Eastern Orthodox Council of Jerusalem 1672

[Catholic_Dude]

Alright, now I have re-read the section and see where the confusion is. If you go back to pages 166-169 and re-read them yourself, you will see halfway down page 167 that Protopresbyter Pomazansky affirms a separation of the soul from God’s Grace. On the bottom of these four pages, Fr. Seraphim Rose affirms a lose of grace. He also points out that among individual Orthodox, there is a range of thoughts on Ancestral Sin, as you and I both know.

I dont have the book so I dont know what pages 166-169 correspond to on the online book. I looked over the original sin section again and did not see him talk about the loss of grace in the soul. Again I cant help but point out how he did explain the Catholic position in clear terms:
Roman Catholic theologians consider that the consequence of the fall was the **removal from men of a supernatural gift of God’s grace, after which man remained in his “natural” condition
**I have read EO quotes elsewhere that say the concept of a “natural state” once the supernatural grace is lost is foreign to Orthodoxy.

Some defend Augustine and affirm original “guilt,” which is not Orthodox. Others deny Ancestral Sin altogether which is also unacceptable.

Is there really an “official” opinion on this tough for you to say what is or is not Orthodox?

I believe if you would read the writings of the Orthodox Fathers, you will find that they do not go into details about Ancestral Sin, so it was up to councils and other Fathers to expand as necessary. Despite what some Orthodox may think, the soul at birth is indeed separated from God’s Grace and needs the regeneration of Baptism. That is the Orthodox teaching as the Orthodox Church herself affirms through the Fathers and through her councils.

If that is what they believe then they are essentially the same as Catholicism in this regard then.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It is a Latin invention.

And with your argument with the Calvinists, we sided with you.

So you sided with a Latin invention?

Yes, the idea that context doesn’t count causes a lot of problems, e.g. quoting the Fathers.

Protestants: proof-texts.
Latins: proof-texts.

Just different proof-texts.

You keep dodging the plain words of Jerusalem. What it describes is a post-death purification for those who are not yet sanctified enough to enter Heaven and must undergo the temporal cleansing until they are purified.

Again, they wouldn’t be arguing with the Latins over it, and it is with the Latins, not the Orthodox, is the point of reference for the Calvinists, even in the East. (the same, I can personally attest, is the case with Romanian Protestants today).

I dont buy this, especially considering they had the decrees of Trent right in front of them clearly showing which canon the Catholics and Protestants held to. Jerusalem sided with the Catholics here. Combine that with the fact they used Laodicia as the reference means to only mention the Catholic DeuteroCanonicals means you are saying they gave a partial definition rather than a full definition of the canon, and that does not appear to be the case with the way Jerusalem was worded.
QUESTION III.

What Books do you call Sacred Scripture?

Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril {Lucar ELC} collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding thereto those which he foolishly, and ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocrypha; to wit, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon,” “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture. …
The wording here is answering what books belong to Sacred Scripture, using Laodicea as a guide (which mentioned the Protestant canon) and yet ADDED only to that list the Catholic DeuteroCanonicals.

I have to admit, I don’t know why Jerusalem omits the Letter of Jeremiah and Baruch, since Laodicia mentions them, we have them, and the Vulgate contains them. Did the Calvinists for some reason ignore them?

Since Laodicia clearly lists Baruch in canon 60 means there is no need for Jerusalem to add that to the list. Protestants do reject Baruch, but it very likely that the bad Cyril included Baruch since he was basing his canon on Laodicia (where as Protestants don have a council to reference for their canon).

That is quite an oversimplification, but none the less you would then have to affirm:
Orthodoxy = +X

Orthodoxy>X

LOL!
In the case of Jerusalem given how much it sides with Catholicism I would say the difference (D) between +X and >X is D<<+1

When St. Paul writes “Honor the Emperor” does that mean that if we live in a Republic, it’s no longer true for us.

That is a false example in regards to this question. The teachings of councils regarding dogma must be true at all times, Honoring the Emperor is not a dogma nor true at all times (eg if there is not an Emperor).

Yes, given the choice today between Latins and Calvinists (say, evangelicals), the answers would be the same. But now we just don’t get cornered into that choice.

