M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
All goes to prove my point about Wikipedia. I find it quite frustrating that I do not understand all this. To say my theology is poor is an understatement.
- Status
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I don’t know either. I was just citing Wikipedia.Matthew,
While I am not Orthodox, I have never heard or read anywhere about Mary’s soul leaving her body and then three days later rising to heavenI could be completely wrong, and if I am, I hope some of knowledgeable Orthodox posters here will correct me.
I did mean the Catholic Church.
Yes, quite a bit, thanks!
V
Vico
Guest
There is no dogmatic teaching regarding the exact moment that any soul leaves the body, only it is thought to be at the time of death. Notice that Jesus’ risen body was not seen after being placed in the tomb until by Mary Magdalene on the morning after the Sabbath, when she did not at first recognize Jesus (Gospel of John). Then Jesus said to Mary Magdalene, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet returned to the Father" (John 20:17). In Munificentissiums Deus is stated that the Blessed Virgin mary did not have to wait for the end of time for the redemption of her body, the body was not corrupted (my bold):
- … And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.
- Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.
V
Vico
Guest
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
MardukM,
I’ve been away from this thread for about a day and a half because of personal obligations—so I’ve catching up on the posts here. I must say, you explanation sounds like a reasonable one to me. But of course, folks here may disagree with me. maybe I’m reading what I WANT to read in it.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Unfortunately, I mostly agree with you.
On the other hand—
The issue of Papal Authority and Control is still a BIG point of disagreement btween the OC and RC (or more generally, East And West) that holds up any point of Reconciliation/Reunification. Not the ONLY BIG point. but still ONE of the Big Points.
The OC, to put it bluntly, will not really agree to accept total Papal Infallibility and control and the RC will not relinquish some of that control. Total stalemate.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Pardon the ignorance here----but like I’ve said before, I’m realtively new to the EC and points of theological debate are new also to me. I’m more familiar with Philosophical Debates (that’s why I post on the Philosophy Forum a lot, but that’s neither here nor there)-------
Again, pardon the Ignorance----and you can call me out on that “ignorance” if you want to
-----All I’m doing is learning----but the idea that The Blessed Theotokos’s soul went to Heaven and THEN the Body Resurrected does NOT make sense to me. Are you saying that the Body Resurrected and then joined with the Soul in Heaven?
Now THAT makes sense. But two Separate entities in Heaven that were originally ONE BEING? That just sounds somewhat “strange” to me.
I guess you meant “Body Resurrected, Then joined with Soul in Heaven.”
If I’m wrong and it’s another meaning, please by all means correct me.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
This post answered the question of my previous post. Thank you.
U
una_fides
Guest
Correct me if I’m wring, but from what I’ve read and from the discussions I’ve had with some Orthodox priests, don’t they deny original sin, at least as the Catholic Church understads it anyway? They deny that anyone is conceived outside a state of grace and in a state of enmity with God. They believe that we are born “good” and that our souls are in such a state but later through personal choices they become disfigured by sin. I asked why then do they baptize infants and was told that it’s just what the Church has always done and that it placed them in Christ and in the Church, but they would not admit that it cleanses one from original sin. They basically hold to the semi-pelagian view. That said, they sort of believe that we are all immaculately conceived! So I don’t see why the fuss with understanding that Mary was when their issue is much deeper. The primary objection and problem seems to be the pope and the fact that it was taught through his authority as the highest authority for the Church on earth.
M
mardukm
Guest
It’s altogether possible that you heard that from EO priests. There are some who seem proud to style themselves semi-Pelagian, in honor of St. John Cassian. Very strange. I’ve met EO who are simply speechless when confronted with the question, “If baptism is for the remission of sin as the Creed tells us, what sin is being washed away at baptism?” Other EO have a more Catholic understanding, and don’t see anything wrong with the IC other than the dogmatization.
Blssings
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I’m curious, did any Ecumenical Council confirm the decisions of the Second Council of Orange?
V
Vico
Guest
St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople wrote,
“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his members”
Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 A.D. 388
So the Eastern Orthodox admit the abundant graces baptism bestows, and the lack of this grace is precisely what the Catholic Church calls the stain of original sin.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Orthodox believe in a stain of the Ancestral Sin by which we are seperated from God, but to say that this stain IS a sin is wrong. There is no guilt held by babies for the sins of Adam, and Baptism is for forgiveness of all sin, not just those sins previously committed.
