Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

[Irenicist]

I am not sure what you don’t accept about my premise. Do you not accept that OS according to eastern Christianity is simply death? The bishops of the eastern(Catholic) churches will outright say that OS is simply death and that Mary was subject to it since she died. There is no contradiction in affirming Mary’s sinlessness as I have said but there might be a contradiction in the fact that the declaration of the IC is founded upon the Augustinian view of OS, which we reject.

We don’t say that Mary was subject to sin from conception so in that sense maybe we could affirm the IC but we also wouldn’t say that any other human was subject to sin from conception. So if we are forced to accept the IC of Mary we must also say that every one who is discussing this question on this board is immaculately concieved since none of us are subject to the guilt of sin as of our conception. But we are all subject to death, which is what has been handed down to us and called OS, and so was Mary. The difference between us and Mary is that we haved sinned through our own free will and Mary did not. It was not some extraordinary Grace at her conception that prevented her from contracting the stain of sin.

I don’t know what Dmitri of Rostov said and I don’t know what Soloviev said.

Jimmy, please bear with us for a moment.

You wrote: “there might be a contradiction in the fact that the declaration of the IC is founded upon the Augustinian view of OS, which we reject.”

The declaration is not founded on the Augustinian view of original sin. It is founded on the near unanimous view of the Church Fathers of both East and West, and of the faithful as evidenced in the liturgy.

When Pius proclaimed the definition (which it might be wise to actually read) he attempted to demonstrate how one would arrive at the conclusion of the IC using Augustinian theology and terminology. This much is true, but it is the conclusion, not the reasoning that binds all Catholics, and that is that Mary was free of all sin in a complete and unqualified sense.

So rail and rant against Augustinian theology all you want. No one is required to buy into Augustinian theology. It doesn’t affect your unity of belief with the rest of the Church. In the East they treat Mary’s ever purity as axiomatic. The East feels no need to explain how we know this belief is true. The Catholic East just accepts this belief as part of the revealed body of the faith passed on to us from the apostles.

In fact, as the Eastern Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware states it “In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it.” These Eastern Orthodox, none of whom relied on Augustinian theology which, in their view, bears “a false understanding of original sin”, all, even prior to the 1854 definition, affirmed Mary to be pure and without sin from conception to death. Ware goes further: “if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing”. It follows then that the doctrine can be seen as true simply because it is true, and can be arrived at using other than Augustinian theology.

It’s really quite simple:

1. Do you believe Mary was ever in a state of sin? Your liturgy says no.
2. When did Mary’s existence begin? The Church teaches that life begins at conception.
3. If 1 and 2 both hold, it follows that you must believe that Mary was free of sin at the moment of her conception, ergo you do believe in her immaculate conception. You believe it axiomatically. You find no need for Augustinian reasoning to reach this conclusion, but you do believe the conclusion is correct on other grounds.

What you do not believe is the Augustinian understanding of original sin which doesn’t bind anyone, even Latins.

So my suggestion would be that instead of causing scandal by stating that Eastern Catholics do not have to believe in the immaculate conception, a statement all the other Eastern Catholics here are contesting, you limit yourself to stating that you do not accept the validity of Augustinian theology (which is the right of all Catholics including Latins), and leave it at that.

If you cannot do even this much, than I have the same advice as before: sit down and have a chat with your bishop. He will confirm what you do or do not have to believe as a Catholic.

Irenicist

 

[jimmy]

Irenicist, as I have said in another post, I am fine with what you have said. If that is the case I can accept the IC declaration. But I don’t think that all Latin Catholics see things in the same way you see them. I don’t want to cause scandal but if that is the result of me simply explaining what the eastern Catholics believe then I will speak.

I have read the declaration on the IC.

1. Do you believe Mary was ever in a state of sin? Your liturgy says no.

1. When did Mary’s existence begin? The Church teaches that life begins at conception.

1. If 1 and 2 both hold, it follows that you must believe that Mary was free of sin at the moment of her conception, ergo you do believe in her immaculate conception. You believe it axiomatically. You find no need for Augustinian reasoning to reach this conclusion, but you do believe the conclusion is correct on other grounds.