The point though is that you affirmed Catholic teachings at Jerusalem, thus you cant say “we dont get concerned” doesnt change the fact Catholic teaching in the matters discussed is orthodox in the eyes of the Orthodox.

This is the same problem at Florence: just get 'em to sign. We a bit more wholistic.

Problem? If someone signs something that they dont believe in then that is the fault of the signer. If a Bishop signs something they dont agree with then what kind of leadership is that?

And the time has come that we don’t have to define concepts that aren’t Orthodox.

The fact is you did define concepts such as loss of grace, transubstantiation and purgatory, to say these definitions are false or you no longer believe them means you are backtracking and reversing previously accepted teachings. Further the fact is if such concepts are heretical to you they should be openly repudiated and Jerusalem should be condemned.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The Orthodox have always been selective about local councils.

It’s significant that both the Confession of St. Peter Moghila and the Council of Jerusalem were accepted in a modified form by a later council.

Fr. George Florovsky and others have discussed the “pseudomorphosis” Orthodoxy underwent in the 17-18 centuries.

What do you mean by “modified”?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What do you mean by “modified”?

Corrected to conform to the mind of the Church.

St. Peter wasn’t happy with the corrections, but it is the act of the Church at Jassy and Jerusalem which made it the Church’s catechism, not Movila’s publication.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So you sided with a Latin invention?

Against a Protestant one, yes.

You keep dodging the plain words of Jerusalem. What it describes is a post-death purification for those who are not yet sanctified enough to enter Heaven and must undergo the temporal cleansing until they are purified.

Lucaris claimed:

Chapter 18.
We believe that the souls of the dead are either in blessedness or in damnation, according as every one has done, for as soon as they move out of the body they pass either to Christ or into hell; for as a man is found at his death, so he is judged, and after this life there is neither power nor opportunity to repent; in this life there is a time of grace, they therefore who be justified here shall suffer no punishment hereafter; but they who die, being not justified, are appointed for everlasting punishment. By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life and to obtain remission of his sins by our Lord Jesus Christ, if he will be saved. And, let this be the end.

To which Patriarch Dositheos replied:
Article 18:
We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought; — for when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment, nor condemnation are complete. For after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation forsooth.

And such as though envolved in mortal sins have not departed in despair, but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance — by pouring forth tears, forsooth, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in fine by shewing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbour, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — of these and such like the souls depart** into Hades** [NOTE: NOT PURGATORY, AS TRENT CLAIMS], and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing in the highest degree; which each offereth particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offereth daily for all alike; it being, of course, understood that we know not the time of their release. For that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment we know and believe; but when we know not.

The last part is the true Orthodox answer, which we hold to still.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I dont buy this, especially considering they had the decrees of Trent right in front of them clearly showing which canon the Catholics and Protestants held to.

They weren’t responding to Trent, but the Calvinists.

Jerusalem sided with the Catholics here. Combine that with the fact they used Laodicia as the reference means to only mention the Catholic DeuteroCanonicals means you are saying they gave a partial definition rather than a full definition of the canon, and that does not appear to be the case with the way Jerusalem was worded.

The wording here is answering what books belong to Sacred Scripture, using Laodicea as a guide (which mentioned the Protestant canon) and yet ADDED only to that list the Catholic DeuteroCanonicals.

Since Laodicia clearly lists Baruch in canon 60 means there is no need for Jerusalem to add that to the list. Protestants do reject Baruch, but it very likely that the bad Cyril included Baruch since he was basing his canon on Laodicia (where as Protestants don have a council to reference for their canon).

Hard to see why Cyril would accept that (and the Epistle of Jeremiah, also mentioned at Laodicia) while rejecting the others. Jerusalem doesn’t metion them, does Trent? Both Latins and Orthodox accept them. We also have the prayer of Manasseh and others.

LOL!
In the case of Jerusalem given how much it sides with Catholicism I would say the difference (D) between +X and >X is D<<+1

O>+X/-X

That is a false example in regards to this question. The teachings of councils regarding dogma must be true at all times, Honoring the Emperor is not a dogma nor true at all times (eg if there is not an Emperor).

But recognizing lawful authority is true at all times.

