Original Sin

[Matt16_18]

RBushlow:

I believe that they not only have their own catechism …

The Catholic Church confesses one faith, and Eastern Catholics had their (name removed by moderator)ut into the Universal Catechism. The Eastern Catholics may use a different language than the Western Catholics to express the one faith of the Catholic Church, but all Catholics are united by the same faith.

A not widely appreciated fact about the new Catechism of the Catholic Church is that several sections on the Catechism reflect the (name removed by moderator)ut of Eastern Catholic theologians. One such contributor was Fr. Jean Corbon, a **Melkite Catholic priest ** and author of the book “The Wellspring of Worship.”

Fr. Corbon, in his book, explains a triple energy of the Holy Spirit (Corbon, pp. 67-73): the first, to manifest Christ to us (cf. CCC 1099, the Holy Spirit recalls the mystery of Christ), i.e. anamnetic synergy; the second, to transform us into the glorious body of the Lord (cf. CCC 1104, the Holy Spirit makes present the mystery of Christ), i.e. epicletic synergy; the third, to insert us into the communion of Christ with the Father (cf. CCC 1108, the communion of the Holy Spirit), i.e. the synergy of communion. In comparing Fr. Corbon with the Catechism, the only difference is that the Catechism has a preparatory stage: the Holy Spirit prepares for the reception of Christ (cf. CCC 1093), i.e. preparatory synergy.

The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Liturgy

 

[Myhrr]

RBushlow:

I believe that they not only have their own catechism but their won Cannon Law separate from the Western Rite Cannon Law. So this should not be a hinderence, even if some folks at EWTN think so.

I think EWTN were making the point that the Melkites don’t agree with certain RCC dogmas, and making it badly, it was clearly false to say that the Melkites had agreed to them - the Melkite’s point is that it has the right to expect better from a Catholic educational source.

Did you read any more from that site? I was very impressed with their consciousness of themselves in the middle of Orthodox and RCC, a bridge between the two. But even with that I still can’t see how the RCC can give up CCC 882/3 without admitting fallibility.

.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Bless me, Father.

I don’t mind at all if you believe the Orthodox Church is the true Church and that she teaches the true Faith. What I do find triumphalistic is when you refuse to acknowledge the common Faith that we have, and try to preach to the choir things that you should realize our Churches already share in common – e.g., such a basic teaching as the impassibility of God.

Not everybody realises that there is a patristic teaching on the impassibility of God. Not everybody is in the choir

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

The Orthodox are quite incapable of explaining the details of how it is that the laity give their “approval” to an Ecumenical Council, or which Church Father ever spoke of such a thing, or where the scriptures speak of the laity approving the teachings of the Apostles before those teachings were binding on the whole church. The complete inability of the Orthodox to explain their belief that the laity are the ultimate temporal authority in determining the validity of doctrine doesn’t phase the Orthodox at all. You have accepted this lie of Orthodoxy, and you believe that as a lay person that YOUR interpretations of scripture must be accepted by the rest of the world. As I said, you are a natural product of Orthodoxy.

And yet, glory to God, it w-o-r-k-s !

The Orthodox know which Councils are the work of the Spirit and which are robber councils.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The Spirit guides the Church into truth as her Bridegroom promises.

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr Ambrose:

The Orthodox know which Councils are the work of the Spirit and which are robber councils.

Obviously, they don’t know.

 

[jimmy]

Fr Ambrose:

And yet, glory to God, it w-o-r-k-s !

The Orthodox know which Councils are the work of the Spirit and which are robber councils.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The Spirit guides the Church into truth as her Bridegroom promises.

The Orthodox know what are Ecumencal because it was declared before the split that they were ecumenical. But the Orthodox have not had a council since then that has been considered by a large majority of there church to be Ecumenical. So how can you say that it works if you have never proven it to work?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

jimmy:

The Orthodox know what are Ecumencal because it was declared before the split that they were ecumenical. But the Orthodox have not had a council since then that has been considered by a large majority of there church to be Ecumenical. So how can you say that it works if you have never proven it to work?

Councils are held when the Church is faced with some serious, usually internal, danger from heresy. Glory to God that the Orthodox Church, after beating back the serious Trinitarian heresies in the first 700 years, has been at peace for the last 1300 years and has not needed to call a Council to combat any heresy.

Sad to say, since it broke communion with Orthodoxy, the Roman Catholic Church has needed to call another 14 Councils!!! Something is awry! Obviously they have been facing serious dogmatic issues and heresies, and it may be beneficial for them to look at the East and try to discern why the Orthodox have had no significant dogmatic upsets for the past millennium and more.

 

[jimmy]

Fr Ambrose:

Councils are held when the Church is faced with some serious, usually internal, danger from heresy. Glory to God that the Orthodox Church, after beating back the serious Trinitarian heresies in the first 700 years, has been at peace for the last 1300 years and has not needed to call a Council to combat any heresy.