What you do not believe is the Augustinian understanding of original sin which doesn’t bind anyone, even Latins.

This is all good to me.

The other eastern Catholics haven’t contested what I have said(except for HailMary). They have agreed with it.

 

[thedejongs]

I am not sure what you don’t accept about my premise. Do you not accept that OS according to eastern Christianity is simply death? The bishops of the eastern(Catholic) churches will outright say that OS is simply death and that Mary was subject to it since she died.

Cf. the Council of Trent, Fifth Session, as follows:

“2. 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.”

Looks like Jimmy’s “bishops of the eastern(Catholic) churches” are anathema according to Trent. (In case someone is tempted to pull out the “Trent wasn’t an ecumenical council” business, note that Vatican I affirmed Trent.) I am afraid that Trent’s binding definitions on the entire Catholic church (not just the Roman rite folks) don’t give much room for the ubiquitous “we basically accept the conclusion but not the rationale” argument.

 

[thedejongs]

What you do not believe is the Augustinian understanding of original sin which doesn’t bind anyone, even Latins.

Hmmm . . . see quote from the Council of Trent, above. Teaching of Augustinian Original Sin binding on all Catholics and infallible last time I checked . . .

 

[Joab_Anias]

Hmmm . . . see quote from the Council of Trent, above. Teaching of Augustinian Original Sin binding on all Catholics and infallible last time I checked . . .

Yes it is Dogma that Original sin is transmitted by natural generation.

according to Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

 

[Irenicist]

Hmmm . . . see quote from the Council of Trent, above. Teaching of Augustinian Original Sin binding on all Catholics and infallible last time I checked . . .

I very much doubt Jimmy or even an Eastern Orthodox would have any problems with this canon. Those are not the aspects of Augustinian theology they have difficulty with.

Quoting Ware (Orthodox bishop):

“in the language of the Church, Adam fell, and his fall – his “original sin” – has affected all mankind.”

“Certainly, as a result of the fall man’s mind became so darkened, and his will-power was so impaired, that he could no longer hope to attain to the likeness of God.”

Where Easterners part with Augustine is in his belief that since the fall man is under “a harsh necessity” to sin. Easterners do not believe that fallen man is depraved and without freedom. Calvin was to take Augustine even further and describe fallen man as “utterly” depraved and incapable of desiring good.

Keep in mind that the East (both Catholic and Orthodox) still acknowledges Augustine as orthodox and venerates him as a saint.

Irenicist

 

[Joab_Anias]

I very much doubt Jimmy or even an Eastern Orthodox would have any problems with this canon. Those are not the aspects of Augustinian theology they have difficulty with.

Quoting Ware (Orthodox bishop):

“in the language of the Church, Adam fell, and his fall – his “original sin” – has affected all mankind.”

“Certainly, as a result of the fall man’s mind became so darkened, and his will-power was so impaired, that he could no longer hope to attain to the likeness of God.”

Where Easterners part with Augustine is in his belief that since the fall man is under “a harsh necessity” to sin. Easterners do not believe that fallen man is depraved and without freedom. Calvin was to take Augustine even further and describe fallen man as “utterly” depraved and incapable of desiring good.

Keep in mind that the East (both Catholic and Orthodox) still acknowledges Augustine as orthodox and venerates him as a saint.

Irenicist

I have heard the dispute before over guilt and temporal effects. Where I saw the dispute over the guilt to simply be a misconception about the true Church teaching. The CCC puts the Church teaching on original sin about as suscinctly as I have ever seen it. I see nothing there in the CCC that any Catholic would depart from.

Peace.

 

[jimmy]

Hmmm . . . see quote from the Council of Trent, above. Teaching of Augustinian Original Sin binding on all Catholics and infallible last time I checked . . .

And that is why many Eastern Christians, including bishops, say that the councils of the west were only general councils of the west. The recent document in Ravenna, which is supported by the pope, supports the eastern bishops. Trent is therefore a general council of the west, not ecumenical.

It is amazing how the Latins find their theological perspective supperior to the Greek tradition and the Syriac tradition. If you are willing to contradict the tradition then you are wrong. With your anathema you have anathemaed the Greek fathers and the Syriac fathers. This includes St. Athanasius, the Capadocians, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephrem and etc.

