Original Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter e-catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Matt16_18 said:
Myhrr

Bishop Kallistos Ware affirms the Catholic teaching that Original Sin brought disease and death to the world. The Fall: Original Sin. God gave Adam free will — the power to choose between good and evil — and it therefore rested With Adam either to accept the vocation set before him or to refuse it. He refused it. Instead of continuing along the path marked out for him by God, he turned aside and disobeyed God. Adam’s fall consisted essentially in his disobedience of the will of God; he set up his own will against the divine will, and so by his own act he separated himself from God. As a result, a new form of existence appeared on earth — that of disease and death. By turning away from God, who is immortality and life, man put himself in a state that was contrary to nature, and this unnatural condition led to an inevitable disintegration of his being and eventually to physical death. The consequences of Adam’s disobedience extended to all his descendants. We are members one of another, as Saint Paul never ceased to insist, and if one member suffers the whole body suffers. In virtue of this mysterious unity of the human race, not only Adam but all mankind became subject to mortality. Nor was the disintegration which followed from the fall merely physical. Cut off from God, Adam and his descendants passed under the domination of sin and of the devil. Each new human being is born into a world where sin prevails everywhere, a world in which it is easy to do evil and hard to do good. Man’s will is weakened and enfeebled by what the Greeks call ‘desire’ and the Latins ‘concupiscence.’ We are all subject to these, the spiritual effects of original sin.

Excerpts from the Orthodox Church
by Bishop Kallistos Ware

Bishop Kallistos Ware is the product of his upbringing, we can only hope that in time he comes to incorporate more of the spiritual treasures he has already encountered in Orthodoxy, which means right thinking, right conception, and is then able to brush the vision of Augustine from his shoulders and stand up straight in the vision of Genesis I

I was naked and you clothed me, I was in prison and you visited me, I was hungry and you fed me.
 
40.png
Myhrr:
Bishop Kallistos Ware is the product of his upbringing …
And you are a product of your upbringing. Since you were brought up as a member of the laity in an Orthodox Church, it doesn’t surprise me at all when you sit in judgement of Bishop Ware’s teachings. Your own bishops have taught you that you possess the highest temporal authority in the Church, and that you, as a member of the Orthodox laity, are infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in judging the validity of doctrine.

The Orthodox teach that their bishops ALONE can define doctrine at an Ecumenical Council, but that the Orthodox laity possess the authority to determine the validity of the doctrines that their bishops define. Thus, as a lay person, it is your right and duty to render your judgement that Bishop Ware is teaching error.

Yep, no one can argue with you, because as a member of the laity of the Orthodox Church, YOU have a share of the highest temporal authority of Christs’ Church, an authority that is above all bishops, including whatever authority that the pope might possess. Every knee must bow to your interpretations of scripture.

Bishop Kallistos Ware is the product of his upbringing, and YOU are the product of the Orthodox doctrine of the primacy of the laity. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
Bishop Kallistos Ware is the product of his upbringing, and YOU are the product of the Orthodox doctrine of the primacy of the laity. :rolleyes:
Orthodox America
**Axios! **

“From the very beginning of the historical existence of the Church, there were certain persons whom God Himself appointed to govern through the bestowal of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Only he who has received the gift of government can govern the people of God. The laity, while they do not have the gift of government, have the gift of discernment to “prove all things” (I Thess. 5:21). This represents a special form of ministry entrusted not to individual members of the Church, but to the people of God as a whole in their common task. In the early Church, everything that took place, whether it was the celebration of the Mysteries, the reception of catechumens or penitents into the Church, the excommunication of heretics, etc.-all was done with the participation of the people. The testimony of the people concerning the revelation of God’s will in the early Church was in the nature of a consensus concerning that which took place as being consonant with God’s will. This did not mean that each member of the clergy or laity expressed his personal opinion or desire concerning whatever was being done in the Church. The church authority, in the person of the bishops, was not bound by the will of the people, just as the people were not bound by the will of their leaders. The overriding authority was the will of God as revealed by the Holy Spirit acting through the bishops and confirmed by the same Spirit in the voice of the people.”