The point though is that you affirmed Catholic teachings at Jerusalem, thus you cant say “we dont get concerned” doesnt change the fact Catholic teaching in the matters discussed is orthodox in the eyes of the Orthodox.

Versus the Calvinists, yes. Versus Orthodoxy herself is a different matter.

Problem? If someone signs something that they dont believe in then that is the fault of the signer. If a Bishop signs something they dont agree with then what kind of leadership is that?

That of Pope Honorius.

No, in the case case of duress, it is the fault of the one applying the coercion. One reason, I susupect, the bishops conditioned their signatures on ratification in a synod in the EAST, i.e. out of the clutches of the Latins, and where the populace would counteract the pressure of the emperor (funny I never have heard a single complaint about the caesaropapism at Florence).

The fact is you did define concepts such as loss of grace, transubstantiation and purgatory, to say these definitions are false or you no longer believe them means you are backtracking and reversing previously accepted teachings. Further the fact is if such concepts are heretical to you they should be openly repudiated and Jerusalem should be condemned.

I didn’t say they are false, just limited.

Your reasoning would be like saying that since the President of the US has “war powers” that they should apply at all times.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I dont have the book so I dont know what pages 166-169 correspond to on the online book. I looked over the original sin section again and did not see him talk about the loss of grace in the soul. Again I cant help but point out how he did explain the Catholic position in clear terms:
Roman Catholic theologians consider that the consequence of the fall was the removal from men of a supernatural gift of God’s grace, after which man remained in his “natural” condition
I have read EO quotes elsewhere that say the concept of a “natural state” once the supernatural grace is lost is foreign to Orthodoxy.

Is there really an “official” opinion on this tough for you to say what is or is not Orthodox?

If that is what they believe then they are essentially the same as Catholicism in this regard then.

Orthodox does not see anything natural in the loss of grace, the reception for which man was created.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Against a Protestant one, yes.

I wont pus this any further, but the fact is siding with an “invention” is wrong.

And such as** though envolved in mortal sins have not departed in despair, but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance** — by pouring forth tears, forsooth, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in fine by shewing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbour, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — of these and such like the souls depart into Hades [NOTE: NOT PURGATORY, AS TRENT CLAIMS], and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing in the highest degree; which each offereth particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offereth daily for all alike; it being, of course, understood that we know not the time of their release. For that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment we know and believe; but when we know not.

** The last part is the true Orthodox answer, which we hold to still.**

Whether the term is “hades” or “purgatory” should not be where we are hung up, the concept is the same. Both endure temporal punishment which goes towards their purification.

Hard to see why Cyril would accept that (and the Epistle of Jeremiah, also mentioned at Laodicia) while rejecting the others. Jerusalem doesn’t metion them, does Trent? Both Latins and Orthodox accept them. We also have the prayer of Manasseh and others.

Protestants accept Jeremiah but not Baruch, Cyril could easily have stayed with what Laodicia listed and included Baruch in his canon. Jerusalem doesnt need to mention Baruch because Baruch is already listed.

But recognizing lawful authority is true at all times.

If there is no Emperor then you dont have to do him honor. Again this passage about the emperor was not dogma but pastoral.

That of Pope Honorius.

No, in the case case of duress, it is the fault of the one applying the coercion. One reason, I susupect, the bishops conditioned their signatures on ratification in a synod in the EAST, i.e. out of the clutches of the Latins, and where the populace would counteract the pressure of the emperor (funny I never have heard a single complaint about the caesaropapism at Florence).

The difference is that Honorius’s action were openly condemned by the Church, that didnt happen to the Bishops who returned East. Further Honorius was not defining dogma but rather got caught up in a poorly worded private letter. The Bishops at Florence had the teachings clearly laid out in front of them and signed, there was no “pressure” on them to sign from Rome.

I didn’t say they are false, just limited.

That is a start.

Your reasoning would be like saying that since the President of the US has “war powers” that they should apply at all times.

No that example doesnt work. All that example admits is that the powers do exist, and when questioned whether he has such powers the answer should always be ‘yes’.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Orthodox does not see anything natural in the loss of grace, the reception for which man was created.

