Orthodox and Roman Catholic differences part 1 by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick-ancient Faith Radio

[rcwitness]

Orthodox would generally say that there is plenty of tradition to say that Mary was immaculate, but not ancient evidence to argue that she was born without being fallen. The difference really comes down to our different conceptions of Original/Ancestral Sin. Hence, why one side of the debate considers the doctrine either unnecessary for communion or fabricated.

That’s a fair comment.

One thing I have felt like sharing about the doctrine, is that I think the “necessity” of the doctrine being accepted is not necessarily because of the doctrine itself, but that the Church formally declared the doctrine to be a Truth in the faith.

So, like usual, I guess it just comes down to authoritative Teaching for us. Otherwise, I can definitely understand many Christian’s objection that Mary’s freedom from Original Sin should have no bearing on salvation.

Personally, I have never had much trouble accepting it. And I’m sure many Christians wouldn’t either. It just depends where the Tradition came from.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

When I first began my conversion to Orthodoxy, the priest I was originally working with was pretty strict on the fasting. Not so much for myself since I was in the process of converting. But rather for his own parishoners. Still I tried to follow the rules as though I had already converted, and I failed pretty hard. When I found my current priest, he was much more lax and understanding. My fasting rules and regulations that I currently abide have much more in common with what I did as a Catholic, such as the fact that I still permit myself ALL seafood (which Orthodox don’t). So yes, there is plenty of legalisms on both sides, especially with the Orthodox when it comes to hymns and liturgy.

As for ultramontanist popes, I think the popes for the last century have been pretty tame compared to the previous popes. I think being deprived of the Papal State really did a lot of good in those regards. As a result, the atmosphere in the Catholic Church is much more collegial. I was thinking of the grand history, however, specifically the 9th century onwards.

What concerns me is that ultramontanism has never been declared a heresy by the Catholic Church. So while the RCC may appear to be more collegial, many Catholics just think it is just appropriate “for the times”. Some posters here even write that the Church may have even needed ultramontanism during the medieval times. It seems that the doctrine of the papacy is culturally relative. The back door is still open for the Church to return to ultramontanism.

 

[josie_L]

Orthodox would generally say that there is plenty of tradition to say that Mary was immaculate, but not ancient evidence to argue that she was born without being fallen. The difference really comes down to our different conceptions of Original/Ancestral Sin. Hence, why one side of the debate considers the doctrine either unnecessary for communion or fabricated.

Well, I would say that the Orthodox are wrong:

5th Century

West: Bishop St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor of Grace) [Against Julian in PL 45:1418]: “We do not transfer Mary to the devil by the condition of her birth, for this reason, that that condition is dissolved by the grace of her new birth.” Latin: “Non transcribimus diabolo Mariam conditione nascendi; sed ideo, quia ipsa conditio solvitur gratia renascendi.”
WRH:

East: Bishop St. Theodotus of Ancyra [Homily 6:11 on the Holy Mother of God in PG 77:1427A],

In the place of Eve, an instrument of death, is chosen a Virgin, most pleasing to God and full of His grace, as an instrument of life.** A Virgin included in woman’s sex, but without a share in woman’s fault. A Virgin innocent; immaculate; free from all guilt; spotless; undefiled; holy in spirit and body; a lily among thorns.**

East: Archbishop St. Proclus of Constantinople before 466 [Homily 1:3 in PG 65:683B]: “As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.”

West: Archbishop St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna (Doctor) in 449 [Sermon 140 in PL 52:576A]: "The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to Whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to Whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made."

Bishop St. Maximus of Turin (Lambruschini 78) [Homily 5 Before the Nativity of the Lord in PL 57:235D]: **“Mary was a fit dwelling for Christ, not because of the disposition of her body, but on account of original grace.” **Latin: “Idoneum plane Maria Christo habitaculum non pro habitu corporis, sed pro gratiâ originali.”

6th Century

West: Bishop St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (Lambruschini 161-162) [Sermon 36 De laudibus Mariae ex partu Salvatoris in PL 65:899C]: “By these words [Hail, full of grace], the angel shows that she [Mary] was altogether excluded from the wrath of the first sentence, and restored to the full grace of blessing.” Latin: “Cum dixit, gratia plena, ostendit ex integro, iram exclusam primæ sententiæ, et plenam benedictionis gratiam restitutam.”

