Feeling drawn towards Orthodoxy

[pacloc]

The thing about the RCC is that while you can choose to believe in the same why as the Orthodox Church, you can also choose to believe in contradiction to it. This is what makes many like myself join the Orthodox Church where such openness of Theology is not allowed. Too many martyrs have died upholding the teachings of the Church to be allowed to not believe them in favor of progressive teachings. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Sacraments, views of Virginity, fasting, prayer, and study of the Fathers and so on.

 

[Catholicos]

Of course Orthodoxy’s liturgy is beautiful and reverent , I totally agree with that.
The biggest divide between the 2 East/West Church certainly is the Papacy. I would examine though whether the claim the Catholic Church is making about the Popes universal authority is a valid one. There is no question there would be no other Christian faith I’d convert to other than Eastern Orthodoxy if I had to convert. That being said:

That lack of authority to unite all of the independent Orthodox Churches is a major problem for me. The Catholic Church can make a better case for the Popes universal authority than the Orthodox can. You can already see how even across all the 20+ Rites of Catholicisms East and West Churches, there is a unity of faith that the Papacy helps ensure not found in Orthodoxy

I’ve heard both sides and have tried to be as objective as possible. There are questions about events in the early Church that happened that lead me to believe what the Catholic Church was claiming was and is the truth. Research it, and be fair to both sides, it’s an interesting study. Again, I have nothing but respect for our Orthodox brethren. Nothing would solve this worlds problems better than a unification of all the Christian faiths.

 

[pacloc]

I know you mean well but you say something I don’t know how you came to the conclusion of. You speak of the Orthodox Church not being united, what do you mean? I see the RCC about to be split in half by the Pope and you see a lack of unity among the Orthodox Churches that are in Communion?

 

[Catholicos]

I know you mean well but you say something I don’t know how you came to the conclusion of. You speak of the Orthodox Church not being united, what do you mean? I see the RCC about to be split in half by the Pope and you see a lack of unity among the Orthodox Churches that are in Communion?

---

Thank you, I think to better understand the differences it’s better to use a real life example of schism. Hopefully you know something on this matter, but being Orthodox to be fair you may not. I’ll refer to the SSPX, but really it could be any organization within the Catholic Church that defies the Vaticans authority .

During the 1980’s Archbishop Lefebvre the founder of the SSPX consecrated priests without permission and authority from Rome. This not only excommunicated him and these priests. The entire SSPX group was in schism, and as far as I know still are to this day, thought some may not think so.

Regardless, we can see how the matter was handled. The SSPX cannot administer the sacraments validly . So the question is: How would the Eastern Orthodox handle the very same matter? Lets suppose this happened in Orthodoxy. A schismatic group forms but has support from the Coptic Orthodox, it is recognized as valid, yet the Russian Orthodox disagrees . Who is correct on the matter?
Now of course you can say, the 2 opposing Churches will come together and they’ll speak as 1, but what if they can’t? What if there becomes an issue within that dispute that’s say, heretical in nature. The only way the issue can be resolved is if ALL the Churches are united. A majority vote, still creates division.
We can see that in America as a perfect example. When there was 2 presidents in the continent at the same time we had a Civil War.

Take it even further and this is related to something that may from the outside be perceived as a division within the Catholic Church. Vatican II appears to have divided Catholics, especially the traditional ones. Yet 50 years later, we’re still united. That applies to Pope Francis as well. There are many who may not share his personal opinions on matters, but thats’ far far different than defying and being disobedient to his authority.

Again, I mean no disrespect, but it would better to get an answer from someone in Orthodox, so Catholics can also learn and better be better informed. What happened to the Ecumenical council that was planed a year or two ago? How can you bring all the Churches under the fold if a few dissent?
On the 500th year anniversary of the Reformation. I’m very confident it would have been far worse, had there not been a Papacy that unified a large part of the Church. Look at all the denominations since, yet there’s still only One Catholic Church

 

[Wandile]

Actually the catholic doctrine on original sin is infallible and was codified by the 7th ecumenical Council which accepted and adopted the acts of the council of Carthage. That council taught explicitly, the western view of original sin.

It said :

“ Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned, than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.”

 

[pacloc]

I clearly stated in a previous post that we do believe in original sin, I do not understand why you think these words from the council of Carthage teach anything different than Orthodox belief. I said that the Orthodox Church does not teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin, which these words you have quoted agree with, by saying that the infant has not committed any sins themselves. I have read somewhere where the RCC began to teach the guilt was inherited of Adam’s sin, this is heretical. I will look for the council that taught this.