“natural” is for lack of a better term. God didnt intend for man to lose grace, but that did occur through Adam’s sin.
The fact is grace was lost from his soul, what Im trying to figure out is if such a concept is truly Orthodox or not.

 

[Alexius]

“natural” is for lack of a better term. God didnt intend for man to lose grace, but that did occur through Adam’s sin.
The fact is grace was lost from his soul, what Im trying to figure out is if such a concept is truly Orthodox or not.

Yes, it is.

From the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website:

1. Man’s Fall and its Consequence

"Unlike St. Augustine’s doctrine of “original justice,” which attributes to the first man several excessive perfections, perfect knowledge of God and God’s creation, for example, that make the fall impossible, the doctrine of the Greek Fathers of the image of God in man as a potential to be actualized, allows the possibility of a deterioration, as well. St. Irenaeos speaks of the first man (Adam) as an infant (nepios), who had to grow up to adulthood. Instead, man failed himself, by not “passing the test” of maturity given to him by God.

In spite of God’s prohibition, man chose to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis). Being “good by nature” man had to also become “good by choice.” Unfortunately, it did not happen that way. Following the “snake’s” advice (the devil’s, that is), man also tried to do what the fallen angels did: to “become a god without God.” Man’s imperfection and innocence, or, better, naiveté, and his relative pride, cultivated by the “accuser,” became the cause of man’s fall from God’s communion, due to his disobedience and rejection of God. Man put his purpose in himself, instead of putting it in God. Man’s free will is responsible for his own decline.

The consequences of this revolt against God, which the West calls “original” and the East “ancestral” (propatorikon) sin, are that man lost his original innocence; the image of God in him was tarnished, and even became distorted; man’s reason was obscured, his will weakened, the desires and passions of the flesh grew wild; man suffered separation from God, the author and source of life. He put himself in an inauthentic kind of existence, close to death. The Fathers speak of “spiritual death” which is the cause of the physical one, and which may lead to the “eschatological,” eternal death: for “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6: 23).

This state of fall, of inauthentic life close to death, this status of “spiritual death” continues to be transmitted to all of man’s progeny, even those who are born of Christian parents. The personal guilt of the first man belongs to him exclusively. However, the results of his sin are transmitted to the entire human race. A personal commitment through an engagement of one’s personal free will is required, in order for things to turn around. Christ, who requires this personal commitment, made this change possible through His coming and His work upon earth."

This “spiritual death” is the separation of man from God. In other words, man’s soul has lost the Grace of God–that is the separation. The difference is that Orthodox have different emphasis…Understand?

Fr. Seraphim Rose affirms a lose of grace. He also points out that among individual Orthodox, there is a range of thoughts on Ancestral Sin, as you and I both know. Some defend Augustine and affirm original “guilt,” which is not Orthodox. Others deny Ancestral Sin altogether which is also unacceptable. Despite what some Orthodox may think, the soul at birth is indeed separated from God’s Grace and needs the regeneration of Baptism. That is the Orthodox teaching as the Orthodox Church herself affirms through the Fathers and through her councils.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I wont pus this any further, but the fact is siding with an “invention” is wrong.

Hence why we don’t like the “choice” between innovations.

Whether the term is “hades” or “purgatory” should not be where we are hung up, the concept is the same. Both endure temporal punishment which goes towards their purification.

Hades is Hell. Christ didn’t descend to Purgatory.

Protestants accept Jeremiah but not Baruch, Cyril could easily have stayed with what Laodicia listed and included Baruch in his canon. Jerusalem doesnt need to mention Baruch because Baruch is already listed.

Jeremiah and the Epistle of Jeremiah are two different books. The Protestants accept the former, reject the latter.

Baruch is listed where?

If there is no Emperor then you dont have to do him honor. Again this passage about the emperor was not dogma but pastoral.

I don’t know about you guys, but we think of ethics and morals as a part of dogma.

So we don’t have to honor the President. Many will be happy to hear that.

The difference is that Honorius’s action were openly condemned by the Church, that didnt happen to the Bishops who returned East.

Maybe not in your church.

Further Honorius was not defining dogma but rather got caught up in a poorly worded private letter. The Bishops at Florence had the teachings clearly laid out in front of them and signed, there was no “pressure” on them to sign from Rome.