M
mardukm
Guest
Amen. All those things the Latin Church has always taught. If you think they taught or teach differently, then perhaps you are depending too much on non-Catholic polemic material to inform you of the Catholic Church?
Blessings
G
Ghosty
Guest
This is the Catholic position as well. Sin, in the Latin usage, can mean both actions and a state of being. Babies are born in the state of sin, but are certainly not born as sinners.
Peace and God bless!
U
una_fides
Guest
Here is an excerpt from “This is the Faith” by Canon Francis Ripley, which is an explanation of the Catholic Church’s teaching on original sin: Original sin is the sinful condition in which men are born and which we inherit from our first parents, Adam and Eve. When Adam fell, by deliberately sinning against God, he plunged the whole human race into a state of guilt. In fact, he was the human race; his was not only a personal sin, but a racial, a family sin. The effects of the sin of Adam for his descendants were as follows:
- In the soul there was a loss of divine grace, privation from Heaven, ignorance of the intellect, weakness and malice in the will, concupiscence in the heart;
- In the body there was the loss of man’s extraordinary natural gifts; plus, the new conditions of work, sickness, death and corruption;
- On earth there was unfruitful soil, which had to be tilled; some of the animals were now ferocious and beyond control.
…
Original sin does not imply any injustice on the part of God, for it does not injure man in anything that is natural to him. Adam, it is true, lost all his supernatural and preternatural gifts, not only for himself, but for us, his descendants, as well. But those gifts were neither his nor ours by right of our nature; God only gave them to him gratuitously, on the condition that Adam was to obey his commandment. … ‘Original sin is not an evil bias, a tendency to wrong, a taint in spirit or flesh, a corruption of any part of human nature as such. Concupiscence, the natural activity of instincts or passions not subordinate to reason, is not Original Sin, but a consequence of it, even though it may lead, often enough, to actual sin.’ All men, except Our Lady, come into this world depraved of that sanctity and justice God intended them to have; it is precisely in this deprivation that Original Sin exists. It is a true sin, one which we inherit, but do not ourselves commit. It is voluntary in us only because, physically, we were included in Adam, in that he and we form one family. He could represent us, and God appointed him to represent us. Adam held the special gifts God gave him in trust for himself and all his descendants, just as a peer [a lord in the English government] may hold his title and emoluments for himself and his descendants. Hence, our whole race stood or fell with Adam. He, in fact, failed, and all mankind were thus involved in his loss.
There is also a better and more in depth explanation that can be found in “The Faith Explained” by Leo Trese. pgs 55-60. You can read for free online by clicking here.
In response to what you said about “guilt” for Adam’s sin, I would not say that we believe that we are all born “guilty” of Adam’s personal sin as if we ourselves committed it. Nevertheless, in Adam, all men die, so that our souls are born in a state lacking sanctifying grace, which was a gratuitous gift that God had given to Adam, which he lost for all of us. We are all born into this state of Original Sin, at enmity with God. We are not born holy and righteous but are born outside of fellowship with God, which baptism fully restores.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Nine_Two,
).
The Council of Orange rejected Semi-Pelagianism, which was literally half of what Pelagius taught. Pelagius taught that a man had the inherent capacity to attain to salvation - i.e., he did not need Grace to accept God, nor to maintain a life of sanctification before God. There is no notion of cooperation with Grace. The 3rd Ecum accepted Augustine’s teaching that man alone cannot come to God, but must cooperate with His Grace at all times, from the first instance of his acceptance of God, and throughout his life unto salvation.
St. John Cassian taught that man does not need Grace to accept God, but after acceptance, man cooperates with Grace to maintain a life of righteousness before God. The Third Ecum taught that man must cooperate with Grace at ALL times. That is why St. John Cassian was in error and was accordingly censured by the Second Council of Orange.
The other thing that the second Council of Orange did was to formally reject Augustinian predestination.
Blessings
No. But it’s teachings were strictly based on what was accepted by the Third Ecumenical Council against Pelagianism. So it’s teachings were infallible (because it simply repeated the infallible teachings of the 3rd Ecum), though the Council itself was never ecumenical (I should mention that it had the explicit confirmation of the Pope, but that wouldn’t mean much to you.