8th Century

East: St. Andrew of Crete (O’Connor 94) [Homily 1 on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in PG 97:809D-812]:

Today, Adam presents Mary to God as the first fruits of our nature… Today, humanity recovers the gift it had received when first formed by divine hands, and returns immaculate to its original nobility. The shame of sin had cast a shadow upon the splendor and charm of human nature; but when the Mother of Him Who is Beauty itself is born, this nature recovers in her person its ancient privileges, and is fashioned according to a perfect model, truly worthy of God. And this fashioning is a perfect restoration; this restoration is a divinization, and this divinization is an assimilation to the primitive state… In a word, the reformation of our nature begins today; the world, which had grown old, undergoes a transformation which is wholly divine, and receives the first fruits of its second creation.

East: Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor) (O’Connor 97) [Homily on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in PG 96:664AB]:

Nature was defeated by grace and stopped, trembling, not daring to take precedence over it [grace]. Since the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to precede the product of grace; but remained sterile until grace had produced its fruit. O happy loins of Joachim, which had produced a germ which is all immaculate. O wondrous womb of Anne in which an all-holy child slowly grew and took shape!

thebananarepublican.blogspot.ca/2008/07/immaculate-conception-of-ever-virgin.html

There is more if you wish to peruse.

 

[Peter_J]

You’re rather young, or brushing aside some of the things taught be previous generations. When I was a young Catholic, it was absolutely taught that Original Sin was a “stain”, a residue left on the soul that had to be cleansed by baptism. The simple act of being born meant you were guilty of Adam’s sin, and would go to hell unless baptized, which is why places like “limbo” were invented, to make it stomachache to imagine an innocent baby in hell. It’s easy now to look at the catechism and imagine this was simply naieve teaching, but it’s what my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents were taught.

I don’t know if this is helpful, but some of my fellow GCs suggested this: Rome requires that we believe that Mary had no “stain of Original Sin” … but doesn’t require us to believe that anyone does have a “stain of Original Sin”.

 

[Peter_J]

Orthodox would generally say that there is plenty of tradition to say that Mary was immaculate, but not ancient evidence to argue that she was born without being fallen. The difference really comes down to our different conceptions of Original/Ancestral Sin. Hence, why one side of the debate considers the doctrine either unnecessary for communion or fabricated.

But if Orthodox are saying the Catholics just “made up” the Immaculate Conception in the 19th century … well that’s either ignorance or a bit of a silly polemic.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m not familiar with Thomas Aquinas, but I am plenty familiar with the various Latin writings prior to the 12th century. If you would like, we can go over in-detail the text of the Second Council of Orange, Augustine’s 20th book from the City of God, and other various exegeses. These matters are intimately related to predestination. If Aquinas differed from what Patrick described, then good for Aquinas. But with the exception of Bede, most Latin theologians before him believed otherwise as what Patrick has shown us.

I was refering to the concept of a “stain” as something added to the soul, nothing else.

Peace and God bless!

 

[PatrickC]

I can’t speak for what you were taught, since I can’t account for how good your teachers were, but I will say that the Catechism now has the exact same teaching on sin as the Church always has. If it was poorly taught to you that is a problem, but you don’t have the right to claim that the Church teachings have changed just because they don’t sound like what you remember; it is far more likely that you misremember or were mistaught. This is especially clear since the “old” teachings can be found in the Catechism of Trent and the writings of folks like Aquinas that directly contradict that nonsense of a “residue” left on the soul. In fact, Aquinas dealt extensively with the subject, and he makes it quite clear that the “stain” is not a residue at all, but a privation of grace.

Some people make it sound as if the Church just made things up out of whole cloth after Vatican II, or that the new Catechism has some bold changes. In fact, the modern Catechism is nothing other than a more detailed version of the Catechism of Trent, issued at the behest of the Council of Trent, which is still available here and in book form. The new one is much, much clearer and in-depth, mind you, and stands that the current “best source” of Catholic teaching, but it merely builds on the previous work, and while it addresses things like social justice and drug use, things that weren’t addressed as such previously, the teachings haven’t changed a bit.

Peace and God bless!

Peace and God bless!

