Feeling drawn towards Orthodoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow pacloc you completely misunderstand St John Cassian and what I’m getting at.

I’m not, nor has the church, accused him of pelagiansim but rather semi-pelagiansim. Can you define what semi-pelagiansim/Masselianism is?
 
The church teaches what I’m saying not St Augustine alone. The fathers like St Ceasereus of Arsles, St Fulgentius or Ruspe, St Propsper, the fathers of Orange , Pope St Gelaisus and Pope St Celestine

The teachings of these men codified by the church at Orange have never been disputed but always upheld. Till this day not even the EO have disputed this council

Btw I’m using two sources for the thirteenth conference. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/350813.htm

And

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iv.v.iv.viii.html
 
Last edited:
Here is a concise definition of Semi-pelagaisnism for those who are interested :
The Semi-Pelagian doctrine taught by John Cassian (d. 440) admits that divine grace (assistance) is necessary to enable a sinner to return unto God and live, yet holds that, from the nature of the human will, man may first spontaneously, of himself, desire and attempt to choose and obey God. They deny the necessity of prevenient but admit the necessity of cooperative grace and conceive regeneration as the product of this cooperative grace." A.A. Hodge
Click to expand...
B.B. Warfield :
“But Pelagianism did not so die as not to leave a legacy behind it. “Remainders of Pelagianism” soon showed themselves in Southern Gaul, where a body of monastic leaders attempted to find a middle ground on which they could stand, by allowing the Augustineian doctrine of assisting grace, but retaining the Pelagian conception of our self-determination to good. We first hear of them in 428, through letters from two laymen, Prosper and Hilary, to Augustine, as men who accepted original sin and the necessity of grace, but asserted that men began their turning to God, and God helped their beginning. They taught that all men are sinners, and that they derive their sin from Adam; that they can by no means save themselves, but need God’s assisting grace; and that this grace is gratuitous in the sense that men cannot really deserve it, and yet that it is not irresistible, nor given always without the occasion of its gift having been determined by men’s attitude towards God; so that, though not given on account of the merits of men, it is given according to those merits, actual or foreseen. The leader of this new movement was John Cassian, a pupil of Chrysostom (to whom he attributed all that was good in his life and will), and the fountain-head of Gallic monasticism; and its chief champion at a somewhat later day was Faustus of Rhegium (Riez).”
Click to expand...
Simply put St John Cassian taught that though a sickness is inherited through Adam’s sin, human free will has not been corrupted properly. Divine grace is indispensable for salvation, but it does not necessarily need to precede a free human choice, because, despite the weakness of human volition, the will takes the initiative toward God. In other words, divine grace and human free will must work together in salvation
 
Last edited:
I don’t think I misunderstand Him, seeing as the Church sees his writings as necessary for a solid understanding of the Christian Faith. I misspoke earlier when I said that I have not read much of his writings, because I was thinking of His major works, which I have not read thoroughly. I have read quite a bit of his words in the Evergetinos, which uses his writings extensively. The Evergetinos is one of the sets of writings that all Saints that have died in the last few hundred years recommend to read if you are to understand how to live as a Christian.

I don’t think that St. John Cassian is any more semi-Pelagian than any other of the Greek Fathers of the Church, so I must conclude that either all are not semi-Pelagian or that they all are. I’ll stick with the fact that they are not, while you can stick with the opposite.
 
These two then; viz., the grace of God and free will seem opposed to each other, but really are in harmony, and we gather from the system of goodness that we ought to have both alike, lest if we withdraw one of them from man, we may seem to have broken the rule of the Church’s faith: for when God sees us inclined to will what is good, He meets, guides, and strengthens us: for “At the voice of thy cry, as soon as He shall hear, He will answer thee;” and: “Call upon Me,” He says, “in the day of tribulation and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me.”1803 And again, if He finds that we are unwilling or have grown cold, He stirs our hearts with salutary exhortations, by which a good will is either renewed or formed in us.
Click to expand...
I guess the quote you are using about St. Matthew and St. Paul is from ch 11 but does not match the text, or am I just not seeing it. Either way, it seems that you are making a big claim about something that is nothing. If he knew that Wandile would be so upset about the language, I’m sure he would have worded more clearly for you. When I read this, it is speaking of the simple idea that after the creation which instills in us his grace which draws us to Himself, some respond by calling out to God. Others that are unwilling or have grown cold, he continues to stir the heart with exhortations. He just means that no unusual Divine intervention is always needed, like a miracle, to spark a person into seeking God, the original graces common to all new man is enough.
 
No this goes to show that again you’re not understanding the true implications of what is being said by Saint John Cassian and and all those that agree with him. The initial act of creating man was a grace. In an ultimate and indirect sense man can be said to be saved through that initial grace because in order to be saved he must exist. The mere act on of mans existence (a grace from God that even Pelagians admit and not only semi-pelagians admitted) on its own is not enough. For his nature is fallen and does not desire good but is predisposed to evil. He will always choose evil unless God helps him additionally. This is where the debate between St John Cassian and the Church came.

The Church declared as per the teaching of the fathers that subsequent to creation It is necessary for man to have other Graces imparted into him so that he may desire God and subsequently that he may find salvation because there is nothing that he can do in and of himself that will save him self (that’s the pelagian error).

Man needs to have his will ordered correctly because the affects of the fall made man have a fallen nature in that man is always drawn towards evil and does not desire good. This is why it impossible for a man to cry Jesus Christ is Lord without the Holy Spirit, that is just on the mere fact of his existence. Pelagiaus, St John Cassian and the semi-pelagians said that man could desire God just by his own existence without any additional grace. This was condemned at Carthage and again at Orange and finally at Trent.

