgatory.
Of course I could be wrong here, but my understanding is that Orthodox do not accept the difference between mortal and venial sin. This to me is a big mistake. It is just so obvious that there are some sins which are a whole lot lesser in gravity than others.
Example 1: Suppose a man makes a bomb and sets it off in a marketplace killing and wounding hundreds of innocent people. Obviously, this is a mortal sin.
Example 2: Suppose you are walking in a park and there is a sign which says: Do not pick the flowers. There are thousands of flowers blooming about and the sight and smell of the flowers is overwhelming so you give in and you pick one flower. Now you have committed a sin of theft as well as disobeying the sign which says not to pick any flowers.
Now will you go to hell and eternal damnation for picking a flower from a bush in a park? I doubt it. But you have done something wrong in a lesser or minor sense, so you will have to endure some temporary punishment in Purgatory.
It is so obvious to me that you can have serious or grave offenses against the law of God and minor offenses so I don’t see how I could ever accept a teaching which rejects the fact of mortal and venial sins.
 
Hey Sid, nice to see you at this end of the forums 🙂
… I can’t agree with as far as Orthodox teaching is concerned is the denial of the difference between Mortal and Venial sins and the subsequent denial of Purgatory.

Of course I could be wrong here, but my understanding is that Orthodox do not accept the difference between mortal and venial sin.
Did some one say that this is what Orthodox think?

The mortal/venial sin distinction is not hard and fast in Orthodoxy (I don’t know when it became ‘solidified’ in the western church). Rather than say “there are two classes of sins” the Orthodox just see it more or less as a sliding scale of seriousness.
But you have done something wrong in a lesser or minor sense, so you will have to endure some temporary punishment in Purgatory.
It is so obvious to me that you can have serious or grave offenses against the law of God and minor offenses so I don’t see how I could ever accept a teaching which rejects the fact of mortal and venial sins.
The problem idea is not the seriousness of the sin.

The problem is in the compensatory theory of ‘temporal punishment’, which I think may date back to the scholastic era. Orthodox do not teach a temporal punishment for sins already forgiven in confession, regardless of the seriousness of them. (That does not mean that there is no unpleasantness or punishment after death, God can do anything He deems fit and we cannot tell Him otherwise, but we believe God forgives sin in sincere confessions through the church, and don’t believe that further punishments will be due because of something that has already been forgiven) If one makes a good confession, one is forgiven.

Even the ‘penance’ prescribed for a confession is not a punishment for past sins, but a spiritual exercise (usually focusing upon one’s weaknesses and tendencies). The goal is to become a better person, not to pay a debt.

Perhaps you or I are a piece of work, and we need to grow beyond what we have accomplished in this life, It’s possible that God in His wisdom has something in store for us, we just don’t know, but we believe confessed sins are completely forgiven, there is no temporal punishment for those forgiven sins, and no treasury of merits needed to exchange for this punishment.
 
Hey Sid, nice to see you at this end of the forums 🙂 Did some one say that this is what Orthodox think?

The mortal/venial sin distinction is not hard and fast in Orthodoxy (I don’t know when it became ‘solidified’ in the western church). Rather than say “there are two classes of sins” the Orthodox just see it more or less as a sliding scale of seriousness.
The problem idea is not the seriousness of the sin.

The problem is in the compensatory theory of ‘temporal punishment’, which I think may date back to the scholastic era. Orthodox do not teach a temporal punishment for sins already forgiven in confession, regardless of the seriousness of them. (That does not mean that there is no unpleasantness or punishment after death, God can do anything He deems fit and we cannot tell Him otherwise, but we believe God forgives sin in sincere confessions through the church, and don’t believe that further punishments will be due because of something that has already been forgiven) If one makes a good confession, one is forgiven.

Even the ‘penance’ prescribed for a confession is not a punishment for past sins, but a spiritual exercise (usually focusing upon one’s weaknesses and tendencies). The goal is to become a better person, not to pay a debt.

Perhaps you or I are a piece of work, and we need to grow beyond what we have accomplished in this life, It’s possible that God in His wisdom has something in store for us, we just don’t know, but we believe confessed sins are completely forgiven, there is no temporal punishment for those forgiven sins, and no treasury of merits needed to exchange for this punishment.
Well wait. Do Orthodox generally beleive in the concept of the division of sin into mortal sin and venial sin? I don’t think so. A venial sin is punishable by purgatory and a mortal sin is punishable by hell. That is the Catholic teaching, and what makes sense to me.
 
Well wait. Do Orthodox generally beleive in the concept of the division of sin into mortal sin and venial sin? I don’t think so. A venial sin is punishable by purgatory and a mortal sin is punishable by hell. That is the Catholic teaching, and what makes sense to me.
Orthodox see sin which means missing the mark in more than just 2 categories really.

When you miss the mark - imagine someone with a bow and arrow trying to hit the target - There are all kinds of various levels of “missing the mark”.

If the person was shooting the arrow in exactly the opposite direction of the target then there is no way that he will hit the target. If he aims at the target and hits a tree a few yards a way, it is different than hitting the white edging around the target itself.

**As Christians our mark is to become like God. Anything less than that is missing the mark or sin. **

The really sad thing in this world is that the majority of people in the world don’t even know what the “mark” is…they don’t know that God became Man so that man could become god. So their whole lives are spent not trying to hit the mark because they don’t know it’s even there.

I see Christians as ones who at least have picked up the bow and arrow and are at least trying to hit the mark.

I see the glorious Martyrs and Saints as those who have been lucky enough to hit that mark. May at some point in my life, I be able to do the same!

Arguing between Catholics and Orthodox…which Church is the Church Christ established is basically like arguing over which bow and arrows are the best to use…which one will be most helpful in hitting the mark - becoming like God? Even though one is better than the other, they are both bow and arrows and it is possible to hit the mark either way. With one it’s just easier.

Since I really want to hit the mark, I want to have the best possible bow and arrow and so I researched to see which Church is the one Jesus established to help us hit the mark. I believe that one to be the Orthodox Church and many here believe that one to be the Catholic Church…but may God have mercy on us and save us all!

I sincerely hope that everyone here will eventually hit that mark also!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top