Is the E. Orthodox Church the original Church?

[mardukm]

Dear brother Josephdaniel29,

First, let me just say that I don’t like threads that are going to go off into hundreds of topics, which I feel this one will do. If you wish to discuss the issues covered below, after this initial response of mine, what do you think about starting new threads on each topic? If you agree, let me know, and I will make the effort myself to start the new threads.

He has no role in the eternal procession of the Spirit. The Creed and Scriptures make that clear.

Though there are explicit denials from the Fathers that the Spirit is FROM the Son, this is obviously in response to the heresy running current at the time that the Spirit is merely a creature of the Son. But many of the orthodox Catholic Eastern/Oriental Fathers taught that the very BEING of the spirit comes from the Father THROUGH the Son (Pope St. Cyril and St. John Damascene that I can think of off hand).

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on who you ask ) Fr Seraphim isn’t the final arbiter of truth.

I’m just pointing out that the Eastern Orthodox is not immune from the charge of “novelty” (whether it is denied or not).

No denial, we just prefer to take a more holistic approach

I am aware that there are different levels of acceptance of the doctrine in your Church. But there have been some EO who have come here in the past that denied it outright. And I personally can’t see the difference between the doctrine of Atonement as taught by the Latins, and the more mitigated form that is believed by some Easterns. So in my view, a denial of the Latin teaching is a denial of the doctrine altogether. (FYI, the doctrine of Atonement is fully upheld by the ORIENTAL Orthodox)

That’s malarkey. No one denies the need for or existence of a head bishop. That not an argument anyone is making. In other words a straw man.

Perhaps you have not been here long enough, but there were several EO who came here and denied that very thing, and other EO did not do a thing to correct them. Perhaps if you were here in those days, you would have corrected them. Nevertheless the belief does exist in your Church.

I didn’t realize this was an issue. Of course I don’t know that anyone has ever said that one must believe this to be Orthodox.

The distinction of Essence/Energies is part and parcel the heritage of Easterns and Orientals. But Orientals don’t apply that distinction as a real distinction WITHIN the Godhead. I’ve read several of your (EO) apologists appeal to this distinction in the debate about filioque. But such an appeal is wholly improper and (I feel) heterodox, because such a distinction, as stated, does not apply WITHIN the Godhead. Appealing to the distinction in the debate on filique is TRULY novel.

Nothing more than accidents of history. Of course we could have just done as the Catholics did and make our patriarchs heads of states themselves.

But it is a problem. And I understand that many EO agree.

You should know good and well that there were many interpretations of that passage posited by the Fathers. It is the Catholics who isolated one from the rest and turned it into dogma.

If you read Vatican I, the Catholic Church appeals to all interpretations. On the opposite end, EVERY single EO apologist who has come onto this board to debate the issue has denied that Peter is the Rock. Brother Mickey just very recently did in one of the threads.

Not familiar enough with the issue to make a comment. I will say this. It’s my understanding that Western Rite Orthodox parishes use statues today and if you look at many 19th century Russian icons they look as realistic as any Western religious art.

I’m just going by what EO apologists and polemicists have been saying on this board in the past. The 7th Ecum did not make the distinction, but there are EO polemicists who do - so that is novel.

I don’t know that anyone ever denied that Christ is fully present in both species, the issue is why change the established practice of many centuries and in the process relegate the Precious Blood to secondary status?

The rationale the Latins use does not actually give the Precious Blood a secondary status, though that is the interpretation that non-Catholics will place on it. An issue for a separate thread, I’m sure (or simply the resurrection of an old thread on the matter). This may be a matter of perspective. I think the Latins started communicating the bread alone because there were those who denied that the Blood has the full Presence even on its own. So you can see why, given its original intent in the Latin Church, if you object to the Latin practice, it could be viewed as a denial that the Real Presence is in the transformed Wine. To be honest, I heard this while I was a Coptic Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome from the Coptic grapevine– i.e., that the EO explicitly deny the doctrine of concomitance. I would like to investigate what past EO authorities have said about the doctrine of concomitance. Do you have any sources I can read?

No different than granting annulments for grounds unheard of in the early Fathers. We both make concessions for the sake of economy.

Tu quoque argumentation does not support your claim that the EO does not have any innovations. The difference between annulments and divorce can be discussed in another thread. The Coptic Orthodox also utilize annulments, so we know the difference.

