Heart is pulling me towards Orthodoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuartonian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s actually very interesting. I am not expert on topic of Original Sin (I’ve read more about differences than about actual understandings of it by either side, so I know basics but I’m not even sure I know Latin definition of Original Sin- I actually believed it was never about real guilt.

Now, we know Adam and Eve were in Paradise without Original Sin- they were however still tempted by Devil. Does that mean Devil and temptation to Evil come not only with Original Sin?

Our Lord was tempted by Devil while in desert, and emerged victorious (unlike Adam and Eve). There is no clear mention of any temptation coming to Our Lady, if I’m not mistaken.

If Jesus and Mary were not subject to Original Sin but still got tempted, is Original Sin actually transmission of guilt in Latin sense? Would make sense as much as praying for the Dead and indulgences do- Church, by actions of some of Her members helps others indirectly. Same way, Adam and Eve sinned and we share in their Sin as Humans- that made us subject to Death etc.
How is then Original Sin viewed in Eastern sense?
 
My opinion, which doesn’t count for much, lol, is that I follow Zoghby’s two-point profession of faith:
  1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
  2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
Click to expand...
Beautiful. Thank you for your reply.
 
ziapueblo said:
according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
Click to expand...
Depends, because Catholics dont quite believe in no-Papal-jurisdiction pre-schism, just that it couldnt be exercised way it is today for practical reasons. Your view of Orthodox as Church from Gospel cant be right either, unless you dont view Catholic as one. It’s kinda mess but let’s not violate ancient dogmas of either Church just cus current Popes said something unauthoritative that could vaguely imply their denial if interpreted certain way. It’s a stretch at best.

Believing in Pope as figure of Catholicism with no power or that Orthodox is true Church and Latin Catholic doctrine is wrong is what Orthodox Church teaches. Why believe in everything they teach? Either Papal Supreme Jurisdiction applies to all or Latin Church has wrong doctrine, we can’t get around that. No one can serve two masters, and Catholics as well as Orthodox can’t believe in branch theory, indifferentism, relativism, gallicanism or jansenism (maybe Orthodox could be gallican though idk)
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Your view of Orthodox as Church from Gospel cant be right either, unless you dont view Catholic as one.
Click to expand...
But he’s Catholic. Of course he doesn’t believe Orthodox is Church from the Gospel. Otherwise he would be Orthodox.

He believes the Orthodox & all the baptized form the Body of Christ. Isn’t that what we believe?
 
It is, but neither Church holds that both Churches are complete Church from Gospel and interchangeable, two parts of Body of Christ. This is called Branch Theory and has been condemned many times by either side.

Plus he holds that view only for Orthodox and Churches with valid Sacraments and Apostolic Succession, this is not about all Baptized. Pope, other than being Bishop also exercises Petrine Office and Ministry. It is unique office distinct from his Episcopal authority which grants him authority over all Baptized and duty to lead those Faithful who are in the Church of Christ. ZP seems to hold Pope as first among Bishops which is correct but also seems to deny authority of Petrine Office such as Supreme Universal Jurisdiction whenever possible.
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
It is, but neither Church holds that both Churches are complete Church from Gospel and interchangeable, two parts of Body of Christ. This is called Branch Theory and has been condemned many times by either side.
Click to expand...
No they don’t, but at the same time, we were indeed in communion for over a thousand years. Schism is most certainly a grievous wound to the body of Christ, but that doesn’t have to imply one is completely cut off or that we believe some branch theory. To use an example from another thread, when the prodigal son ran off, he didn’t cease being his father’s son.

How to view the authority of the Pope is the million dollar question that needs to be answered. Full papal supremacy developed after schism so it seems difficult to make this a precondition for restoration of communion. The Catholic and Orthodox theologians involved in the Chieti document state as much.
 
Umm, I keep reading on these forums that Catholic and Orthodox theologians are working on restoring communion, but I’ve never actually heard anything about it except on here. Does anyone know if they are still engaging in dialogue or making any headway?
 
Last edited:
The Joint International Commission has been meeting every two to three years since 1980. There’s also a North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation that has been meeting and issuing statements since 1965.
 
The statements from the North American consultation are here: Statements & Reports

These obviously aren’t binding, but rather lay the groundwork for restoration of communion. It will have to be our bishops collectively acting in order for that to happen.
 