).The Council of Orange rejected Semi-Pelagianism, which was literally half of what Pelagius taught. Pelagius taught that a man had the inherent capacity to attain to salvation - i.e., he did not need Grace to accept God, nor to maintain a life of sanctification before God. There is no notion of cooperation with Grace. The 3rd Ecum accepted Augustine’s teaching that man alone cannot come to God, but must cooperate with His Grace at all times, from the first instance of his acceptance of God, and throughout his life unto salvation.
St. John Cassian taught that man does not need Grace to accept God, but after acceptance, man cooperates with Grace to maintain a life of righteousness before God. The Third Ecum taught that man must cooperate with Grace at ALL times. That is why St. John Cassian was in error and was accordingly censured by the Second Council of Orange.
The other thing that the second Council of Orange did was to formally reject Augustinian predestination.
Blessings
U
una_fides
Guest
I think I recall reading years ago that the Council of Carthage also touched on original sin and that Pelagious was condemned as a heretic at the Council of Nicea.Dear brother Nine_Two,
No. But it’s teachings were strictly based on what was accepted by the Third Ecumenical Council against Pelagianism. So it’s teachings were infallible (because it simply repeated the infallible teachings of the 3rd Ecum), though the Council itself was never ecumenical (I should mention that it had the explicit confirmation of the Pope, but that wouldn’t mean much to you.
The Council of Orange rejected Semi-Pelagianism, which was literally half of what Pelagius taught. Pelagius taught that a man had the inherent capacity to attain to salvation - i.e., he did not need Grace to accept God, nor to maintain a life of sanctification before God. There is no notion of cooperation with Grace. The 3rd Ecum accepted Augustine’s teaching that man alone cannot come to God, but must cooperate with His Grace at all times, from the first instance of his acceptance of God, and throughout his life unto salvation.
St. John Cassian taught that man does not need Grace to accept God, but after acceptance, man cooperates with Grace to maintain a life of righteousness before God. The Third Ecum taught that man must cooperate with Grace at ALL times. That is why St. John Cassian was in error and was accordingly censured by the Second Council of Orange.
The other thing that the second Council of Orange did was to formally reject Augustinian predestination.
Blessings
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I’m aware, and agree it is error (cf. John 6:44), but my question is more rather it has been explicitly condemned in the East. The Third Ecumenical Council Condemned Pelagius, but I believe it was only the doctrine he was teaching, correct me (with references please) if I am wrong, and not doing more specifics.
M
mardukm
Guest
I am not aware of any explicit condemnation of semi-pelagianism in the East. Of course, “semi-pelagianism” is just a name. What we need to consider is the teaching - namely, the idea that man can move toward God on his own without divine Grace. In that light, the Eastern Church did condemn semi-Pelagianism twice. First, at the Fourth Ecum Council, then at the Synod of Trullo. The Fourth Ecum and the Synod of Trullo condemned semi-Pelagianism by their explicit acceptance of the canons of the Council of Carthage of 419.
Canon 62 (63 in Greek)
It seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of justificiation was given to us only that we might be able more readily by grace to perform what we were ordered to do through our free will; as though if grace was not given, although not easily, we could even without grace fulfill the divine commandments, let him be anathema. For the Lord spake: “Without me ye can do nothing,” and not "Without me ye could do it but with difficulty."
EO writers hold him in high regard for his opposition to some of the more extreme elements of Augustinian soteriology, but they do not seem to analyze him beyond that circumstantial state of affairs. The more detailed defense of St. John Cassian is a very recent phenomenon of the latter 20th century. The modern argument usually rests on the fact that St. Cassian in some places indeed states that all our actions are of Grace. But what these modern writers gloss over is the fact that the reason St. Cassian can do this is because he regards our free will itself as “of Grace.” Of course, even Pelagius can say that our free will is “of Grace” since our whole being is a creation of God, but that does not mean that our free will by itself without some “other” Grace from God is sufficient on its own to move towards God.
We actually owe our understanding of what the Council of Ephesus condemned about Pelagianism to St. John Cassian. He explained the intimate connection between Nestorianism and Pelagianism. Just as Nestorianism sought to divide the human nature from the divine nature in Christ, so Pelagianism similarly sought to divide the human nature from the necessity of divine Grace in man. Nestorianism and Pelagianism consisted of the same error - the separation of the human from the divine. Whereas Nestorianism did so with respect to Christ, Pelagianism did so with respect to man. Pelagianism was in effect a natural corollary of Nestorianism.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status