I don’t know that there is any consensus on this matter in Orthodoxy. I will say this, any form of contraception that is an abortifacient is categorically condemned. Somehow I suspect that NFP may have been considered a sin in the Catholic Church at one time.

DEFINITELY a discussion for another thread.

Of course your point still stands. To a certain extent it’s a matter of perspective. There is one thing that is for certain, we can’t both be right.

I think a case can be made that in MANY instances, we are BOTH right – it is just that one or the other or both is unwilling to understand what the other is really trying to say.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It’s ironic that you’d use a letter to attack Papal Supremacy which only confirms it existed in the early Church and was claimed by Popes the Eastern Orthodox recognize.

We recognize that some claimed it in the early Church.

We deny any got it. And the historical record, and the Fathers, support that.

It’s also interesting that you’d use a letter that contains manifest errors about the need for rebaptism

You cited Cyprian. Cyprian was the one who translated and promulgated this letter. I’ll look at what he did as well as what he did.

After all, if he committed an error, why can’t he commit another?

Obviously, Firmilian was incorrect in saying that the Pope commits schism by claiming universal jurisdiction,

So you say. Obviously you are incorrect.

just as he was incorrect to say that heretics have to be rebaptized.

Consult the canons of the Fathers.

Firmilian was 100% wrong, and Pope Stephen was 100% correct - matter, form, and intent are all that is needed to confer baptism.

Yes, and that’s why you claim that pagans and atheists can baptize. Hocus pocus. Btw, that’s not the argument Stephen made, or do you have something in mind?

Likewise, the Pope has a full and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church.

Mardukm, you getting this?

And every time he tried exercising that “full and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church,” he got his hand slapped, from Pope Victor on.

This is a case in which the Pope defended the Holy Orthodox faith against a rebellious eastern Bishop.

This is a case of a bishop, actually a synod of a metropolia even in Rome’s patriarchate telling the Pope of Rome that he was wrong in a matter of Faith and Morals uttered from St. Peter’s throne.

He asserted the Catholic truth both concerning rebaptism, and concerning the universal authority of the Pope.

Neither of which the Fathers accepted.

What fantastic evidence of the protection given to the Successor of St. Peter and the Vicar of Christ!

My, you’re easy to impress.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Huh? What is the “if” clause that goes with this “then” clause?

If we believed in the IC, and the idea that she didn’t die.

And…?

She’s on a bier. What type of people lie on biers? DEAD people.

Her Son holds her soul. What type of people have there souls seperate from their body? Unless you’re Mormon DEAD people.

 

[dvdjs]

Ah, that font of ultramontanist wisdom.

Why the cheap shot? I am not recommending anything ultramontanist, I am recommending that you read to inform your understanding of what Catholics mean by IC. A cursory reading would identify your error.

Your source:
The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam – from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

There it is. You talk about carelessly about what is entailed by in the Catholic doctrine of the IC. - how it somehow implies that she would be exempt from death. That is just not what the Catholic doctrine says. And very explcitly. Did you miss this?

Something from the Western Captivity of the Church (Confession of Dositheus, Decree VI) in response:
We believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world. But by these <119> fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatsoever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature; for many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well of those under the shadow [of the Law], as under the truth [of the Gospel], such as the divine Precursor, {St. John the Baptist ELC} and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, experienced not these, or such like faults; but only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labour, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, in fine {in summation ELC}, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death.

I don’t get the relevance. First, there are no shortage of differing descriptions of Original Sin in the “Orthodox literature”. Some dovetail with the Catholic description, some have significant distinctions. Some are thoughtful and some just polemics. But what does any of that have to do with the IC?

Surely the argument is no that, by the phrase “stain of original sin”, Catholics mean the “most obvious” effects of Original sin described in some Orthodox writings. Manifestly we do not. And in exempting Mary from this stain, we are talking about sanctification akin to the effect of baptism. That is what Fr. Lev documents. Not “death” which is an utter red herring.

 

[anon52328184]

what is the difference between eastern catholic and eastern orthodox? and who is st. ephrem?

do they both use icons.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Though there are explicit denials from the Fathers that the Spirit is FROM the Son, this is obviously in response to the heresy running current at the time that the Spirit is merely a creature of the Son.

