M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
This doesn’t make any sense.
Is the Eastern Orthodox Church correct
- Thread starter CathBoy1
- Start date
- Status
I
Isearch
Guest
G
George720
Guest
The first time I arrived there, a little after the Vespers Service had already begun and the day was turning into night, the sound of the Service, in this little Church, on this little mountain in California, gave me great gladness just to know that these men every night keep vigil for the world… And the music they chant is out of this world - As are all Church Services…
Home of a future Saint now reposed, Fr. Seraphim Rose - A purely American Orthodox Saint to be…
geo
Last edited:
G
George720
Guest
Children, by inheriting death from Adam, do indeed “inherit Sin from Adam”… For it is upon this death that they do inherit, that all have sinned… And as the Psalmist writes, “For in sins did my mother bear me”… Which itself affirms the transmission of sins from the mother to the child… And yet the manner of this transmission is not explained… So to say that their sins are derived from Adam is correct, and in many ways so derived, but this is not to say that they inherit Adam’s sin… Our sins are our own, and whatever we do that is not of God is sin…
Baptism cleanses the child of all of this, and enters him or her into Christ, and this after 40 days from birth… We do not Baptize freshly born babies, but 40 day old (or more) babies…
Welcome to the Fall of Adam…
Wherein our birth is a sentence of death…
And our rebirth is unto Life Eternal…
Glory to God!
geo
Last edited:
G
George720
Guest
Last edited:
G
glencor63
Guest
Is it possible that some, if not many Catholic teachings would not have come to fruition if the Eastern Orthodox Churches had been able to debate and provide an opinion?
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
As a disclaimer, what I am about to say is my opinion and not easily proven, except for someone who has been Orthodox longer than me preferably in the last century…please prove or disprove me if you are such a person…
The teaching of Original Sin comes primarily from St. Augustine, whom the Orthodox Church up until the last century considered a “pillar of Orthodoxy” even mentioning him in several local and Ecumenical Councils as such. For reasons unknown to me, possibly to try and distinguish Orthodoxy as a completely unique system alien to Western Christianity, the “theologians” and “academicians” in the Orthodox intelligentsia used the Doctor of Carthage as a scapegoat for the supposed “Apostasy of the West” and frequently slander this holy father of the Undivided Church as “Unorthodox”, “Legalist”, “Speculative Theologian” etc. In response to this, Blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose, a hieromonk of the ROCA wrote a defense entitled: *The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church".
The teaching on Original Sin is one perspective that now seems since the last century to have been eclipsed by the teaching on Ancestral Sin, which can be found here (this is actually a very balanced article and articulates both the development of the doctrine of Original and Ancestral Sin and speaks directly to the question of unbaptized infants):
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin
St. Paisios of the Holy Mountain speaks about the unbaptized souls of babies being a place of great joy surrounding Christ’s Throne, such that they have eternal bliss, yet they are not allowed entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven proper, because they have not been baptized, nor had the chance to struggle against temptations. But since they have not known any other pleasure to them the bliss surrounding Christ’s Throne is their greatest reward.
May God bless and keep you and illumine you with His Holy Wisdom.
The teaching of Original Sin comes primarily from St. Augustine, whom the Orthodox Church up until the last century considered a “pillar of Orthodoxy” even mentioning him in several local and Ecumenical Councils as such. For reasons unknown to me, possibly to try and distinguish Orthodoxy as a completely unique system alien to Western Christianity, the “theologians” and “academicians” in the Orthodox intelligentsia used the Doctor of Carthage as a scapegoat for the supposed “Apostasy of the West” and frequently slander this holy father of the Undivided Church as “Unorthodox”, “Legalist”, “Speculative Theologian” etc. In response to this, Blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose, a hieromonk of the ROCA wrote a defense entitled: *The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church".