According to Pope Saint Gregory the Great, Papal Supremacy not only existed before the Schism but Petrine Office along with Infallibility ex Cathedra were recognized by entire Church. Church was decentralised and communication was difficult so Papal interventions were limited, but nevertheless Papal rights remained the same- even though they were not exercised often because of practical reasons.
Even excommunications of 1054 did not involve Papal Supremacy issue.

Orthodoxy did not cease to be Church or to be Christian- it simply ceased to be in full communion with Church of Christ but imperfect and “so profound it lacks little to attain fullness” communion remained. Prodigal Son did not cease to be son of his Father but did cease to be in his house or ceased doing his will when he left.
 
I’m not exactly sure what you are asking here, but I can say a little about why the Orthodox Church does not accept the new teaching of the Immaculate Conception. You could also look up why the majority in the west condemned the idea before it became dogma. We believe that only our Lord and God, Jesus Christ was born without sin as stated in the scripture. This was achieved because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit without seed from a man in an act of passion. The Holy Virgin Mary was conceived in the traditional manner of a man and woman engaging in sexual relations which is not entirely without passion, even though Sts. Joachim and Anna were very old and conceived without passion being the first reason, but rather the desire to give birth to a child that could be the parent of the Christ. So since she was born from such holy parents who promised to give her to God and to live in the Temple, she was guarded and taught by God from her earliest days, but she was still born with original sin, which tempts us in our thoughts, and also has the reality of our decay and death. She was able with God’s help to battle her thoughts and succeed in never committing a sin against God. Christ on the other hand was not born with original sin and was not tempted in His thoughts, but only externally as were Adam and Eve. He chose in His wisdom to take on a body like ours, but it only had the effects of the fall that are considered innocent, such as hunger, tiredness, thirst, pain, etc.

I hope this helps.
 
Hm, but I don’t think West views passion as sin. After all, sexual intercourse is taken as part of sacrament in the West- and sacraments would not utilize sins. I do not think Original Sin is only temptation to Sin- Adam and Eve got tempted, and Jesus got tempted numerous times. Temptation itself should not be visible sign of Original Sin. I don’t think I quite understand the topic yet X)
 
As a non Catholic I find Eastern Orthodoxy the more appealing of the two despite being a member of neither tradition.
 
Originally in both East and West, the goal of becoming like Christ was to become dispassionate. So while sexual relations are allowed between a husband and wife, it is also true that the act involves passion, which will not exist in Heaven as stated by Christ Himself. This is therefore not a sin in the sense of doing something wicked, but more of a lower way of existence that is allowed but not Godly, similar to eating, especially delicacies. God does not eat or have sex, nor do the Holy Angels or Saints.

There is a difference between your mind being corrupted from birth that is inclined to sin, called concupiscence, and being tempted externally by evil. Depending on many things, we each have a different level of concupiscence, but we all have it and it is because in God’s Wisdom and Justice, He has allowed us to be separated from His Holy Presence to certain degrees because of Adam and Eve’s sin and because it is good for us to learn to want to go back to God’s Presence. It was only by being forced out of the Garden that Adam and Eve began to long to go back, realizing what great blessing they had in God’s Presence. To teach that the Holy Theotokos did not experience this to even a small degree would be to put Her in a different class of humanity that does not share in our experience which doesn’t make sense. Our Lord Jesus Christ on the other hand, was not conceived in the traditional manner and being fully God, cannot have sin and cannot be separated from God’s presence and therefore did not have concupiscence. Adam and Eve also being made in communion with God and seeing Him clearly as stated in the Genesis account, did not have concupiscence. These last 3 were tempted externally, and the temptation was in one way easy to overcome, because “greater is he that is in me than he that is in the world.” But in another way is was very trying to our Lord because He suffered unjustly anyway.
 
Last edited:
Didn’t finishing reading the thread to see if it has been addressed- but I’m pretty certain Western Rite Orthodox still use leavening in the Eucharist- they just find a way to make it flat.

Also, being Orthodox myself, I do find it to be problematic regarding who is received by Chrismation only or by baptism. My husband had one of the worst experiences when going to St. Anthony’s Monastery in Arizona. A monk attempted to convince him that his being received via Chrismation wasn’t good enough and that he needed to be re-baptized. My husband is pretty against ever going back to any monastery for any reason whatsoever at this stage after that. The tendency among some Orthodox to want to re-baptize people is a scandal, as far as I’m concerned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top