And filioque solves that?

But many of the orthodox Catholic Eastern/Oriental Fathers taught that the very BEING of the spirit comes from the Father THROUGH the Son (Pope St. Cyril and St. John Damascene that I can think of off hand).

John is also emphatic, explicitly, that the Spirit does NOT proceed from the Son.

I’m just pointing out that the Eastern Orthodox is not immune from the charge of “novelty” (whether it is denied or not).

We don’t say we don’t have them. They just don’t stick.

I am aware that there are different levels of acceptance of the doctrine in your Church. But there have been some EO who have come here in the past that denied it outright. And I personally can’t see the difference between the doctrine of Atonement as taught by the Latins, and the more mitigated form that is believed by some Easterns. So in my view, a denial of the Latin teaching is a denial of the doctrine altogether. (FYI, the doctrine of Atonement is fully upheld by the ORIENTAL Orthodox)

I’ve talked to several ORIENTAL Orthodox on this, and they don’t know what you are talking about.

Perhaps you have not been here long enough, but there were several EO who came here and denied that very thing, and other EO did not do a thing to correct them. Perhaps if you were here in those days, you would have corrected them. Nevertheless the belief does exist in your Church.

Actually, as I remember it, the question was the existence of a fourth (fifth) order above bishop. And since no Church (even the Vatican) recognzis a 4th order, the point you we were making was denied.

The distinction of Essence/Energies is part and parcel the heritage of Easterns and Orientals. But Orientals don’t apply that distinction as a real distinction WITHIN the Godhead. I’ve read several of your (EO) apologists appeal to this distinction in the debate about filioque. But such an appeal is wholly improper and (I feel) heterodox, because such a distinction, as stated, does not apply WITHIN the Godhead. Appealing to the distinction in the debate on filique is TRULY novel.

I don’t recall the distinction coming into the debate on filioque, except Latin apologists claiming the distinction was an innovation, thus justifing filioque.

But it is a problem. And I understand that many EO agree.

If you read Vatican I, the Catholic Church appeals to all interpretations. On the opposite end, EVERY single EO apologist who has come onto this board to debate the issue has denied that Peter is the Rock. Brother Mickey just very recently did in one of the threads.

No, what was denied was the EXCLUSIVE interpretation that St. Peter was the Rock, especially that most interpretations of the Fathers outnumbered it. And I have read Vatican I, and no, it sees all through the primacy keyhole.

And speaking of keys, I’m still waiting for my explanation from ANYONE on when Eliakim in Isaiah became a figure of Peter, rather than Christ (which is how the Douay Rheims saw it).

I’m just going by what EO apologists and polemicists have been saying on this board in the past. The 7th Ecum did not make the distinction, but there are EO polemicists who do - so that is novel.

Statues were not common at the time of the 7th Council, so there was no need for making it. But yes, I think this is overblown at times, on both sides.

The rationale the Latins use does not actually give the Precious Blood a secondary status, though that is the interpretation that non-Catholics will place on it. An issue for a separate thread, I’m sure (or simply the resurrection of an old thread on the matter). This may be a matter of perspective. I think the Latins started communicating the bread alone because there were those who denied that the Blood has the full Presence even on its own. So you can see why, given its original intent in the Latin Church, if you object to the Latin practice, it could be viewed as a denial that the Real Presence is in the transformed Wine. To be honest, I heard this while I was a Coptic Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome from the Coptic grapevine– i.e., that the EO explicitly deny the doctrine of concomitance. I would like to investigate what past EO authorities have said about the doctrine of concomitance. Do you have any sources I can read?

Tu quoque argumentation does not support your claim that the EO does not have any innovations. The difference between annulments and divorce can be discussed in another thread. The Coptic Orthodox also utilize annulments, so we know the difference.

No, they don’t.

DEFINITELY a discussion for another thread.

I’d rather not. It gets tedious.

think a case can be made that in MANY instances, we are BOTH right – it is just that one or the other or both is unwilling to understand what the other is really trying to say.

Fair enough.

 

[dvdjs]

She’s on a bier. What type of people lie on biers? DEAD people.

Her Son holds her soul. What type of people have there souls seperate from their body?

You really miss the point. Death in any substantive, religious sense has been vanquished. And this is fully realized in the case of Mary who has been translated to heaven. That is what Easterners say - not just in pious legends - but in the liturgy. That is why we sing of translation from “life to life” and of a “deathless dormition”. That has meaning and significance.