The teaching on Original Sin is one perspective that now seems since the last century to have been eclipsed by the teaching on Ancestral Sin, which can be found here (this is actually a very balanced article and articulates both the development of the doctrine of Original and Ancestral Sin and speaks directly to the question of unbaptized infants):
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin
St. Paisios of the Holy Mountain speaks about the unbaptized souls of babies being a place of great joy surrounding Christ’s Throne, such that they have eternal bliss, yet they are not allowed entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven proper, because they have not been baptized, nor had the chance to struggle against temptations. But since they have not known any other pleasure to them the bliss surrounding Christ’s Throne is their greatest reward.
May God bless and keep you and illumine you with His Holy Wisdom.
Last edited:
G
George720
Guest
The South did not give up slavery without a civil war…
And then not without the intervention of the KKK…
And this after Sherman’s march…
The world has a certain tenacity…
We call it the persistence of sin…
geo
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
As an Orthodox, I would say yes.
Byzantine Catholics have a different theological approach to the Immaculate Conception:
https://melkite.org/tag/conception-of-the-theotokos
I do believe that both Orthodox and Roman Catholic can love side-by-side, if full communion with one another, as long as Latin theological expressions are not pushed into the Eastern Churches.
ZP
D
dochawk
Guest
The East (and not just EO, but EC) does not, however, have the same universal acceptance of nearly all of Augustine. In particular, his view on original sin is not accepted.
(and see other discussions [again, please not here] about how this non-dogmatic view led to the western dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and has the East scratching its head to this day, much as if “2+2=4” were asserted as dogma: not disagreement, but not needing assertion . . .)
K
Kei
Guest
I’m a tad confused here. As a Catholic, I thought original sin was spiritual death. Concupiscence (probably mispelled that) contains the tendency to sin.
How is this different from the Orthodox view? Do they mean physical death? Or am I missing something?
How is this different from the Orthodox view? Do they mean physical death? Or am I missing something?
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
@dochawk, @Kei If you read the article from Orthodoxwiki I posted, it explains the origin of the doctrine of Original Sin 
and the origin of Ancestral Sin. It is fairly brief and balanced and well worth the time. It discusses how the West relies heavily upon St. Augustine and the East upon St. Gregory of Nyssa. There is room in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for both theories, from two great and holy Church Fathers without turning it into another reason for division between East and West. 
and the origin of Ancestral Sin. It is fairly brief and balanced and well worth the time. It discusses how the West relies heavily upon St. Augustine and the East upon St. Gregory of Nyssa. There is room in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for both theories, from two great and holy Church Fathers without turning it into another reason for division between East and West.
K
Kei
Guest
I would say it is very much from the Orthodox viewpoint but not overly unbalanced. The treatment of limbo and expounding upon the happiness there is not some pendulum swing. Saying it isn’t a dogma or infallibly declared doctrine isn’t a pendulum swing, and positing the possibility of an unbaptised infant entering Heaven isn’t so much a pendulum swing but saying we shouldn’t put limits on God’s Mercy. But people who act like Limbo is just old news and don’t pay it any mind, I’d say that would seem a bit of a pendulum swing.
It seems to me mainly the issue is sort of semantics.
But there is a difference between actual sin and original sin. I suppose the way we say “impute guilt” is what is not liked, but like in other things, the disagreements seem like mostly differences in approaches or language.
We must be careful not to fall into Pelagian error, but I think our language sometimes brings out stumbling blocks. Like how we say, “pray to the saints” may be more of a stumbling block to protestants than if we would say “ask them to pray for us”, etc.
I suppose the biggest issue is that we see it as a spiritual death and not a physical death only (if you would disagree: I am not sure of how wide and varied the idea is among Orthodox), and (at least for me) the natural state of those not baptized, infant or not, would be without the beatific vision, and it being not so would be an extraordinary act. I consequently think praying for these children (and everyone) is so important.
But to deny that sin and resulting spiritual death are part of the package seems to deny Scripture:
“Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so [death] spread to all as all men sinned in him”
It seems to me mainly the issue is sort of semantics.
But there is a difference between actual sin and original sin. I suppose the way we say “impute guilt” is what is not liked, but like in other things, the disagreements seem like mostly differences in approaches or language.