 

[Vonsalza]

I have read somewhere where the RCC began to teach the guilt was inherited of Adam’s sin, this is heretical.

From the Catechism;

CCC 405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

Your understanding of Catholicism seems to be at odds with Catholicism’s understanding of Catholicism on this matter.

 

[pacloc]

Von you must like to ignore my posts. Post 115 in this thread clearly shows that I know that the RCC does not teach this anymore, but I will look for the council that used to teach this

 

[Vonsalza]

Von you must like to ignore my posts. Post 115 in this thread clearly shows that I know that the RCC does not teach this anymore, but I will look for the council that use to teach these.

Good luck!

 

[pacloc]

From the Council of Trent session v:

1. If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema.

From the Council of Florence session 8:

The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.

To be fair, I see in the writings around these poorly worded statements, that there is more in common with the Orthodox understanding than there is in contradiction. I think it is St. Augustine that came up with the guilt part of original sin that was taught in the west. It seems to have crept in to later RCC councils to be later abandoned by the Catechism. But there is definitely a contrast in our view of God’s Providence about how to use original sin for a good in the East and West. In the west it seen very juridical by the statements about being barred from the Kingdom of Heaven, where in the East it is seen as means to call man back.

 

[pacloc]

I’m not exactly sure what you are asking, if you are asking anything that is. But I fail to see how you think there is not unity in the Orthodox Church. The very fact that there were Churches in Russia, Greece, and elsewhere that continued with their own small t traditions independently in the sense of constant communication due to technology and other factors, yet today are nearly identical in practice, and surely identical in Dogma is what gives assurance to Orthodox Christians that the Holy Spirit is in fact filling the Church and protecting Her.

Also, I don’t understand what you are saying about the Coptic Orthodox, as they are not part of the Orthodox Church. If you were trying to use 2 examples of Orthodox Churches disagreeing on something about a schismatic group, then it is clear that the schismatic group would cease to be part of the Church, and if one of the Churches felt it right to be in communion with them, they would also become schismatic. I don’t think this is very difficult to understand and doesn’t show any kind of disunity. Also what if statements don’t really mean anything when there is no reason to speculate.

As for the council, it didn’t mean anything of importance and was more of a trial to get more frequent with meeting among the Churches. The Ecumenical Patriarch in his love for ecumenism, which is a very debatable topic, has offended other Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests, and laymen which is partly why there was opposition to the council’s objectives. This is hardly a matter of division in the Church, but weariness for ecumenism.

 

[Catholicos]

Pac thank you for correcting Coptic, didn’t mean Eastern Oriental, so Greek Orthodox or any of Orthodoxy would be fine. The Eastern Rite Catholic Churches have their unique traditions as well, along with their liturgy, so in RCC it’s not at odds with the Papacy. That being said, you cannot be absolutely certain though that schism isn’t possible any more than the Western Church can. Shared dogma is only a prerequisite for unity, it doesn’t assure it. Many heresies broke out in the early Church, and they didn’t all originate from the West. Who knows if you’d have your beautiful icons today, had it not been for Rome that favored them in the 7th century, it was the East and Constantinople that thought they were idolatry. There are many quotes and references by prominent saints and Eastern bishops with regards to the Pope, it’s very extensive, but I can list a few, instead of all at once.

You mentioned Florence and Trent in another post, maybe when I have more time I’ll address that, but I think there’s this misunderstanding that because something wasn’t formally defined by a council to be dogma, that meant it was never believed prior to that council, that would include papal infallibility, it wasn’t just promulgated in 1870

One of the really big issues for me that separates the 2 Churches is the teaching on divorce and remarriage. I just believe the Catholic Church is not in error on this matter. When I read Jesus’ words, it’s a stretch for me whether reason or faith to believe Jesus did not see the remarried divorce individual as an adulterer.
Matthew, Luke and Marks gospel are usually referenced, but Johns to me is much more convincing

John 4:16-18 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come back.” 4:17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 4:18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!”

 

[Wandile]

The guilt isn’t personal. I think that’s where you are going wrong. The guilt is used in an analogical sense to describe the lack of sanctifying grave within the human soul before baptism which deprives the human of the beatific vision.

We do not personally commit that sin at conception, and Trent is certainly not saying that we do. But we are conceived with souls that are in the state that resulted from Adam’s personal original sin - souls without the life of sanctifying grace present in them.

This is what Trent is saying and it’s the same thing the Catechism teaches in the paragraphs cited.