Why are you attaching significance to what might be called “clinical death”. Who cares? We have been liberated from this care.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Why the cheap shot?

I’ve read much of the “Catholic Encyclopedia.” While useful, you need both religious and historical discernment to use it. I link to it for the simple reason many here believe its Nihil obstat.

I am not recommending anything ultramontanist,

I am recommending that you read to inform your understanding of what Catholics mean by IC. A cursory reading would identify your error.

My? error.

There it is. You talk about carelessly about what is entailed by in the Catholic doctrine of the IC. - how it somehow implies that she would be exempt from death. That is just not what the Catholic doctrine says. And very explcitly. Did you miss this?

I try to smooth out the contradiction. Saying there is no contradiction doesn’t make it go away.

and from the EO perspective, what ID says what still she was subject to of Original Sin is what Original Sin is, as the quote below shows.

I don’t get the relevance. First, there are no shortage of differing descriptions of Original Sin in the “Orthodox literature”. Some dovetail with the Catholic description, some have significant distinctions. Some are thoughtful and some just polemics. But what does any of that have to do with the IC?

The last line: no original sin, no death.

Surely the argument is no that, by the phrase “stain of original sin”, Catholics mean the “most obvious” effects of Original sin described in some Orthodox writings. Manifestly we do not. And in exempting Mary from this stain, we are talking about sanctification akin to the effect of baptism. That is what Fr. Lev documents. Not “death” which is an utter red herring.

We understand that. Like baptism of desire. No, we don’t buy that either.

Baptism is into Christ’s death and Resurrection. He hadn’t done that at the Theotokos’ conception.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You really miss the point. Death in any substantive, religious sense has been vanquished. And this is fully realized in the case of Mary who has been translated to heaven. That is what Easterners say - not just in pious legends - but in the liturgy. That is why we sing of translation from “life to life” and of a “deathless dormition”. That has meaning and significance.

Why are you attaching significance to what might be called “clinical death”. Who cares? We have been liberated from this care.

Again, its called DORMITION. And that means original sin, at least in the Fathers’ understanding.

 

[Hesychios]

what is …

CNEWA

Read to your hearts content.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

And I will repeat. We had St. Ephrem. We had the Bible.

The Church did and still does.

As soon as they were interpreted as IC, it was condemned as an innovation.

who were the people involved in this condemnation? Could you provide some more information.

Just to let you know, in case you were unaware, our holy fathers, St. John Chrysostom and St. Thomas Aquinas, both Doctors of the Church, both got it wrong on the matter of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sinlessness: St. John suggested the august Virgin was a sinner and St. Thomas did not affirm the IC as St. Ephrem did in my signature. A dogma is a truth that has been made known by the Teaching authority of the Church. No one can go to Heaven unless he consents to all of the Truth taught by the Church. At the time of St. John Chrysostom and St. Thomas Aquinas, the Immaculate Conception was not a dogma thus they were not bound to believe it. We are.

 

[Dauphin]

We recognize that some claimed it in the early Church.

We deny any got it. And the historical record, and the Fathers, support that.

It’s hard to get it from a bunch of chauvinistic orientals. Happily, he has it now. Your argument sounds like the consent of the faithful trumping truths handed down by Christ.

Tell that to the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils, the canons of several which mandate (re)baptism.

I expected more of you, Isa! Are you referring to the Synod of Carthage, which was not ecumenical at all?

An African synod held under the very guy Stephen was fighting with, which was soundly repudiated, is supposed to move my conscience to admit the truth of rebaptism? I wasn’t aware the East still held to this error! The Synod of Carthage called for rebaptism against the Divine law and the Apostolic tradition.

You cited Cyprian. Cyprian was the one who translated and promulgated this letter. I’ll look at what he did as well as what he did.

After all, if he committed an error, why can’t he commit another?

Error abounded in the east. It seems like the only one not in error was the Pope.

So you say. Obviously you are incorrect.

So we’ve discovered a new date for the Great Schism, have we? 256?

Yes, and that’s why you claim that pagans and atheists can baptize. Hocus pocus. Btw, that’s not the argument Stephen made, or do you have something in mind?