We must be careful not to fall into Pelagian error, but I think our language sometimes brings out stumbling blocks. Like how we say, “pray to the saints” may be more of a stumbling block to protestants than if we would say “ask them to pray for us”, etc.
I suppose the biggest issue is that we see it as a spiritual death and not a physical death only (if you would disagree: I am not sure of how wide and varied the idea is among Orthodox), and (at least for me) the natural state of those not baptized, infant or not, would be without the beatific vision, and it being not so would be an extraordinary act. I consequently think praying for these children (and everyone) is so important.
But to deny that sin and resulting spiritual death are part of the package seems to deny Scripture:
“Sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so [death] spread to all as all men sinned in him”
Last edited:
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I would agree. Here is an example:
There are two levels of theology: theologia prima (which the Greeks call theologia); and theologia secunda (which the Greeks call theoria). The former is the foundational belief of the Church, as embedded in its rule of prayer, which is to say, its liturgical texts, in keeping with the maxim “lex orandi, Lex credendi”.
Father Taft writes of theologia prima:
“Theologia prima, or first-level theology, is the faith expressed in the liturgical life of the Church antecedent to speculative questioning of its theoretical implications, prior to its systematization in the dogmatic propositions of theologia secunda or systematic reflection on the lived mystery of the Church. Liturgical language, the language of theologia prima, is typological, metaphorical, more redolent of Bible and prayer than of school and thesis, more patristic than scholastic, more impressionistic than systematic, more suggestive than probative. In a word, it is symbolic and evocative, not philosophical and ontological.”
And with regard to the emergence of theologia secunda:
“Now although it is perfectly obvious, indeed necessary, that doctrine will acquire theological refinements, especially in the heat of dogmatic controversy, it should be equally obvious that such refinements cannot be read back into texts composed long before the problems arose which led to those precisions. To pounce upon ancient anaphoral texts and exploit them tendentiously in today’s theological controversies is an anachronistic procedure devoid of any legitimacy.”
With regard to the matter of the necessity purification of the soul, and the efficacy of prayer for the dead, the Eastern Churches have chosen NOT to speak dogmatically at the level of theologia secunda, but are content to accept the theologia prima found in our liturgical texts for the funeral and memorial rites. Hence, we believe that (a) the souls of the departed require purification before entering into the Kingdom of God; and (b) that prayers for the dead are efficacious to that effect. Nothing more is, or should be required, because this is the universal Tradition of the undivided Church.
Purgatory represents the theologia secunda of the Western Church, and it is their prerogative to develop doctrine as they see fit. What they cannot do is declare unilaterally that their doctrine, and especially their mode of theological expression, is incumbent upon and normative for all. As Eastern Catholics, we respect the doctrines of the Latin Church as long as they are compatible with ours on the level of the theologia prima, but we also insist on the right to our own modes of theological expression, and to develop our own theologia secunda within our own Tradition.
ZP
S
steve-b
Guest
What if?
Short answer
We as Catholics, AND all who put the effort into reading Church history, don’t have to ask that question.
Church history, is all on record, IN WRITING.
For example:
Can you show when
is the first time, IN HISTORY, IN WRITING, when the name "Orthodox Church" first appears?
When you find it, Please post it, "properly referenced"
Then you’ll have your answer.
In his position, where ever Peter is then, Peter is head of the Church everywhere. His last See was Rome. Therefore, That is where his successors , come from.
In short, a pope is a bishop, like all other bishops. However, ONE bishop, is elevated to the title pope. That is what Jesus did for Peter, That is what the Church continues to do for the successor to Peter.
AND
While Popes for example,
ordain bishops during their time in office… That doesn’t make all those bishops they ordain, then, popes, NOR successors to that pope.
When you wrote
" they truly claim to be, and have pretty strong arguments. Sure Peter set up the See of Rome, but did he not also set up the See of Antioch first?"
can you give references for the argument, properly referenced?
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
How is that possible if one Church (EO) says that a couple is married (after a church approved divorce) and the other Church (RC) says that the couple is in an adulterous state of mortal sin (because divorce is forbidden}?