 

[jimmy]

I very much doubt Jimmy or even an Eastern Orthodox would have any problems with this canon. Those are not the aspects of Augustinian theology they have difficulty with.

Quoting Ware (Orthodox bishop):

“in the language of the Church, Adam fell, and his fall – his “original sin” – has affected all mankind.”

“Certainly, as a result of the fall man’s mind became so darkened, and his will-power was so impaired, that he could no longer hope to attain to the likeness of God.”

Where Easterners part with Augustine is in his belief that since the fall man is under “a harsh necessity” to sin. Easterners do not believe that fallen man is depraved and without freedom. Calvin was to take Augustine even further and describe fallen man as “utterly” depraved and incapable of desiring good.

Keep in mind that the East (both Catholic and Orthodox) still acknowledges Augustine as orthodox and venerates him as a saint.

Irenicist

It is more the idea that there is some stain that must be removed that is rejected. The east says that OS is death and a tendency to sin results from this. They reject that it is sin itself. Sin is an act of the free will.

Like I said above, I don’t think many of the Latins think like you Irenicist. We Maronites and other easterners are anathema to them. They love to legislate their own theological perspective and force it on the rest of us, even though our theology follows the patristic theology much more closely.

 

[Joab_Anias]

It is more the idea that there is some stain that must be removed that is rejected. The east says that OS is death and a tendency to sin results from this. They reject that it is sin itself. Sin is an act of the free will.

Like I said above, I don’t think many of the Latins think like you Irenicist. We Maronites and other easterners are anathema to them. They love to legislate their own theological perspective and force it on the rest of us, even though our theology follows the patristic theology much more closely.

I think if you would do a search for “original sin” in the CCC you would not find anything contrary to your tradition and this devisive spirit would be dispelled as misconception.

Peace.

 

[jimmy]

I think if you would do a search for “original sin” in the CCC you would not find anything contrary to your tradition and this devisive spirit would be dispelled as misconception.

Peace.

Read the anathema thedejongs gave. We are anathema if that canon is accepted.

 

[HailMary]

Read the anathema thedejongs gave. We are anathema if that canon is accepted.

or not.

 

[jimmy]

or not.

I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean ‘not if we accept latin theology’?

 

[Joab_Anias]

Read the anathema thedejongs gave. We are anathema if that canon is accepted.

I find it pointless to debate old battles. I only speak from my heart and on the points of the theology as I see it in scripture and as its put forth from the Church. I am sorry if you feel someone called you unworthy. As I see it your Catholic in communion and thats what matters. I am completely willing to hear what you say but only ask that you also have an ear to hear the truth about original sin from a spiritual standpoint. You first must drop all the rest though. Once you do you should see no error in the doctrine.

Peace.

 

[HailMary]

I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean ‘not if we accept latin theology’?

I mean you understanding of “if we accept that canon we anathema” is wrong. The Maronite Church would not be Catholic if this was the case. And to be quite fair to any observers, IMO, you do not represent the Maronite Church very well since statements like those are incorrect and misleading.

 

[jimmy]

I mean you understanding of “if we accept that canon we anathema” is wrong. The Maronite Church would not be Catholic if this was the case. And to be quite fair to any observers, IMO, you do not represent the Maronite Church very well since statements like those are incorrect and misleading.

I could give you quotes from Fr Salim’s(he is a Maronite priest) book where he says Maronites reject the Augustinian view of OS.

I will let the Maronites on this forum tell me whether I misrepresent the Maronite tradition. yeshua can tell me. So far he hasn’t given me any indication. If I am wrong on anything I hope yeshua will tell me.
Joab Anias:

I find it pointless to debate old battles. I only speak from my heart and on the points of the theology as I see it in scripture and as its put forth from the Church. I am sorry if you feel someone called you unworthy. As I see it your Catholic in communion and thats what matters. I am completely willing to hear what you say but only ask that you also have an ear to hear the truth about original sin from a spiritual standpoint. You first must drop all the rest though. Once you do you should see no error in the doctrine.