No, they were just being starved.

No that example doesnt work. All that example admits is that the powers do exist, and when questioned whether he has such powers the answer should always be ‘yes’.

Yes, dictators are so made.

 

[Alexius]

I was under the impression that hades = the abode of the dead. That is where all the souls prior to Christ’s redemption were sent to wait…He descended there to bring them life. I wonder about the Transfiguration, though. Moses and Elijah appeared on either side of Christ. Were they in heaven or hades? I thought that hell, on the other hand, was not yet created. Am I wrong?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[c659smith]

Alexius,

Hell was created before man.

Who was the Serpent in the Garden of Eden?

I do not think he was James Dean.

ha ha

I asked the same question at one time so I am adding a little levity on my account not yours.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Yes, it is.

From the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website:

"Unlike St. Augustine’s doctrine of “original justice,” which attributes to the first man several excessive perfections, perfect knowledge of God and God’s creation, for example, that make the fall impossible,

This is already wrong for Augustine did not say man held perfect knowledge of God and creation. This appears to be leading into a false conclusion on what Catholicism really teaches. “Original Justice” means “original righteousness” and in todays terms means sanctifying grace was originally in Adam’s soul and that it was an added gift to his natural person.

the doctrine of the Greek Fathers of the image of God in man as a potential to be actualized, allows the possibility of a deterioration, as well. St. Irenaeos speaks of the first man (Adam) as an infant (nepios), who had to grow up to adulthood. Instead, man failed himself, by not “passing the test” of maturity given to him by God.

This is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching.

In spite of God’s prohibition, man chose to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis). Being “good by nature” man had to also become “good by choice.” Unfortunately, it did not happen that way. Following the “snake’s” advice (the devil’s, that is), man also tried to do what the fallen angels did: to “become a god without God.” Man’s imperfection and innocence, or, better, naiveté, and his relative pride, cultivated by the “accuser,” became the cause of man’s fall from God’s communion, due to his disobedience and rejection of God. Man put his purpose in himself, instead of putting it in God. Man’s free will is responsible for his own decline.

This is also perfectly in line with Catholic teaching.

The consequences of this revolt against God, which the West calls “original” and the East “ancestral” (propatorikon) sin, are that man lost his original innocence; the image of God in him was tarnished, and even became distorted; man’s reason was obscured, his will weakened, the desires and passions of the flesh grew wild; man suffered separation from God, the author and source of life. He put himself in an inauthentic kind of existence, close to death. The Fathers speak of “spiritual death” which is the cause of the physical one, and which may lead to the “eschatological,” eternal death: for “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6: 23).

Here is where I dont see the issue of losing sanctifying grace mentioned. I see “man lost his original innocence” but that does not appear to mean lost sanctifying grace. Instead when I read things like “lost original innocence” from Orthodox documents it appears to mean they become aware of good and evil and reason was obscured, will weakened, etc but not that sanctifying grace was lost.

This state of fall, of inauthentic life close to death, this status of “spiritual death” continues to be transmitted to all of man’s progeny, even those who are born of Christian parents. The personal guilt of the first man belongs to him exclusively. However, the results of his sin are transmitted to the entire human race. A personal commitment through an engagement of one’s personal free will is required, in order for things to turn around. Christ, who requires this personal commitment, made this change possible through His coming and His work upon earth."

This “spiritual death” appears to be nothing more than the physical and emotional consequences due to the fall, not the supernatural consequences where grace was lost.

This “spiritual death” is the separation of man from God. In other words, man’s soul has lost the Grace of God–that is the separation. The difference is that Orthodox have different emphasis…Understand?

Im not trying to be heavy here, but I honestly dont see that paragraph teaching what you just said “Man’s soul has lost the grace of God”.

Just below the quote you gave it talks about Mary being Immaculately Conceived, but it does not mention the loss of grace factor which leads me to conclude the idea of loss of grace is foreign to that author’s understanding.