roca.org/OA/136/136k.htm

Theology and Mysticism in the Tradition of the Eastern Church

by Vladimir Lossky


“Orthodoxy recognizes no visible head of the Church. The unity of the Church expresses itself through the communion of the heads of local churches among themselves, by the agreement of all the churches in regard to a local council—which thus acquires a universal import; finally, in exceptional cases, it may manifest itself through a general council.[7] The catholicity of the Church, far from being the privilege of any one see or specific centre, is realized rather in the richness and multiplicity of the local traditions which bear witness unanimously to a single Truth: to that which is preserved always, everywhere and by all. Since the Church is catholic in all her parts, each one of her members—not only the clergy but also each layman—is called to confess and to defend the truth of tradition; opposing even the bishops should they fall into heresy. A Christian who has received the gift of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of the Holy Chrism must have a full awareness of his faith: he is always responsible for the Church. Hence the restless and sometimes agitated character of the ecclesiastical life of Byzantium, of Russia and of other countries in the Orthodox world. This, however, is the price paid for a religious vitality, an intensity of spiritual life which penetrates the whole mass of believers, united in the awareness that they form a single body with the hierarchy of the Church. From this, too, comes the unconquerable energy which enables Orthodoxy to go through all trials, all cataclysms and upheavals, adapting itself continually to the new historical reality and showing itself stronger than outward circumstances. The persecutions of the faithful in Russia, the systematic fury of which has not been able to destroy the Church, are the best witness to a power which is not of this world.”

orthodoxinfo.com/general/lossky_intro.aspx
 
Myhrr
Orthodoxy recognizes no visible head of the Church.
Which is why the local particular churches of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do not comprise one Church united in doctrine.
 
Matt16_18 said:
Myhrr

Which is why the local particular churches of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do not comprise one Church united in doctrine.

That’s an extrapolation too far from what was being explained. The Orthodox Church has only Christ as its head; papacy, the replacement of Christ by someone else is a heresy, i.e. unorthodox Christian doctrine. You aren’t united in doctrine, the Melkites don’t agree to papal infallibility.

**“It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism-the primacy of the Pope exhalting himself equal to God.” - St. Mark the Evgenikos (of Ephesus) **

What you take for granted and extol as a virtue in your Church is a denial of what the Church is for Orthodox:

“Through the dogma of “Infallibility” the Western church lost its spiritual freedom. It lost its beauty and balance, and was deprived of the wealth of the grace of the Holy Spirit, the presence of Christ- from spirit and soul ended up a dead body. We are truly grieved for the injustice done to the church and we pray from the bottom of our hearts that the Holy Spirit illumine the mind and the heart of the Most Blessed Pontiff to have him return to the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH that which he took from her, something that should never have taken place.” - St. Nektarios of Aigina

You see your loss of free will to a papacy which claims it is Christ on earth for you as a source of strength, those who’ve never had this see this as a loss. Some would put it more strongly:

“In the history of mankind there are 3 falls: The fall of Adam, of Judas the Iscariot and that of the Pope. The essence of falling into sin is always the same: the desire to become God by oneself. In this manner, a man insensibly equates himself with the devil, because he also wants to become God by himself to replace God with himself…The fall of the Pope lies exactly in this very thing; to want to replace the God-man with the man…” - St. Justin Popovich of Serbia
 
40.png
Myhrr:
Through the dogma of “Infallibility” the Western church lost its spiritual freedom.
Infallible means without error. Are we to understand that the Ortdox confess no doctrines that are free from error? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
Infallible means without error. Are we to understand that the Ortdox confess no doctrines that are free from error? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Do you make scarecrows for a living by any chance? You seem to have a real knack for making strawmen 😃

John.
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
Infallible means without error. Are we to understand that the Ortdox confess no doctrines that are free from error? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
We’ve got lots of those…

Luke 6:37
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
 
The “forgive” was in bold because it’d been highlighted in a search, but really each of those should be in bold.

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged:
condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned:
forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:


How many sins has the RCC judged mortal?

To what has it condemned those who die in mortal sin?

How does it forgive? As Christ?

John 8:10
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

John 8:11
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
Which is why the local particular churches of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do not comprise one Church united in doctrine.
Matt, you are confused!

According to Roman Catholic teaching the Orthodox Church (Constantinople, Antioch,etc) did not come into existence until the year 1054 - the Great Schism when Rome broke communion with all Eastern Catholics

Those now known as Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Ethiopians, Armenians) were all Catholics under the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome in the 4th century. At that time they went into schism from the Catholic Church and they left the authority of the Church of Rome and the Pope of Rome.