Sad to say, since it broke communion with Orthodoxy, the Roman Catholic Church has needed to call another 14 Councils!!! Something is awry! Obviously they have been facing serious dogmatic issues and heresies, and it may be beneficial for them to look at the East and try to discern why the Orthodox have had no significant dogmatic upsets for the past millennium and more.

Maybe Satan already sees the Orthodox as in his pocket.

He is still trying to get us though and he can’t.:dancing:

 

[Matt16_18]

jimmy:

The Orthodox know what are Ecumencal because it was declared before the split that they were ecumenical. But the Orthodox have not had a council since then that has been considered by a large majority of there church to be Ecumenical. So how can you say that it works if you have never proven it to work?

The Orthodox invented a novel doctrine after the great eastern schism, and that is the fuzzy doctrine that the “whole church", in some vague, and undefined manner, has to “approve” an Ecumenical Council before said council can be known to be valid.

No Ecumenical Council that the Orthodox accept as valid ever had to be approved by the laity. No Father of the Church ever once mentioned that the laity were the ultimate temporal authority in the church, and that the laity get to approve Ecumenical Councils. And certainly there is nothing in the scriptures that supports the bizarre notion that the laity were approving the doctrines taught by the apostles.

This is no small matter. It is inconceivable that after two thousand years of Christianity, that there could be a doctrine about the necessity of the laity giving their approval to Ecumenical Councils, and at the same time, having absolutely no idea about how such approval is given.

How do the laity “approve” Ecumenical Councils? Do the laity vote? Do the laity have to give a majority approval, two-thirds majority, or must this approval of the laity need to be unanimous? Do infants get to vote? Do children? At what age do the laity have to reach before their approval or disapproval is taken seriously? How much time is allowed for this approval process? One year? One decade? A thousand years? How do we know that ANY ecumenical council has actually been approved by the whole church? Could the church members of today decide that the last council was not valid? Why can’t the church members suddenly decide that the last council was invalid? After all, they too are members of the “whole church” – why shouldn’t their vote count? Do all unborn members of the Orthodox Church also get a say about the validity of Ecumenical Councils?

If an ordinary person would just give five minutes of thought to this ridiculous assertion that the “whole church” needs to approve an Ecumenical Council , he or she would see how absurd this Orthodox assertion really is. Of all the heretical doctrines of the Orthodox, this one is surly the lamest of them all.

 

[jimmy]

The Orthodox invented a novel doctrine after the great eastern schism, and that is the fuzzy doctrine that the “whole church", in some vague, and undefined manner, has to “approve” an Ecumenical Council before said council can be known to be valid.

No Ecumenical Council that the Orthodox accept as valid ever had to be approved by the laity. No Father of the Church ever once mentioned that the laity were the ultimate temporal authority in the church, and that the laity get to approve Ecumenical Councils. And certainly there is nothing in the scriptures that supports the bizarre notion that the laity were approving the doctrines taught by the apostles.

This is no small matter. It is inconceivable that after two thousand years of Christianity, that there could be a doctrine about the necessity of the laity giving their approval to Ecumenical Councils, and at the same time, having absolutely no idea about how such approval is given.

How do the laity “approve” Ecumenical Councils? Do the laity vote? Do the laity have to give a majority approval, two-thirds majority, or must this approval of the laity need to be unanimous? Do infants get to vote? Do children? At what age do the laity have to reach before their approval or disapproval is taken seriously? How much time is allowed for this approval process? One year? One decade? A thousand years? How do we know that ANY ecumenical council has actually been approved by the whole church? Could the church members of today decide that the last council was not valid? Why can’t the church members suddenly decide that the last council was invalid? After all, they too are members of the “whole church” – why shouldn’t their vote count? Do all unborn members of the Orthodox Church also get a say about the validity of Ecumenical Councils?

If an ordinary person would just give five minutes of thought to this ridiculous assertion that the “whole church” needs to approve an Ecumenical Council , he or she would see how absurd this Orthodox assertion really is. Of all the heretical doctrines of the Orthodox, this one is surly the lamest of them all.
[/quote]

Good points, I have never thought about it like that. :tiphat:

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

jimmy:

Maybe Satan already sees the Orthodox as in his pocket. .:dancing:

Then he must have had a nasty surprise when approximately 20 million Orthodox Christians were willing to be killed for Christ rather than fall down and worship Satan when he had control of the countries of Eastern Europe via their communist govenments over the previous 80 years !!

After he received that shock he won’t think that we are in his pocket, will he?

The blood of these holy Martyrs is already bearing fruit in a new springtime in the Church.

 

[prodromos]

Matt16_18:

Of all the heretical doctrines of the Orthodox, this one is surly the lamest of them all.