I can very much make that claim. I’d wager you’d get similar understandings if you talked to the older generation. Call it poor teaching, but it was defacto Church teaching at a time, among everyone I knew and it wasnt limited as you might like to believe. At best, the RCC failed to teach anything resembling proper Catholic teaching and theology to a mass of people for quite some time, or has really changed the way it views teachings over the past decades. As for Trent, how do you believe they understood “all must be subject to the Roman Pontiff” and “no salvation outside the Catholic Church” vs how it’s understood today? It all reeks of “C.Y.A.” if you catch my drift. I’m reminded why I usually don’t get into these arguments anymore; it’s pointless and you clearly grew up on a different Catholic planet than I or anyone I know did. My Polish and Irish grandmas and the priests who taught me weren’t simply ignorant.

 

[Ghosty]

I can very much make that claim. I’d wager you’d get similar understandings if you talked to the older generation. Call it poor teaching, but it was defacto Church teaching at a time, among everyone I knew and it wasnt limited as you might like to believe. At best, the RCC failed to teach anything resembling proper Catholic teaching and theology to a mass of people for quite some time, or has really changed the way it views teachings over the past decades. As for Trent, how do you believe they understood “all must be subject to the Roman Pontiff” and “no salvation outside the Catholic Church” vs how it’s understood today? It all reeks of “C.Y.A.” if you catch my drift. I’m reminded why I usually don’t get into these arguments anymore; it’s pointless and you clearly grew up on a different Catholic planet than I or anyone I know did. My Polish and Irish grandmas and the priests who taught me weren’t simply ignorant.

If you were taught that the stain was something substantial, something added to the soul, then you were taught the wrong thing. It really is that simple. As for the other matters you raise, I’m not going to address them.

Peace and God bless!

 

[twf]

If you were taught that the stain was something substantial, something added to the soul, then you were taught the wrong thing. It really is that simple. As for the other matters you raise, I’m not going to address them.

Peace and God bless!

Exactly, the “stain” of original sin is, as clearly explained in the Catechism, the absence of original justice and holiness…the consequence of Adam’s sin. My cousin who is Orthodox definitely believes that the Theotokos was “pre-sanctified” from the first moment of her conception…the idea that Mary was set apart in a special manner, and always in perfect communion with the Blessed Trinity is not completely foreign to Byzantine thought.

 

[PatrickC]

If you were taught that the stain was something substantial, something added to the soul, then you were taught the wrong thing. It really is that simple. As for the other matters you raise, I’m not going to address them.

Peace and God bless!

Because Thomas Aquinas. Yes, please don’t address any of my concerns, I’d rather you didn’t, and I wouldn’t be interested in your thoughts. If there’s a “sixth sense” in regards to people, you set mine off.

 

[PatrickC]

Exactly, the “stain” of original sin is, as clearly explained in the Catechism, the absence of original justice and holiness…the consequence of Adam’s sin. My cousin who is Orthodox definitely believes that the Theotokos was “pre-sanctified” from the first moment of her conception…the idea that Mary was set apart in a special manner, and always in perfect communion with the Blessed Trinity is not completely foreign to Byzantine thought.

It’s not foreign to Byzantine thought, but it’s inconsequential.

 

[Rohzek]

5th Century

West: Bishop St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor of Grace) [Against Julian in PL 45:1418]: “We do not transfer Mary to the devil by the condition of her birth, for this reason, that that condition is dissolved by the grace of her new birth.” Latin: “Non transcribimus diabolo Mariam conditione nascendi; sed ideo, quia ipsa conditio solvitur gratia renascendi.”

The only reason one could argue that Augustine supported it at least implicitly was because he understood Original Sin as a personal stain. While the Catholic Church today thankfully disregards such a radical assertion, that was how Augustine understood it. So if Augustine felt the need to keep Mary sinless personally, as the Orthodox do, then having her free from Original Sin would be required as well.

WRH:

East: Bishop St. Theodotus of Ancyra [Homily 6:11 on the Holy Mother of God in PG 77:1427A],

In the place of Eve, an instrument of death, is chosen a Virgin, most pleasing to God and full of His grace, as an instrument of life. A Virgin included in woman’s sex, but without a share in woman’s fault. A Virgin innocent; immaculate; free from all guilt; spotless; undefiled; holy in spirit and body; a lily among thorns.

This only asserts that she did not sin personally. I don’t see how it pertains to freedom from ancestral or original sin.

East: Archbishop St. Proclus of Constantinople before 466 [Homily 1:3 in PG 65:683B]: “As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.”

This one is actually interesting. Could you provide more context, so I can assert the context?