Fr. Seraphim Rose affirms a lose of grace. He also points out that among individual Orthodox, there is a range of thoughts on Ancestral Sin, as you and I both know. Some defend Augustine and affirm original “guilt,” which is not Orthodox. Others deny Ancestral Sin altogether which is also unacceptable…

Augustine essentially taught grace was lost in the soul, so for you to say that this is not Orthodox leaves me scratching my head. From my perspective it is unacceptable to have a wide range of thought on this issue ranging from loss of grace to no loss of grace because that leads to radically different conclusions on how salvation occurs.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hades is Hell. Christ didn’t descend to Purgatory.

Hades is not hellfire but the place of the dead. That is why the Apostles Creed says "Jesus descended into ‘hades’ ". Christ did not descend into Purgatory, so that is not the issue. You keep dodging the fact Jerusalem affirms a post-death purification where the soul suffers temporal punishment until their purification is complete.

Jeremiah and the Epistle of Jeremiah are two different books. The Protestants accept the former, reject the latter.

Baruch is listed where?

Baruch is listed clearly in Laodicia.

The “Epistle of Jeremiah” is also known as Chapter 6 of Baruch.

I don’t know about you guys, but we think of ethics and morals as a part of dogma.

So we don’t have to honor the President. Many will be happy to hear that.

That isnt what I said, you are twisting my words and mixing dogmatic teaching (faith and morals) with pastoral (suggestions for better Christian living).

Maybe not in your church.

What? Are you saying that when the Bishops returned East they were openly condemned as heretics/schismatics?

No, they were just being starved.

I wont get caught up in conspiracy theories. The fact is the Bishop’s signed and only later did they back out. They should be condemned as worse than Honorius in that their actions were public and wide reaching authoritative affirmations of heresy.

Yes, dictators are so made.

Your comments in response to my claims have turned ridiculous.

This is my last response on this thread to this current exchange we are having because clearly it is going nowhere.

I hope to see you around to talk about other issues, God Bless.

 

[Alexius]

This is already wrong for Augustine did not say man held perfect knowledge of God and creation. This appears to be leading into a false conclusion on what Catholicism really teaches. “Original Justice” means “original righteousness” and in todays terms means sanctifying grace was originally in Adam’s soul and that it was an added gift to his natural person.

This “spiritual death” appears to be nothing more than the physical and emotional consequences due to the fall, not the supernatural consequences where grace was lost.

Augustine essentially taught grace was lost in the soul, so for you to say that this is not Orthodox leaves me scratching my head. From my perspective it is unacceptable to have a wide range of thought on this issue ranging from loss of grace to no loss of grace because that leads to radically different conclusions on how salvation occurs.

First of all, he is not saying that Catholics teach “Original Justice,” he says that Augustine did. He is right. Catholic teaching on Original Sin is not the same as what Augustine taught, nor should it be. Augustine went overboard on alot of theology. What is not Orthodox is his teachings on hereditary guilt and his beliefs on the original state of Adam and Eve. The esteemed Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky affirms:

“In this distorted nature there is no longer any place for uncreated grace…The loss of grace is not therefore the cause, but rather the consequence of the fall into sin. Man has obstructed in himself the capacity for communion with God, which should have poured through him onto all of creation…From the Fall until the day of Pentecost, divine energy, uncreated and deifying grace, remained foreign to human nature and acted upon it only from the outside.”

In other words, grace is absent from the soul. I used to think that Orthodox believed in physical death as the only consequence. In reality, that is not the case. Lossky affirms through St. Gregory, that the body and the soul share the nature and consequences of sin.

St. Gregory of Palamas writes:

" It was indeed Adam’s soul that died by becoming through his transgression separated from God; for bodily he continued to live after that time, even for 930 years. The death, however, that befell the soul because of the transgression not only crippled the soul and made man accursed; it also rendered the body itself subject to fatique, suffering, and corruptibility, and finally handed it over to death."

He goes on:

“Physical death is when the soul leaves the body and is separated from it. The death of the soul is when God leaves the soul and is separated from it, although in another way, the soul remains immortal. Once separated from God, it becomes more ugly and useless than a dead body, but unlike a body it does not disintegrate after death since it is not composite.”

As Seraphim Rose comments:

“When man lost the Grace of God, he experienced spiritual death, and this spiritual death made him subject to physical death.”