 

[Wandile]

So you agree then that not all souls are immaculately conceived ? I’ve seen orthodox propose this idea as a result of their theology in original sin.

You believe that baptism removes the original sin from the soul of each human being? As the souls befor enapyism lacks the sanctifying grace of God?

You believe then that all humans are born in a state of sin due to the lack of sanctifying grace contracted through generation via Adam unto his decendants?

If you do you believe in the catholic teaching on original sin.

However I have seen far to many Eastern Orthodox teach a concept of original sin that honestly is semi-Pelagian. In fact I frequently see many Eastern Orthodox cite St John Cassian as the standard for the eastern conception of original sin. Which proves that at least many Eastern Orthodox have a palagain view of original sin as St John Cassian was a semi-pelagian who was corrected by St Agustine. Hence St. Augustine’s cult became universal while St Johns remains local

Lastly the canons cited from the council of Carthage were defined specifically to refute any pelagian understanding of original sin.

 

[pacloc]

The history of the Orthodox Church with Rome is one of tragedy in the Orthodox Christian viewpoint. The Bishop of Rome, the Pope of Rome, was always seen as the keeper of the Faith because of a series of very orthodox Bishops that defended the Faith in times of heresy, especially in the East as you mention. I am no expert in this history at all, but I have read many times of the great beacon of orthodox faith that the Bishop of Rome held firm. The tragedy is that eventually, the Bishops of Rome were no longer worthy of being called orthodox or any kind of beacon of the Faith. And since in the eyes of the Orthodox Church, we don’t think that the Bishop of Rome is Supreme meaning he has power over other Bishops, but rather had primacy, being first and the voice for the Church, when he becomes a heretic he is rejected. His office is not magical, preserving a heretic’s power, but was a God given honor, that can be rejected as it was.

You mention Icons in your post. This was something that helped me to become Orthodox. When we joined the RCC I had purchased an icon of the byzantine style Our Lady of Perpetual Help icon. I was drawn to the beauty and symbolism in icons. After collecting 20 icons or so, I could not understand how we had an ecumenical council that clearly explained not only the heresy of iconoclasm, but even explains the necessity of icons, and yet in the RCC icons are non-existent for the most part. I was at a lunch where there were many seminarians, and they all explained how they thought that “religious art” was distracting and that when they were going to have a parish of their own, they would make the walls bare. This was a very eye opening experience because I already felt that the RCC had abandoned the Church’s view of Icons, and this just solidified it. This grouped with a lot of the things I mentioned in a previous post made it very clear that the RCC is no longer part of the Church, but simply claims the Fathers and being the original, but does not practice the ancient Faith. The Fathers that they claim as theirs do not teach to their liking are abandoned as well.

As for divorce and remarriage, it is adultery. The difference is that sins are forgivable, so it cannot be held against the person forever if there is a just reason for another try. Ecclesiastical divorce is needed and only granted by the Church. The practical reality is that the annulment process is just a strange reworking of Ecclesiastical divorce and remarriage. At least in the Orthodox Church, 2nd and possibly 3rd marriages are not celebrated the way a 1st marriage is. It is a penitential occasion. In the past, I believe those that remarried were not allowed to receive Holy Communion for a few years in penance.

 

[Rohzek]

Blockquote
So you agree then that not all souls are immaculately conceived ? I’ve seen orthodox propose this idea as a result of their theology in original sin.
You believe that baptism removes the original sin from the soul of each human being? As the souls befor enapyism lacks the sanctifying grace of God?
You believe then that all humans are born in a state of sin due to the lack of sanctifying grace contracted through generation via Adam unto his decendants?
If you do you believe in the catholic teaching on original sin.
However I have seen far to many Eastern Orthodox teach a concept of original sin that honestly is semi-Pelagian. In fact I frequently see many Eastern Orthodox cite St John Cassian as the standard for the eastern conception of original sin. Which proves that at least many Eastern Orthodox have a palagain view of original sin as St John Cassian was a semi-pelagian who was corrected by St Agustine. Hence St. Augustine’s cult became universal while St Johns remains local
Lastly the canons cited from the council of Carthage were defined specifically to refute any pelagian understanding of original sin.

St. John Cassian, St. Vincent of Lérins, and St. Faustus of Rietz got Original Sin correct. St. Augustine clearly went too far. He taught total human depravity like a proto-Calvanist.