West: Archbishop St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna (Doctor) in 449 [Sermon 140 in PL 52:576A]: “The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to Whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to Whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.”

This has to do with divine foreknowledge. It has nothing to do with original or ancestral sin.

Bishop St. Maximus of Turin (Lambruschini 78) [Homily 5 Before the Nativity of the Lord in PL 57:235D]: “Mary was a fit dwelling for Christ, not because of the disposition of her body, but on account of original grace.” Latin: “Idoneum plane Maria Christo habitaculum non pro habitu corporis, sed pro gratiâ originali.”

And if you look at the context of what Maximus is talking about, you would realize that he is speaking about the guiding grace throughout Mary’s infancy to adulthood. And Orthodox would find nothing objectionable about this assertion, since we believe she never sinned. However, we stop short of declaring that she was never in a fallen state.

6th Century

West: Bishop St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (Lambruschini 161-162) [Sermon 36 De laudibus Mariae ex partu Salvatoris in PL 65:899C]: “By these words [Hail, full of grace], the angel shows that she [Mary] was altogether excluded from the wrath of the first sentence, and restored to the full grace of blessing.” Latin: “Cum dixit, gratia plena, ostendit ex integro, iram exclusam primæ sententiæ, et plenam benedictionis gratiam restitutam.”

First off, it is doubtful that Fulgentius even wrote those words. The PL explicitly states that the words are possibly spurious in this case. Secondly, if you continue reading, it is clear that he is speaking about the curses Eve was given by God in genesis. He states that Mary of was spared these. This implies nothing concerning the matter of Original Sin.

8th Century

East: St. Andrew of Crete (O’Connor 94) [Homily 1 on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in PG 97:809D-812]:

Today, Adam presents Mary to God as the first fruits of our nature… Today, humanity recovers the gift it had received when first formed by divine hands, and returns immaculate to its original nobility. The shame of sin had cast a shadow upon the splendor and charm of human nature; but when the Mother of Him Who is Beauty itself is born, this nature recovers in her person its ancient privileges, and is fashioned according to a perfect model, truly worthy of God. And this fashioning is a perfect restoration; this restoration is a divinization, and this divinization is an assimilation to the primitive state… In a word, the reformation of our nature begins today; the world, which had grown old, undergoes a transformation which is wholly divine, and receives the first fruits of its second creation.

This only speaks of Mary having never committed personal sin via the power of grace. It says nothing of Mary of not having original sin. It’s very common in Eastern thought that the relationship with God via grace continuously molds the human nature. I think this is a profound misunderstanding on your part.

East: Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor) (O’Connor 97) [Homily on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in PG 96:664AB]:

Nature was defeated by grace and stopped, trembling, not daring to take precedence over it [grace]. Since the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to precede the product of grace; but remained sterile until grace had produced its fruit. O happy loins of Joachim, which had produced a germ which is all immaculate. O wondrous womb of Anne in which an all-holy child slowly grew and took shape!

thebananarepublican.blogspot…er-virgin.html

More context would be appreciated.

 

[Ghosty]

Because Thomas Aquinas. Yes, please don’t address any of my concerns, I’d rather you didn’t, and I wouldn’t be interested in your thoughts. If there’s a “sixth sense” in regards to people, you set mine off.

By all means read Aquinas’ writings on the stain of Original Sin. They are free on the internet and a word search can be done with Google. If you are willing to look it up and read, I will be happy to discuss it with you. If you aren’t then no amount of quote mining and proof-texting on my part will result in a decent discussion.

Likewise, shot-gunning all of your objections to Catholicism at me won’t get me to jump into the fray. Look at my post count; I’ve been hashing out these topics here and elsewhere online for nearly a decade, and while much has been lost in database crashes and such, a lot can be found on this website if you search for old threads. I have no inclination towards repeating quote-proofing battles anymore. I will leave it to the Saints.

I would love to have a discussion, I just ask that you do your part and read the actual Church documents from centuries past before we do. They are readily available and much better than anything I could write. At the very least read what Aquinas actually wrote about the stain of Original Sin, since he is the classic reference point for the teaching. If you can’t be bothered to do that I understand, but don’t expect me to start throwing out quotes from Saints and documents you wouldn’t read yourself. That would be a waste of both our times.

Peace and God bless!

 

[PatrickC]

By all means read Aquinas’ writings on the stain of Original Sin. They are free on the internet and a word search can be done with Google. If you are willing to look it up and read, I will be happy to discuss it with you. If you aren’t then no amount of quote mining and proof-texting on my part will result in a decent discussion.