I am glad to listen to what you say Joab. I just ask that you don’t assume that you come from the perspective of truth and me from the perspective of error. That is how many people approach an issue on these forums. They pile up quotes and say ‘see, you are preaching heresy’.

What must I drop? What does ‘all the rest’ refer to?

 

[Joab_Anias]

I am glad to listen to what you say Joab. I just ask that you don’t assume that you come from the perspective of truth and me from the perspective of error. That is how many people approach an issue on these forums. They pile up quotes and say ‘see, you are preaching heresy’.

What must I drop? What does ‘all the rest’ refer to?

I do not even know your perspective yet so there is definitely no assumption that you are in error. I do believe I have a perspective of truth on original sin but I am not about to force it on you if your unwilling to hear it.

What I ask you to drop is all this talk about anathemas and preconception that we are already in disagreement before we even hear what each other has to say.

If you would like, I would like to deal only with the issue of original sin and see if we can find out if there is really a disparity at all. I suspect there isn’t. It’s likely there is only a different expression of the same Faith that isn’t easily understood from separate perspectives until one tries.

It will require me quoting the CCC though if you don’t mind as it’s my authoritative reference so that I myself do not err in what the Church purports. Or if you prefer you can give me your theological idea of original sin first and then we can compare that with what the Roman Church says.

If you still differ then you differ and if so then there is a chance that even that may not prove problematic as far as communion. At least we will have explored the possibilities. I can be content to leave it at that. I just want to make sure you are actually hearing the correct interpretation of original sin as its seen in Rome and I yours from your tradition before I assume anything and especially not to imply error.

Peace.

 

[jimmy]

I do not even know your perspective yet so there is definitely no assumption that you are in error. I do believe I have a perspective of truth on original sin but I am not about to force it on you if your unwilling to hear it.

What I ask you to drop is all this talk about anathemas and preconception that we are already in disagreement before we even hear what each other has to say.

If you would like, I would like to deal only with the issue of original sin and see if we can find out if there is really a disparity at all. I suspect there isn’t. It’s likely there is only a different expression of the same Faith that isn’t easily understood from separate perspectives until one tries.

It will require me quoting the CCC though if you don’t mind as it’s my authoritative reference so that I myself do not err in what the Church purports. Or if you prefer you can give me your theological idea of original sin first and then we can compare that with what the Roman Church says.

If you still differ then you differ and if so then there is a chance that even that may not prove problematic as far as communion. At least we will have explored the possibilities. I can be content to leave it at that. I just want to make sure you are actually hearing the correct interpretation of original sin as its seen in Rome and I yours from your tradition before I assume anything and especially not to imply error.

Peace.

Joab, I would gladly discuss this with you exactly as you have spoken. Hopefully if it comes up that we can not resolve them then we can simply accept eachother as St. Ephrem accepted the two points of his paradoxes. If we are going to discuss this we should probably start it on a new thread about Original Sin specifically. This thread has been wide and varied, it would be good to have a focused discussion on the matter. I defer to you to start the discussion from the CCC.

 

[Irenicist]

Read the anathema thedejongs gave. We are anathema if that canon is accepted.

The Maronite bishops were present at Trent and gave their consent to this canon. Are you suggesting they anathemized themselves?

Somehow you have become convinced that for Easterners, the only consequence of Adam’s sin is death. I have quoted from an EO bishop who sees more consequences than this. You have been invited to consult the catechism’s description of original sin by another Easterner. Perhaps you could offer us Eastern sources of your own that state that death is indeed the only consequence of Adam’s sin.

Irenicist

 

[HailMary]

I could give you quotes from Fr Salim’s(he is a Maronite priest) book where he says Maronites reject the Augustinian view of OS.

I will let the Maronites on this forum tell me whether I misrepresent the Maronite tradition. yeshua can tell me. So far he hasn’t given me any indication. If I am wrong on anything I hope yeshua will tell me.

I can give you Fr. Nabil’s phone number and you can call him and get another Maronite priest take on this. Oh and btw, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is for all Catholic rites, not just the Latin rite. So please, I would I encourage you to start your to start the discussion from the CCC since its an acceptable starting point for ALL Catholics.

stephrem.org/contactus.htm