No, I’m simply trying to illustrate the continuity of papal teaching. Pope St. Stephen may not have made the argument explicitly, but his position reflects its truth.

Mardukm, you getting this?

And every time he tried exercising that “full and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church,” he got his hand slapped, from Pope Victor on.

There were times when the East got a hold of their pride deferred to the Holy See of Rome.

This is a case of a bishop, actually a synod of a metropolia even in Rome’s patriarchate telling the Pope of Rome that he was wrong in a matter of Faith and Morals uttered from St. Peter’s throne.

And the Vicar of Christ is wrong because a rebellious synod says so?

And I suppose artificial contraception is just dandy because the Canadian Episcopal conference rejected Humanae Vitae?

O Wait! I forgot the EO fell for that error too!

Neither of which the Fathers accepted.

Which fathers? Be specific.

 

[dvdjs]

My? error.
I try to smooth out the contradiction. Saying there is no contradiction doesn’t make it go away.

and from the EO perspective, what ID says what still she was subject to of Original Sin is what Original Sin is, as the quote below shows.

The last line: no original sin, no death.

Yes this is just plain error on your part. You substitute, into a Catholic dogma, an Orthodox understanding of “original sin” for the Catholic understanding “stain of original sin”. Well all sorts of nonsense might emerge from such interchanges. You may have problems with the Catholic understanding of original sin - some Orthodox do - but it sheer nonsense to embed that problem, as though it didn’t exist, into the terminlogy used to discuss the IC, then proclaim a new contradiction.

 

[dvdjs]

Again, its called DORMITION. And that means original sin, at least in the Fathers’ understanding.

In fact, some Orthodox do call it “Assumption”. And as I’ve pointed out it is also called “deathless dormition”. I think there is a good reason for that. It is something of a blasphemy against the resurrection to speak otherwise.

As to the Fathers’ understanding, I think we both know that the Orthodox literature is all over the map on original sin. But again that is a separate issue that just confuses discussion of the IC.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Church did and still does.

who were the people involved in this condemnation? Could you provide some more information.

Just to let you know, in case you were unaware, our holy fathers, St. John Chrysostom and St. Thomas Aquinas, both Doctors of the Church, both got it wrong on the matter of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sinlessness: St. John suggested the august Virgin was a sinner and St. Thomas did not affirm the IC as St. Ephrem did in my signature. A dogma is a truth that has been made known by the Teaching authority of the Church. No one can go to Heaven unless he consents to all of the Truth taught by the Church. At the time of St. John Chrysostom and St. Thomas Aquinas, the Immaculate Conception was not a dogma thus they were not bound to believe it. We are.

Yes, YOU are.

Which is part of the point. You quote St. Ephrem. Now, none of the Eastern (or for that matter Western) Syrians believed in the IC. For the Easterners, this is especially relevant, as they denied her the title Theotokos. Now along comes the emessaries from the Vatican after a millenium of hymn writing, theology etc. and part (the majority?) of the Assyrians submit to the Vatican and become Chaldeans. No changes are made in the liturgy, hymns etc except to stick the name of the pope of Rome in the commemoration. So they go off blissfully unaware that things have changed. Some of the brightest go off to Rome, where of course they emulate the ways of the big sister (as Rome didn’t give the Faith to Syria, mother sounds strange). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So they pick up the idea of, say, the IC, along with other latinizations, and, eager to please, start reading it into things of their own tradition which they try to keep. Of course then, everything becomes crystal clear! Of course this referes to the IC! Ignoring, of course, that none of their forebares, who sang those same hymns, saw anything of the sort. Nor do those who remain outside of the Vatican’s jurisdiction (the situation for all but the Maronites), who, because THEY have not changed their theology, and because the Vatican breaks lex orandi lex credendi, sing the same hymns, don’t see the Vatican’s theology in their common hymns. So then the accusation is that these change their theology just to spite the pope of Rome, as if they care what he says or thinks. The projection of this obsession with the Vatican sometimes knows no bounds.

Btw. the dogma begins in England of all places (ironic in view of the English Reformation). The feast shows up there in c. 850, but the Immaculate part is not promoted as part of it until the 12th cent. by Anselm (Atonement Anselm)'s friend Eadmer, who defended English (he was Anglo-Saxon) folklore in a popular pamphlet, De Conceptione sanctae Mariae. Note, post schism. St. Bernard of Clairvaux 1090-,1153 Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure (teaching at Paris, called it “this foreign doctrine”). The English persisted in spreading it, Duns Scotus inventing the syllogism potuit, decuit ergo fecit (God could do it, it was fitting that He did it, and so He did it) as its “proof.”