His nature is distorted and without prevenient grace man in and of his own, only by the mere fact that he exists, could not find God because everything necessary for salvation needs to have the grace of God. Every single step. The first step (existence) is a grace in and of itself. The next step, the act good will must have a grace of its own. So it is not possible that in and of ourselves just being created that we will find God there has to be an additional Grace imparted in to us to make us desire God and does not remove the desire for evil (lest we lose free will) but rather correct our tendency towards evil by balancing it out with us having a desire for what is good that we will not be slaves to sin.
 
Last edited:
pacloc said:
I don’t think I misunderstand Him, seeing as the Church sees his writings as necessary for a solid understanding of the Christian Faith. I misspoke earlier when I said that I have not read much of his writings, because I was thinking of His major works, which I have not read thoroughly. I have read quite a bit of his words in the Evergetinos, which uses his writings extensively. The Evergetinos is one of the sets of writings that all Saints that have died in the last few hundred years recommend to read if you are to understand how to live as a Christian.

I don’t think that St. John Cassian is any more semi-Pelagian than any other of the Greek Fathers of the Church, so I must conclude that either all are not semi-Pelagian or that they all are. I’ll stick with the fact that they are not, while you can stick with the opposite.
Click to expand...
St John Cassian was a very holy man and a true Saint. However as a man he was not infallible but like every other Saint slipped into one error or another. He was not unique in this as has already been pointed out Saint Thomas Aquinas erred on the immaculate conception and when the souls is infused. Other saints believed in universal salvation and other saints held that St Mary the Mother of God had sinned. These were holy men but still only men.

Secondly the Greek fathers, even though holy and erudite in their own right, were not the most skilled on this topic as compared to the western contemporaries as it was in the west where the depths of original sin, grace and free will were truly examined to defeat the pelagian heresy. This is evidenced in the fact that the writings concerning original are more extensive in the west than in the east.

This is normal just as when it comes to the error of the pneumotochai the east have more extensive writings and more in-depth analysis of the issues contained there in than in the west because it was in the east where this pneumotochai were prevalent.

The Eastern Church actually agreed with the west and that’s why Ephesus and Nicaea II upheld Carthage as the de fide standard of faith concerning original sin. The east in the last few centuries started to take St John Cassian as the standard for their view on original sin and embarrassingly realized he his views were condemned which is why the sudden novelty of EO writers defending his views which never occurred in any other era of history before. Like I said the east even today has not overuled Orange.
 
Last edited:
Blockquote The teachings of these men codified by the church at Orange have never been disputed but always upheld. Till this day not even the EO have disputed this council.
Click to expand...
Actually, many Orthodox scholars, such as the late Father John Meyendorff, condemn the Second Council of Orange of at least being in error.
Blockquote The Eastern Church actually agreed with the west and that’s why Ephesus and Nicaea II upheld Carthage as the de fide standard of faith concerning original sin.
Click to expand...
The canons of Carthage were originally adopted at the ecumenical level at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, not the Seventh, so we adopted them much earlier in the east than you have supposed. I’d also would like to add more importantly that the Carthaginian canons were much more conservative on the issue of Ancestral Sin, etc. than the canons of the Second Council of Orange. We do not dispute Carthage. We dispute Orange.
Blockquote Now let me push you. Do you say it is possible for man to make an act of good faith… that is to confess Christ as God without grace?
Click to expand...
No, of course I do not believe this position at all. Grace is a prerequisite for the profession of faith and of good deeds. Getting back to the Augustinian idea of prevenient grace, I don’t dispute your understanding, although I find it a little less precise than mine and the Eastern Orthodox Church’s (which doesn’t use that exact term). What the Orthodox Church proclaims on this matter is that the free will is a divine gift and grace from God. And although, after the Fall, when humanity foolishly turned from God and his love, this free will and grace were damaged and blemished, it was not obliterated. In short, we understand this ability of choice, this ability of free will, however much it is inclined towards sin in our fallen state, to be God’s prevenient grace at work and given to all of humanity. It therefore is incumbent upon all human beings to make use of this prevenient grace to participate in a synergetic manner with God’s divine energies and to reach an ever increasing state of theosis.

And on a slightly separate note, what I have articulated above is the position of St. John Cassian and St. Faustus of Riez.
 
Last edited:
Rohzek and Pacloc I’m going to be very busy in the coming weeks so as much as I would like to continue our discussion, which believe me I do, I just don’t have the time to.

It’s has been a great discussion , heated a little bit, but never a discussion I would regret. Thank you and God bless.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree and continue praising a God nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
In the end both Catholic and Orthodox are fine. I respect both. The only major thing you would be saying in leaving the Catholic Church is renouncing your belief in Papal authority. If you are okay with that I see no issue. The Orthodox are our Eastern brethren who we have unfortunately been in schism with since the 11th century. But most of the beliefs are the same.
 
To be more accurate, we believe that only after she conceived Christ our Lord, and had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit did she sin no more.
 
We don’t know… you don’t have to know what sins a person committed to know they had sin.
 
You don’t know my sins. Would you ever assert that I have none because of that?
 
You have the right to assert that I have sin though, for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.

The only exception to this is Jesus since Jesus is God, and He cannot fall short of His own Glory. 🙂
 
I have not right to accuse you of sin, and there is nothing to gained from it.
 
The Orthodox Church agrees with the RCC in the fact that the Holy Virgin Mary did not sin. She and her Son are sinless in different ways however. She had to be purified and sanctified through her life, where Christ of course does not need purification.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top