“With the entrance of sin, man lost the Grace in which he had been created. Because his nature had become corrupted by sin, Grace was now foreign to it.”

Protopresbyter Pomazansky writes:

“With sin, death entered the human race. Man was created immortal in his soul, and he could have remained immortal also in body if he had not fallen away from God.”

St. John Damascene writes:

And so, man succumbed to the assault of the demon, the author of evil; he failed to keep the Creator’s commandment and was stripped of Grace and deprived of that familiarity which he had enjoyed with God."

St. Symeon the New Theologian says:

“When with his soul he (Adam) believed the serpent and not God, then Divine Grace which had rested on him stepped away from him, so that he became the enemy of God by reason of the unbelief which he had shown to His words.”

Finally, Seraphim Rose says:

“The Orthodox Holy Fathers also teach that man lost the Grace of God at the time he fell.”

He states that the two differences are:

1. Orthodox teach that man’s nature was corrupted, but Catholics do not (as far as the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911 is concerned). I actually know of many Orthodox who believe that human nature is the same as before the Fall…
2. Orthodox teach that Grace is the uncreated Energies of God. Catholics teach that it is created. I believe this is a valid disagreement.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Alexius]

Hades is not hellfire but the place of the dead. That is why the Apostles Creed says "Jesus descended into ‘hades’ ". Christ did not descend into Purgatory, so that is not the issue. You keep dodging the fact Jerusalem affirms a post-death purification where the soul suffers temporal punishment until their purification is complete.

Personally, I don’t think post-death purification is incompatible with Orthodox theology, but rather, it isn’t as developed as Purgatory is to the Catholic faith. There are so many theories among Orthodox, which isn’t bad, but the extremes that are reached can be…There is no dogma about it in Orthodoxy. For Catholics, Purgatory wasn’t defined until 1215 (?) at the Council of Lyons?

Also, as you know, Orthodox don’t look at things as juridically as many Latin theologians do. That impacts how purification is understood. I have never seen it as a separate place, or that it is done to satisfy God. I see it as something that occurs as we approach the throne of God. It is for the purifying of the soul. That’s it.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Catholic_Dude]

First of all, he is not saying that Catholics teach “Original Justice,” he says that Augustine did. He is right. Catholic teaching on Original Sin is not the same as what Augustine taught, nor should it be. Augustine went overboard on alot of theology. What is not Orthodox is his teachings on hereditary guilt and his beliefs on the original state of Adam and Eve.

Do you have any quotes from Augustine where he says these objectionable things? I would like to see them. From what I have read I see him focus on the loss of sanctifying grace.

The esteemed Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky affirms, “In this distorted nature there is no longer any place for uncreated grace…The loss of grace is not therefore the cause, but rather the consequence of the fall into sin. Man has obstructed in himself the capacity for communion with God, which should have poured through him onto all of creation…From the Fall until the day of Pentecost, divine energy, uncreated and deifying grace, remained foreign to human nature and acted upon it only from the outside.”

In other words, grace is absent from the soul. I used to think that Orthodox believed in physical death as the only consequence. In reality, Lossky affirms through St. Gregory, that the body and the soul share the nature and consequences of sin.

This is very interesting because one Catholic article quotes Lossky as saying this:“The Eastern tradition knows nothing of ‘pure nature’ to which grace is added as a supernatural gift. For it, there is no natural or ‘normal’ state, since grace is implied in the act of creation itself.”
I dont have the book so I cant check the context, but from this quote alone Lossky is saying the idea of losing sanctifying grace is foreign to Orthodox though.

Here is another: St. Gregory of Palamas writes:

" It was indeed Adam’s soul that died by becoming through his transgression separated from God; for bodily he continued to live after that time, even for 930 years. The death, however, that befell the soul because of the transgression not only crippled the soul and made man accursed; it also rendered the body itself subject to fatique, suffering, and corruptibility, and finally handed it over to death."

He goes on:

“Physical death is when the soul leaves the body and is separated from it. The death of the soul is when God leaves the soul and is separated from it, although in another way, the soul remains immortal. Once separated from God, it becomes more ugly and useless than a dead body, but unlike a body it does not disintegrate after death since it is not composite.”

