NEW: Original Sin/Immaculate Conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAssisi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Father,

Thanks for reminding me. Too many posts swimming in my head on similar topics! I will do some research and get back to you. I will say off the top of my head, though, that I obtained the claim from a Coptic Orthodox website where the issue was being discussed between EO and OO, and the contributors basically agreed over the whole thing and made some references. I will attempt to recover that part of my memory. Give me a few days.

Also, can you answer my question above: when is the first time you are aware that the Orthodox contested the Catholic understanding of Original Sin?

God bless,
Greg
 
40.png
GAssisi:
What is the oldest record you have of the Orthodox “struggling and fighting” against the Catholic Church on this point? I am not aware of it being “centuries old.”
Click to expand...
I would place the oldest record in the early 5th century.

The first time it surfaces is in the writings of Saint John Cassian and the monks of Marseilles who were not willing to accept the Augustinian teaching on Original Sin.

Saint John Cassian and his writings were condemned as heretical by one of the Councils of Orange. They termed it semipelaganism. However he (and the monasteries of southern France) were in fact expressing the true teaching of the Church as regards the nature of original sin, grace and freewill. The Church of course does not call it semipelagianism, but it is expressed as the doctrine of ‘synergy.’

Cassian was a product of the East, having been schooled in the monasteries of the East and he introduced the forms of Eastern monmasticism to the West. His writings on the monastic life are still read by Orthodox monks. Since Vatican II he has undegone a rehabilitation in the Roman Catholic Church; I think his name is now included in Catholic calendars.

Saint John Cassian was writing against St Augustine in about 430, so this is the first time of which I am aware when the Augustinian view (which became the Roman Catholic view) clashed with the orthodox teaching.

Here is a quick synopsis of the varying doctrines, from an Orthodox Christian on another list… it is being discussed today!

**Augustinian ** - man is so depraved that he cannot even desire to be saved unless God puts that desire in him, let alone choose to do any good. (God saves man alone)

**Pelagian ** - man is corrupted and lives in a corrupted world but can desire and choose to do good and be saved, God would not ask what man cannot
achieve. (God helps man but man can save himself)

**Semi-Pelagian ** (Orthodox, St John Casian) - man is sick and corrupted but can still desire
what is good and God gives grace to those who desire salvation so that they can grasp it and choose it. (God chooses to save man with man’s effort and co-operation.)

(Modern Catholics tend to be semi-pelagians.)
 
Dear Father,

As noted elsewhere, I wish you would stop trying to present Catholic doctrine and stick to the Orthodox viewpoints. You have unfortunately and invariably misrepresented almost all the Catholic doctrines we have discussed so far, this being no exception.

If you are stating that semi-pelagianism is the position of Orthodoxy, then the Catholic Church will always ever condemn that error in your Church. But perhaps you are simply not being overly concise in your use of the term “semi-pelagian.” One of the points of the heresy of semi-pelagianism is its outright assertion that the first instance of justification is acquired due to mere human merit (in contrast to Pelagianism, semi-pelagianism admits that justifying works after this first instance is indeed acquired through grace). This facet of semi-pelagianism is not the synergy you are proposing, to which the Catholic Church agrees. Classic semi-pelagianism does not admit any synergy in the first instance of justification, but claims that the human will is enough to accomplish that. The reason John Cassian is becoming more acceptable in Catholic circles is not due to any acceptance of semi-pelagianism by the Catholic Church, but because further light on Cassian’s thoughts on the subject have come to light – namely, that he admitted that even the first instance of justification requires some sort of grace (in any case, John Cassian has never been completely rejected by the Catholic Church; his feast is kept in some parts of France, and even Pope St. Gregory the Great praised him).

But aside from all this, I want to repeat my question because you have not answered it to my satisfaction. I admit that was due to the lack of my own conciseness in positing the question. Thus: when is the first instance that Orthodoxy conflicts with the Catholic Church on the issue of original sin framed in terms of the current debate over it – namely, on the issue of the nature of original sin as referring either to the imputation of Adam’s actual sin and guilt, or more as an idiom for the consequences of the first sin. I hope you can appreciate my reframing of the question because the issue with which John Cassian and Augustine struggled is not the same issue we are now discussing. So please, do answer the question as it has been re-presented.