A
AlNg
Guest
I thought that this de fide teaching has been changed and that the new de fide teaching is that there is hope that an unbaptized infant can go to heaven?
In response, what I meant was the Orthodox Church truly (from their perspective) claim to be the church founded by Christ.
When you wrote
" they truly claim to be, and have pretty strong arguments . Sure Peter set up the See of Rome, but did he not also set up the See of Antioch first?"
can you give references for the argument, properly referenced?
As for their pretty strong arguments, I would suggest asking somebody far more learned than me in their (EOC) traditions (as I am RC), after all you and I could make these arguments all day long until we’re blue in the face and at the end of the day, it is a matter of belief and opinion.
What I would point to, is an ecumenical council (which I believe ecumenical council‘s are considered infallible by the Roman church to this day correct?) approved of by the then current pope, saying let anybody who changes the creed be anathema, Yet this is exactly what a later pope done (Filioque) and that tradition (error maybe, idk) carries on to this day. So the question becomes is the pope and the ecumenical council together correct?
Or was the later pope correct?
Who is correct on this matter and who is infallible or are both infallible because they sure seem to be conflicting of one another.
Also when we look at the great schism, the four other ancient see’s distanced themselves from Rome.
Or was it Rome that distanced themselves from the four other ancient see’s?
It seems to me like two brothers (Patriarchs of Rome & Constantinople) got into a squabble, how to solve such an problem?
Look to your three other brothers and see who they side with in who is right or wrong, once a decision is made, accept it and correct your course, or otherwise separate yourself from all four of your brothers, this is how it seems things went down.
I have (and I am sure you have too) seen these arguments and many others played out before and they seem to have a pretty strong case.
There is also a strong case on the other side of the coin at the end of the day it all comes down to your personal belief and/or opinion, yet I find myself on the edge of the coin questioning which side I belong on.
As far as my questioning of why the patriarchs of Antioch shouldn’t be considered the successors of Peter was just my own musings and pointing out that Peter had set up other see’s, which seems non-relevant to RC’s & (somewhat?) relevant to EO.
That’s my two cents
When you wrote
" they truly claim to be, and have pretty strong arguments . Sure Peter set up the See of Rome, but did he not also set up the See of Antioch first?"
can you give references for the argument, properly referenced?
As for their pretty strong arguments, I would suggest asking somebody far more learned than me in their (EOC) traditions (as I am RC), after all you and I could make these arguments all day long until we’re blue in the face and at the end of the day, it is a matter of belief and opinion.
What I would point to, is an ecumenical council (which I believe ecumenical council‘s are considered infallible by the Roman church to this day correct?) approved of by the then current pope, saying let anybody who changes the creed be anathema, Yet this is exactly what a later pope done (Filioque) and that tradition (error maybe, idk) carries on to this day. So the question becomes is the pope and the ecumenical council together correct?
Or was the later pope correct?
Who is correct on this matter and who is infallible or are both infallible because they sure seem to be conflicting of one another.
Also when we look at the great schism, the four other ancient see’s distanced themselves from Rome.
Or was it Rome that distanced themselves from the four other ancient see’s?
It seems to me like two brothers (Patriarchs of Rome & Constantinople) got into a squabble, how to solve such an problem?
Look to your three other brothers and see who they side with in who is right or wrong, once a decision is made, accept it and correct your course, or otherwise separate yourself from all four of your brothers, this is how it seems things went down.
I have (and I am sure you have too) seen these arguments and many others played out before and they seem to have a pretty strong case.
There is also a strong case on the other side of the coin at the end of the day it all comes down to your personal belief and/or opinion, yet I find myself on the edge of the coin questioning which side I belong on.
As far as my questioning of why the patriarchs of Antioch shouldn’t be considered the successors of Peter was just my own musings and pointing out that Peter had set up other see’s, which seems non-relevant to RC’s & (somewhat?) relevant to EO.
That’s my two cents
Hello, that is a quote made by somebody else ((name removed by moderator)) from a different thread that I had only quoted, if you were to read the first three posts on this thread you will see that this is a quote from somebody else and you will see my reply to that quote.
Last edited:
- Status