Is this not the facts of Roman Catholic history, Matt?

So what does a Church (the Oriental Orthodox) which came into existence by ‘schisming’ from the Pope’s authority in the 4th century have to do with a totally separate Church (the Byzantine Orthodox) which only came into existence much much later in the 11th century?

You’re not making much sense here, Matt!
 
Fr Ambrose

False prophets have been leading Christians to fall away from the true Church since the beginning. The Docetists were able to take Christians into schism, Marcion took Christians into schism, the Donatists took Christians into schism, etc.

The Oriental Orthodox were not the first Christians to be led into schism with the Catholic Church by false prophets. Most of the ancient schismatic groups have fallen into oblivion, but not all, (e.g. the Syrian Jacobites). The Eastern Orthodox fell into schism with the true church later than the Donatists and the Oriental Othodox, but what of it? The Catholic Church never denied that the Donatists did not have bishops that were validly ordained, nor has the Catholic Church ever denied that the Oriental Orthodox have bishops that are validly ordained. What would be the point of denying the historicity of the apostolic succession that these schismatic bishops have maintained?

The Catholic Church certainly recognizes that the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Old Catholics, the Lefevreites, etc. have bishops that are truly in a line of succession from an Apostle. That is why, if a Eastern Orthodox bishop were to repent of schism and be reconciled with Catholic Church, the EO bishop would not receive the Sacrament of Ordination again. That is not the case of an Anglican Bishop or Anglican priest that desires to be reconciled to the Catholic Church. The Anglican bishops and priests would have to receive the Sacrament of Ordination since they are not truly priests or bishops with from a valid line of Apostolic succession. (There are extremely rare cases where an Anglican priest or bishop was ordained by an Utrecht Union Old Order Catholic bishop …).

From the Catholic POV, the term “Eastern Orthodox” is a conventional term used to distinguish a specific subset of local particular Churches that went into schism with the Catholic Church at a particular time in history. The “Eastern Orthodox” are merely a large subset of ununited schismatics groups that have validly ordained bishops.
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
What would be the point of denying the historicity of the apostolic succession that these schismatic bishops have maintained?
There is a difference between RCC and Orthodox in viewing “apostolic succession”.
The “Eastern Orthodox” are merely a large subset of ununited schismatics groups that have validly ordained bishops.
Or, they will say, they are the ones who have retained ‘valid’ bishops.
 
ORIGINAL SIN ALERT!

There is a fascinating discussion underway on Original Sin in the Apologetics section.

Why fascinating?

Because the Catholics writing there are espousing the pre-Vatican II understanding of orginal sin as both inherited sin and inherited guilt.

The more recent understandings, post Vatican II and embodied in the CCC and much more in line with Orthodoxy, have obviously not filtered through to the great number of the faithful.

This poses interesting questions about 1) the sensus fidelium and the infallibility thereof, and 2) the manner by which Council doctrine is received and accepted by the laity.

The discussion is
John the Baptist born without original sin??
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=213911#post213911
 
Destiny of Children dead without baptism being discussed by Theological Commision

VATICAN CITY, Vatican, Oct. 06, 2004 (CNA) - The theme of the “the fate of children who die without receiving the sacrament of baptism in the context of the universal salvation plan of God will continue to be reflected on by the International Theological Comission, currently holding their annual plenary session in the Vatican from October 4-8.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=2130

also:

**Commission discussing fate of children who die without baptism

**The Vatican-based International Theological Commission has resolved to find an answer to the question of what happens to children who die without being baptised.

According to traditional Catholic teaching, baptism is necessary for salvation. However few Catholics believe that children, who have not had the opportunity to accept or reject the sacrament of initiation into the Church, will be denied salvation by God.

“The Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] asked us to reflect on the question of baptism, at the request of the episcopal conferences have raised many questions of that subject,” said Archbishop Roland Minnerath of Dijon, France, a member of the Commission.

cathnews.com/news/410/27.php
 
Do you know how long they take to publish after such a discussion? I note that it takes several years to finalise but is there some interim publication of it?
 
Fr Ambrose said:
**Commission discussing fate of children who die without baptism
**

The Vatican-based International Theological Commission has resolved to find an answer to the question of what happens to children who die without being baptised.

One rather wonders why they are bothering. It would seem to me that most of the heavy lifting on this subject was done at the Council of Florence.

Council of Florence said:
[T]
he souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top