I will be candid with my reason for this question. It is my impression that the impetus for this supposed dichotomy between the Eastern and Western understandings of Original Sin was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The Orthodox, concerned to maintain false dichotomies between Eastern and Western theology, imposed this artificial distinction on the issue. I come by this view because the issue of Original Sin is never contested apart from the issue of the Immaculate Conception, and I have never seen nor heard it proposed apart from each other. Thus, if you can show me that this apparent debate regarding Original Sin began before the mid-19th century, I can appreciate the difference more (though the difference, as you’ve noticed is only apparent, not real), and rest easy that it is not a merely artificial distinction proposed by the Orthodox to further the cause of division.

God bless,

Greg
 
40.png
GAssisi:
As noted elsewhere, I wish you would stop trying to present Catholic doctrine and stick to the Orthodox viewpoints. You have unfortunately and invariably misrepresented almost all the Catholic doctrines we have discussed so far, this being no exception
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. I am correct and you are misrepresenting the Western position as presented by the Council of Orange.

Would you be kind and offer us the newly discovered fragments of Cassian on prevenient grace? Your whole presentation hinges on this.

Perhaps it is here?
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-11/Npnf2-11-63.htm#P5240_1885757

The true teaching of St. Cassian which is the teaching of the Orthodox Church, was something of a mystification to the Latin mind. Cassian saw grace and freedom as parallel, grace always cooperating with the human will for man’s salvation.
 
40.png
GAssisi:
As noted elsewhere, I wish you would stop trying to present Catholic doctrine and stick to the Orthodox viewpoints. You have unfortunately and invariably misrepresented almost all the Catholic doctrines we have discussed so far, this being no exception.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you might take this advice under consideration when you are making statements on behalf of the Orthodox? 😉

You have repeatedly spoken for the Orthodox on several major points, and falsely.

You have declared with firm conviction:
  1. The Orthodox have reached a final agreement with the Catholics on the filioque. - Not true
  2. The Orthodox have agreed that the differences concerning the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin have been resolved. -Not true.
  3. The Orthodox have reached a final agreement on Christology with the Monophysites. - Not true.
When asked to offer your evidence for these statements, you have never been able to offer anything!

If you search back through my posts, you will see that whenever you have asked me to back statements with references I have nearly always been able to do so.
 
Dear Father,

How does your post#24 contest my post? Please explain.

With regards to your charges that I am misrepresenting Orthodoxy, I wish you would read through whatever posts you are referring to in context. I have consistently stated that on the issues you have mentioned, the Orthodox are refusing to accept common ground due to hard-heartedness. That seems to pretty much sum up the Orthodox position.

The only issue which I might be guilty of trying to (mis)represent Orthodoxy is the issue with the Monophysites (I still need to do research). But even in that area, you cannot deny that there have been great strides on the issue between EO and OO, and CC and OO. So you cannot honestly claim I am misrepresenting ALL of Orthodoxy on the issue.
God bless,
Greg
 
Also, can you please answer my question as I rephrased it? Thanks

Greg
 
Speaking of answers, I’m still waiting for one to the question I posed back in post #6…

I’m starting to believe there is no answer.
 
Fr Ambrose:
The Catechism is correct. It tells us that we do not inherit any sin from Adam and Eve but we are afflicted with the **consequences **of the first sin of our first ancestors.

Is this what Catholicism teaches also?

That no sin is transmitted…

That *only *the consequences of our first parents’ sin is transmitted…

If this is so, then the Catholic Church’s doctrine may possibly be very similar to the Orthodox doctrine. But I doubt if this has been the perennial teaching of the Church of Rome, or why would they have struggled and fought for centuries with the Orthodox on this point?
“I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.” ~Proverbs 7:17
Click to expand...
The Catechism is correct. St. Thomas said the following.
As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xiv), sin is accursed, and, consequently, so is death, and mortality, which comes of sin. “But Christ’s flesh was mortal, ‘having the resemblance of the flesh of sin’”; and hence Moses calls it “accursed,” just as the Apostle calls it “sin,” saying (2 Cor. 5:21): “Him that knew no sin, for us He hath made sin”—namely, because of the penalty of sin. “Nor is there greater ignominy on that account, because he said: ‘He is accursed of God.’” For, “unless God had hated sin, He would never have sent His Son to take upon Himself our death, and to destroy it. Acknowledge, then, that it was for us He took the curse upon Himself, whom you confess to have died for us.” Hence it is written (Gal. 3:13): “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.”
Click to expand...
The flesh is what is cursed, it is not an actual sin being passed on. Original sin is just the loss of Original justice to all mankind, or grace to all mankind. One of the consequences of this is the loss of the relationship we have with God. At baptism, with the removal of Original Sin, we recieve grace and we are welcomed into the church of God.
 