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Yes, YOU are.

Which is part of the point. You quote St. Ephrem. Now, none of the Eastern (or for that matter Western) Syrians believed in the IC. For the Easterners, this is especially relevant, as they denied her the title Theotokos. Now along comes the emessaries from the Vatican after a millenium of hymn writing, theology etc. and part (the majority?) of the Assyrians submit to the Vatican and become Chaldeans. No changes are made in the liturgy, hymns etc except to stick the name of the pope of Rome in the commemoration. So they go off blissfully unaware that things have changed. Some of the brightest go off to Rome, where of course they emulate the ways of the big sister (as Rome didn’t give the Faith to Syria, mother sounds strange). When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So they pick up the idea of, say, the IC, along with other latinizations, and, eager to please, start reading it into things of their own tradition which they try to keep. Of course then, everything becomes crystal clear! Of course this referes to the IC! Ignoring, of course, that none of their forebares, who sang those same hymns, saw anything of the sort. Nor do those who remain outside of the Vatican’s jurisdiction (the situation for all but the Maronites), who, because THEY have not changed their theology, and because the Vatican breaks lex orandi lex credendi, sing the same hymns, don’t see the Vatican’s theology in their common hymns. So then the accusation is that these change their theology just to spite the pope of Rome, as if they care what he says or thinks. The projection of this obsession with the Vatican sometimes knows no bounds.

Btw. the dogma begins in England of all places (ironic in view of the English Reformation). The feast shows up there in c. 850, but the Immaculate part is not promoted as part of it until the 12th cent. by Anselm (Atonement Anselm)'s friend Eadmer, who defended English (he was Anglo-Saxon) folklore in a popular pamphlet, De Conceptione sanctae Mariae. Note, post schism. St. Bernard of Clairvaux 1090-,1153 Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure (teaching at Paris, called it “this foreign doctrine”). The English persisted in spreading it, Duns Scotus inventing the syllogism potuit, decuit ergo fecit (God could do it, it was fitting that He did it, and so He did it) as its “proof.”

Curious, where are your people denying the IC explicitly or implicitly?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes this is just plain error on your part. You substitute, into a Catholic dogma, an Orthodox understanding of “original sin” for the Catholic understanding “stain of original sin”. Well all sorts of nonsense might emerge from such interchanges. You may have problems with the Catholic understanding of original sin - some Orthodox do - but it sheer nonsense to embed that problem, as though it didn’t exist, into the terminlogy used to discuss the IC, then proclaim a new contradiction.

I’m sorry that we insist on consistency where there is none.

and yes, the whole idea the West (blamed on Augustine by most) on sin, original sin, etc. is the reason why the IC becomes necessary. Since we, like the Fathers, don’t share those ideas, of course we don’t accept their fruit, IC.

Now, when we’re talking about what the Vatican states as dogma, that’ s one thing.

But when we are talking about the original Church, and what the Fathers believed, that’s another.

 

[mardukm]

Yes this is just plain error on your part. You substitute, into a Catholic dogma, an Orthodox understanding of “original sin” for the Catholic understanding “stain of original sin”. Well all sorts of nonsense might emerge from such interchanges. You may have problems with the Catholic understanding of original sin - some Orthodox do - but it sheer nonsense to embed that problem, as though it didn’t exist, into the terminlogy used to discuss the IC, then proclaim a new contradiction.

Very well put, brother. I often find EO polemicsts coming up with all sorts of false dichotomies and imaginray problems just to maintain their false agenda that Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox are completely incompatible.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Anyone read this defense of the IC?

google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loupizzuti.com%2Fbartonic.htm&ei=Ad2bSNYZmc61A9vi4ekH&usg=AFQjCNGwpPcIwmB2MOxftf9U-w404qrnOQ&sig2=B6PciYtAUv776SCi9OyBUQ

 

[dvdjs]

I’m sorry that we insist on consistency where there is none.

If you want to have a discussion, then it is important that words, generally, mean one thing at a time. I cannot be sure that you want one.