Of all the strawmen…

 

[Matt16_18]

prodromos:

Of all the strawmen…

It is not a straw man argument. The Orthodox are running around claiming that the laity must “approve” an Ecumenical Council before the council is valid. If they can, let the Orthodox explain this novel doctrine of the primacy of the laity. But of course, the Orthodox can’t explain this strange doctrine, and Fr Ambrose has as much as admitted that.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

It is not a straw man argument. The Orthodox are running around claiming that the laity must “approve” an Ecumenical Council before the council is valid. If they can, let the Orthodox explain this novel doctrine of the primacy of the laity. But of course, the Orthodox can’t explain this strange doctrine, and Fr Ambrose has as much as admitted that.

There are many things we cannot explain. Electricity is one example - but we know that our light bulbs light up and our computers click on.

How do you explain infallibility? How do you explain what the Apostles meant when they held the first infallible council and announced their decisions -“it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

What does that really mean? HOW did they know that what they had decided was “good to the Holy Spirit”?

Roman Catholics have dodged this question by creating a deus ex machine, one man in Rome, who has been declared to be infallible. There is no more “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” The bottom line is now “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and TO ME” - to the Pope of Rome. Catholics may talk abouit conciliarity and such like after Vatican II, but the fact remains that while the Pope may consult with the bishops (IF he desires to consult them) his infallible statements are still “non ex concessu fidelium” - not with the consent of the faithful. The bishops and laity are really irrelevant to papal teachings.

It is not so within Orthodoxy. Here the Holy Spirit has not been restricted to one man but we continue on with the genuine apostolic practice. Infallibility does not attach to one man like a piece of magic. Doctrine is known and safeguarded by the entire Church; the Holy Spirit dwells in each and every baptized member of Christ. So the Orthodox can still use the apostolic formula “it seems good to the Holy Spirit AND TO US” but Catholics cannot use it in any meaningful way since they have changed the teaching of the Apostles and restricted infallibility to just one bishop.

 

[jimmy]

Fr Ambrose:

Then he must have had a nasty surprise when approximately 20 million Orthodox Christians were willing to be killed for Christ rather than fall down and worship Satan when he had control of the countries of Eastern Europe via their communist govenments over the previous 80 years !!

After he received that shock he won’t think that we are in his pocket, will he?

The blood of these holy Martyrs is already bearing fruit in a new springtime in the Church.

Fr, just so you know, I wasn’t :nope: being serious there.

 

[prodromos]

Matt16_18:

It is not a straw man argument

It is a strawman argument because there is no doctrine of primacy of the laity in the Orthodox church.

When a bishop or priest starts teaching something that is novel, something that is not what was believed always, everywhere, by all, how do you think word gets around to the other bishops?

The laity perhaps?

 

[hlgomez]

Catholics may talk abouit conciliarity and such like after Vatican II, but the fact remains that while the Pope may consult with the bishops (IF he desires to consult them) his infallible statements are still “non ex concessu fidelium” - not with the consent of the faithful. The bishops and laity are really irrelevant to papal teachings.

Fr.,

So if, for example, the Pope says that cloning is not morally right and the majority of the bishops/faithful says it’s right, then since the majority had it, then they are right?

So the Orthodox can still use the apostolic formula “it seems good to the Holy Spirit AND TO US” but Catholics cannot use it in any meaningful way since they have changed the teaching of the Apostles and restricted infallibility to just one bishop.

There is no such thing as “it seems good to the holy Spirit…” Everything that is good is good and as clear as crystal for the holy Spirit. Nothing is shadowy to Him. He is the one that makes it clear for the faithful–and to the Papa most especially who leads the whole flock on earth. Even if it doesn’t seem good to us, but if it’s good for the holy Spirit–then it’s really good whether we like it or not! We cannot question God for that!

Pio

 

[Matt16_18]

prodromos:

It is a strawman argument because there is no doctrine of primacy of the laity in the Orthodox church.

The Orthodox implicitly teach the primacy of the laity. To avoid taking this thread off the topic of Original Sin, I have started a new thread that shows why the Orthodox believe in the primacy of the laity: Orthodoxy & primacy of the laity

 

[Matt16_18]

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

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Fr Ambrose:

Councils are held when the Church is faced with some serious, usually internal, danger from heresy. Glory to God that the Orthodox Church, after beating back the serious Trinitarian heresies in the first 700 years, has been at peace for the last 1300 years and has not needed to call a Council to combat any heresy.

Sad to say, since it broke communion with Orthodoxy, the Roman Catholic Church has needed to call another 14 Councils!!! Something is awry! Obviously they have been facing serious dogmatic issues and heresies, and it may be beneficial for them to look at the East and try to discern why the Orthodox have had no significant dogmatic upsets for the past millennium and more.

Perhaps so, although presumably when we look to the East we should ignore Greece or Egypt and cast our eyes over towards Persia, where they have not had need of a council since 381. In fact, perhaps we should consult the Baptists, who have never needed a council at all (with the possible exception of Jerusalem).