40.png
GAssisi:
Also, can you please answer my question as I rephrased it? Thanks

Greg
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. I have asked you for so many answers on major issues which you raise and then you simply ignore requests for references…
  1. Magisterial references to support your contention that the Pope is “First among Equals” in Catholic teaching. You tried to duck this by saying that it is a “negative inference” on your part since no one has denied it :confused:
You have asserted, erroneously:
  1. The Orthodox have reached a final agreement with the Catholics on the filioque. - Not true
  2. The Orthodox have agreed that the differences concerning the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin have been resolved. -Not true.
  3. The Orthodox have reached a final agreement on Christology with the Monophysites*. - Not true*.
I have asked several times for you to substantiate these statements which in anybody’s book are major issues between the Churches, but you never give me the courtesy of a reply.

If you search back through my posts, you will see that whenever you have asked me to back statements with references I have nearly always been able to do so.
 
40.png
mtr01:
Speaking of answers, I’m still waiting for one to the question I posed back in post #6…

I’m starting to believe there is no answer.
Click to expand...
According to Roman Catholic teaching today, the sin remitted by Christ is
  1. concupiscence and the loss of original justice. (I understand that this is the official modern RC definition of Original Sin?)
  2. personal sin.
hlgomez: Father Ambrose is just a product of a schismatic Orthodox Church. Why listen to his suppose “teachings” about original sin? He is not even a bishop. Message #4
Click to expand...
 
Fr Ambrose:
According to Roman Catholic teaching today, the sin remitted by Christ is
  1. concupiscence and the loss of original justice. (I understand that this is the official modern RC definition of Original Sin?)
  2. personal sin.
Click to expand...
Formally it is not concupiscence. Concupiscence is like consiquence of the loss of OJ. It is a way that OS manifests itself.
 
Dear Father,

It is obvious you cannot answer my question. Why not simply admit it, and stop trying to hide behind excuses? I guess the Orthodox Church IS guilty of actively working for DISunity. (Another reason NOT to be Orthodox, by the way 🙂 👍 )

The fact of the matter is, I have already responded to everything you have just written about. Please see post #26. But I see now that is your own little tactic of avoiding the issue. You simply ignore answers that have been given. Concerning the issue over “first among equals,” I gave you a list of references to the CCC, but you, again typically, simply refused to acknoweldge them.

BTW, would you like me to give a list of the MANY questions I have asked to which you have never bothered to give a reply?
God bless,
Greg
 
40.png
GAssisi:
It is obvious you cannot answer my question. Why not simply admit it, and stop trying to hide behind excuses? I guess the Orthodox Church IS guilty of actively working for DISunity. (Another reason NOT to be Orthodox, by the way 🙂 👍 )
Click to expand...
How silly of you to guess that!
 
Originally Posted by Fr Ambrose
According to Roman Catholic teaching today, the sin remitted by Christ is
Click to expand...
  1. concupiscence and the loss of original justice. (I understand that this is the official modern RC definition of Original Sin?)
Click to expand...
  1. personal sin.
Click to expand...
40.png
jimmy:
Formally it is not concupiscence. Concupiscence is like consiquence of the loss of OJ. It is a way that OS manifests itself.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Christ died as a consequence of the loss of Original Justice?
 
In a very real sense, Jesus did die for the loss of Original Justice. He also died for our sins and to conquer bodily death - in effect, He died so the recreation of the world may occur.

To fend off a possible misinterpretation of your question, Jesus was not able to die because of the loss of Original Justice; Jesus died of His own volition. No one took His life from Him.

God bless,
Greg
 
Fr Ambrose:
How silly of you to guess that!
Click to expand...
OK, let me rephrase my statement: I guess the Orthodox Church is PASSIVELY working for disunity. Better? 😉

Greg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top