 

[Rohzek]

Blockquote
One of the really big issues for me that separates the 2 Churches is the teaching on divorce and remarriage. I just believe the Catholic Church is not in error on this matter. When I read Jesus’ words, it’s a stretch for me whether reason or faith to believe Jesus did not see the remarried divorce individual as an adulterer.

In the first millennium, there were a wide variety of practices regarding divorce and remarriage. Even popes permitted it under certain circumstances:

Divorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: A Forgotten History | Shameless Orthodoxy

Divorce & Remarriage in the Latin West: An Addendum | Shameless Orthodoxy

 

[pacloc]

I think you are wrong about the RCC not teaching personal guilt, I will look into it in St. Augustine’s writings, which is where it came from or at least became popular belief.

Also, your wording about lack of sanctifying grace does not sound anything familiar from what I’ve read, but I think it is pretty much the same thing that is taught in the East about separation from God.

As for viewing St. John Cassian as semi-pelagian, we do not agree, but rather say that St. Augustine was wrong. I think the RCC agrees with the Orthodox Church on this today, rejecting Augustine’s teaching on original guilt and seeing nothing wrong in St. John Cassian’s teachings. I’ll look into it a little. To be honest I mainly stick to Sts. John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory Palamas, Gregory the Great, Maximus the Confessor and a few others. I spend no time reading St. Augustine as I am not ready to decipher his errors from his holy teachings. I also have not read much of St. John Cassians works, but I have them and will look into it a little. If you would like to discuss how the Saints I mentioned viewed this topic I would love to do that as that is more what I know. These Saints are more of the foundation for the Church’s teaching as I think you know.

 

[Catholicos]

This is an extensive topic of discussion, so if another thread is started on it, that would probably better so we don’t veer too far away from the OP subject.

Briefly I’ll just put it this way. There’s a completely different understanding of sin between the Catholic and Orthodox world. This in and of itself will certainly play a large role not only on whether or not the sin of adultery is committed, but also how and when the sin is forgiven if deemed adultery.

The reason why the Catholic teaching appeals to me is that it seems to err on the side of caution. From what Jesus has said, we know adultery can be committed even if you’re not married. Sexual lust in your thoughts and heart can be adultery in His eyes, how much more serious would it be if it’s beyond a lustful thought, and it’s with sexually someone you have no covenant with?

I don’t doubt there could have been varying opinions on this subject throughout Church history, but that was the case with other issues that the Church had to formally define as dogma. Even saints haven’t always been on the side of the consensus view that ultimately prevailed.

I’ll have to look at these references in your site, it is rather extensive, but thanks for sharing it Very quickly though there many Church fathers and Doctors, who appear to teach the Catholic view, but to keep it brief I’ll just refer to the council of Elvira that you alluded to in your link:

" …I would like to clarify the current academic assessment of Canon 36 of the Synod of Rome (826), add both the Council of Elvira (c. 300) and the Council of Adge (506) as in favor of divorce and remarriage…"

I’ve read Elvira differently and it sounds a lot more like the Catholic teaching, notice in the first sentence that the husband is the one presumed to have already committed adultery… Even if the wife was not the cause of the husbands adultery. She commits adultery if she remarries and he is still living.

Council of Elvira:
Likewise, a woman of the faith [i.e., a baptized person] who has left an adulterous husband of the faith and marries another, her marrying in this manner is prohibited. If she has so married, she may not at any more receive communion — unless he that she has left has since departed from this world (canon 9 [A.D. 324]).

If she whom a catechumen [an unbaptized person studying the faith] has left shall have married a husband, she is able to be admitted to the fountain of baptism. This shall also be observed in the instance where it is the woman who is the catechumen. But if a woman of the faithful is taken in marriage by a man who left an innocent wife, and if she knew that he had a wife whom he had left without cause, it is determined that Communion is not to be given to her even at death (canon 10).

 

[Wandile]

St Augustine might have gone too far, but St John was in blatant heresy. That is why the west and the ecumenical councils did not adopt his teaching. He was refuted and defeated convincingly by St Augustine. This is a matter of historical fact.

The final nail in the coffin was three fold :

The Latin Church condemned Semipelagianism in the local Council of Orange (529), but recognized Cassian himself as a saint. Secondly the council of Carthage which I cited earlier which defined original sin in western Augustinian manner. Not surprising as one Aurelius Agustinus aka St Augustine of Hippo was a prominent figure at this council . This councils decree was accepted at the 7th ecumenical council thus making it the de fide orthodox faith on original sin.

The west still teach it to this day. The east on the other hand, at least in some quarters, have abandoned it for semi-palagianism