Golly gee, Griselda!! You may be right. He has a v-e-r-y suspicious address
There is an interesting Orthodox re-appraisal of Pelagius written by Fr Geoffrey Ready in Ireland.
Hey, this is YOUR Council too!! We were united in those glorious days - Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria - the Big Five, the Pentarchy
Hmmm … you believe that everyone is born in grace, and that the only way to conceive of grace, is to understand that grace is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But the Orthodox believe that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is bestowed by receiving baptism and chrismation.
Truth be told, I wonder if something analogous does not happen on the Orthodox side of the equation, such that when an Orthodox Xian hears a Catholic say “atonement,” he strings together a whole melange of concepts ranging from “we offer Thee this unbloody sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins” all the way to “Lord’s Gym” t-shirts popular among Fundamental Baptists (“His Pain, Your Gain”). Really, I know that I do not mean anything more by the words “vicarious atonement” than the ancient liturgists meant when they described Christ as the “Pascal Lamb” or Isaiah meant when he said that “by His stripes we are healed.” Come to think of it, I read the Cur Deus Homo, and it was not obvious to me that St. Anselm meant anything much more than that.
Hmm, Pelagius was discussed was he? The whole council is about Nestorius.
No doubt; I just figured that E-Catholic would know already that we Catholics had condemned Pelagianism (not just at Ephesus but many times over besides), so it scarcely seemed necessary to reiterate. Far be it from me, however, to suggest that somehow Ephesus is anything less than a cherished Ecumenical Council among us Catholics. Apologies for any misimpressions given. :tiphat:Hey, this is YOUR Council too!! We were united in those glorious days - Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria - the Big Five, the Pentarchy
Good deal. So there you have it kids, a real, live Orthodox bishop has articulated an understanding of “original sin” which is essentially the same as the understanding articulated by various Catholic authorities. Evidence is mounting that the allegations of differences have been largely exagerated.
Matt16_18 said:
Grz,
Being as we Catholics are all good Augustinians (although, I would maintain, not quite so much as some Orthodox here seem to think), we would need to make it quite clear what we mean by “sin” before we could take that oath. We could happily swear that we do not believe that any sort of culpable fault is inherited (never have believed any such thing, for that matter). We do believe that we inherit a privation of holiness (if one can speak of “inheriting” a lack of something). Given that one can use the word “sin” to mean a lack of a particular goodness, we might quibble over whether we could deny that one inherits “sin,” but only sin considered in that sense of a lack of complete holiness. If you mean “sin” as in “it’s a sin to tell a lie” then we would have no troubles in denying that this is inherited from our first parents.
An interesting read, to be sure, but I guess it seems to me that at the end of the day, the Ephesian fathers have still condemned Pelagius and no amount of reconstructed letters are going to change that. I would be delighted to think that Pelagius was not really a Pelagian heretic, but if that is the case, why are we even talking about him? The only thing of any note which he did (at least which survives to our day) was (at least alledgedly) to father the Pelagian heresy. Even if the Ephesian fathers erred in ascribing such a heresy to Pelagius, they still condemned the heresy, so the fact still remains that if the Orthodox and the Catholics really do disagree (and as I said above, I am not convinced that we do), at the very least, our disagreement is not about Pelagianism. One way or another, both the Orthodox and the Catholics agree that Pelagianism is wrong.
Still far from clear to me what Catholics believe.
I would be delighted to oblige, but first I would ask that you define what you mean by “Adam’s sin” so that I know what question I am answering.
Adam’s sin is disobedience.
"This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin."You have said that the only way to understand grace is that it is the uncreated Gift of the Holy Spirit indwelling in the soul. Father Ambose’s definition was a little more subtle, but basically it is the same definition of yours, i.e. that the Catholics are all screwed up, and that grace can only be conceived as the uncreated grace of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, he did say this. It is yet one more belief that contradicts scriptures.
One absolutely must remember that Baptism and Chrismation are inseparable for the Orthodox. A priest simply cannot perfom a Baptism without following it immediately with Chrismation.
Trying to understand here - I follow you up to this point, but then I ask what does Pentecost (which is what Latin rite bases “Confirmation” on) mean or signify to the Orthodox?