This may or may not be teaching loss of sanctifying grace because of the great emphasis on the physical consequences he lists above.

As Seraphim Rose comments:

“When man lost the Grace of God, he experienced spiritual death, and this spiritual death made him subject to physical death.”

“With the entrance of sin, man lost the Grace in which he had been created. Because his nature had become corrupted by sin, Grace was now foreign to it.”

I would agree with this quote.

Protopresbyter Pomazansky writes:

“With sin, death entered the human race. Man was created immortal in his soul, and he could have remained immortal also in body if he had not fallen away from God.”

It doesnt really talk about loss of sanctifying grace…

St. John Damascene writes:

And so, man succumbed to the assault of the demon, the author of evil; he failed to keep the Creator’s commandment and was stripped of Grace and deprived of that familiarity which he had enjoyed with God."

I would agree with this quote.

St. Symeon the New Theologian says:

“When with his soul he (Adam) believed the serpent and not God, then Divine Grace which had rested on him stepped away from him, so that he became the enemy of God by reason of the unbelief which he had shown to His words.”

What does he mean by “on him”? Does that mean this favor was only external?
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont)

Finally, Seraphim Rose says:

“The Orthodox Holy Fathers also teach that man lost the Grace of God at the time he fell.”

He states that the two differences are:

1. Orthodox teach that man’s nature was corrupted, but Catholics do not (as far as the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911 is concerned). I’m not sure there is much difference nowadays…

Catholics do not believe man’s nature was corrupted, and Im pretty sure Orthodox do not believe that either. Only Protestants believe nature was corrupted, and that is grave error. When Catholics and Orthodox use the term “corrupted” we mean man became inclined to sin and able to experience pain, Protestants see corruption as an insurmountable disease that is truly sin and that remains and permanently stains us in the eyes of God even after Baptism.

1. Orthodox teach that Grace is the uncreated Energies of God. Catholics teach that it is created. I believe this is a valid disagreement.

Catholics teach it is both created and uncreated. The Catholic encyclopedia says:The crowning point of justification is found in the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is the perfection and the supreme adornment of the justified soul. Adequately considered, the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit consists of ** a twofold grace, the created** accidental grace (gratia creata accidentalis) and the uncreated substantialgrace (gratia increata substantialis). The former is the basis and the indispensable assumption for the latter; for where God Himself erects His throne, there must be found a fitting and becoming adornment. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul must not be confounded with God’s presence in all created things, by virtue of the Divine attribute of Omnipresence. The personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul rests so securely upon the teaching of Holy Writ and of the Fathers that to deny it would constitute a grave error. In fact, St. Paul Romans 5:5) says: “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us”. In this passage the Apostle distinguishes clearly between the accidental grace of theological charity and the Person of the Giver. ( From this it follows that the Holy Spirit has been given to us, and dwells within us (Romans 8:11), so that we really become temples of the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 3:16 sq.; 6:19). Among all the Fathers of the Church (excepting, perhaps, St. Augustine) it is the Greeks who are more especially noteworthy for their rapturous uttertances touching the infusion of the Holy Ghost.
I think there is more to the “created vs uncreated” dispute, but the fact is Catholics believe in “uncreated” when it comes to Salvation.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Personally, I don’t think post-death purification is incompatible with Orthodox theology, but rather, it isn’t as developed as Purgatory is to the Catholic faith. There are so many theories among Orthodox, which isn’t bad, but the extremes that are reached can be…There is no dogma about it in Orthodoxy. For Catholics, Purgatory wasn’t defined until 1215 (?) at the Council of Lyons?

Also, as you know, Orthodox don’t look at things as juridically as many Latin theologians do. That impacts how purification is understood. I have never seen it as a separate place, or that it is done to satisfy God. I see it as something that occurs as we approach the throne of God. It is for the purifying of the soul. That’s it.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

The fact is Jerusalem explicitly mentioned the prayers of those on earth including the “Unbloody Sacrifice” (Divine Liturgy) being applied to the souls in “purgatory”.

The concept of purgatory goes back to the OT times (eg 2 Maccabees 12:46) and the teachings of praying and alms for the departed souls is found in the Early Church Fathers.