Likewise, shot-gunning all of your objections to Catholicism at me won’t get me to jump into the fray. Look at my post count; I’ve been hashing out these topics here and elsewhere online for nearly a decade, and while much has been lost in database crashes and such, a lot can be found on this website if you search for old threads. I have no inclination towards repeating quote-proofing battles anymore. I will leave it to the Saints.

I would love to have a discussion, I just ask that you do your part and read the actual Church documents from centuries past before we do. They are readily available and much better than anything I could write. At the very least read what Aquinas actually wrote about the stain of Original Sin, since he is the classic reference point for the teaching. If you can’t be bothered to do that I understand, but don’t expect me to start throwing out quotes from Saints and documents you wouldn’t read yourself. That would be a waste of both our times.

Peace and God bless!

I know what he wrote about burning heretics (he included myself in that). Aquinas in a referejce point, as are others. I don’t hold him in the same regard that you do. I find nothing about his work compelling. Ten years?! Wow…have you ever considered the amount of time wasted on a site like this. I’m sure you feel it somehow serves some sort of good, but ten years? Can you imagine what you might have done with that time and effort? Jeez, I look around this site now and then out of boredom and curiosity, but really? Again, I didn’t ask nor do I care of you “jump into the fray”. Your opinion just isn’t important to me, no matter how many posts you’ve accumulated. I can tell your type, and I’m simply not interested in discussing anything with you.

 

[Rohzek]

I was refering to the concept of a “stain” as something added to the soul, nothing else.

Peace and God bless!

Yes, I understand that. However, the concept of the stain is also directly tied to Augustine’s belief in predestination.

 

[Ghosty]

Yes, I understand that. However, the concept of the stain is also directly tied to Augustine’s belief in predestination.

Predestination is a worthy topic of discussion, but it really has nothing to do with the notion that there is something added to the soul by Adams 's sin. One can believe or disbelieve in one without the other, as can be seen by the fact that predestination has been taught by the Catholic Church, and by Paul, while the “stain as a residue” has never been an accepted teaching, and in fact directly contradicts everything the Church teaches and has taught about sin.

Predestination is nothing other than the recognition that God must know who ends up in Heaven since He is timeless and omniscient, and also that everyone who gets to Heaven gets there by God’s Grace. Everything else is just details, and great Saints have differed about the mechanisms and implications of these facts.

The fundamental teaching of the Church has been and continues to be that there is room for debate on the matter, and that it can’t be settled. This can be seen by the non-settlement of the debate between the Jesuits and the Dominicans on this very matter.

Now I know the Orthodox don’t disagree with the facts I put forth, so why would I enter a debate over it? God gives Grace, we don’t take it even though we work with it. God knows the saved and the damned from all eternity; He is not surprised. What is distasteful is Augustines approach to answering this question, and that’s is fine since his approach, while historically popular, has never been dogmatic.

One last thing to note, however, is that “predestination”, despite being held in the Latin West since long before the various splits, was never until recently held up as a barrier to reunion. If it was not a reason for a split then, I will not be one to invent reasons for a split now. We can always find ways that we’re different, or ways that we express things differently, but that is not grounds for separation. If it were then the Sacrament of Marriage would be a lie rather than a Blessing from God.

In short, if it wasn’t brought up initially when people cared enough to break apart the worldly Church, then I won’t debate it as if it is a point of separation now.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I know what he wrote about burning heretics (he included myself in that). Aquinas in a referejce point, as are others. I don’t hold him in the same regard that you do. I find nothing about his work compelling. Ten years?! Wow…have you ever considered the amount of time wasted on a site like this. I’m sure you feel it somehow serves some sort of good, but ten years? Can you imagine what you might have done with that time and effort? Jeez, I look around this site now and then out of boredom and curiosity, but really? Again, I didn’t ask nor do I care of you “jump into the fray”. Your opinion just isn’t important to me, no matter how many posts you’ve accumulated. I can tell your type, and I’m simply not interested in discussing anything with you.

That’s good then. Feel free to not waste any more time on my posts. I wouldn’t either. Do read up on the actual teachings of the Church through the ages though, as it would serve your soul and your arguments.

If you don’t want to, that is fine as well. Just remember that God is Light, not darkness, wisdom and not ignorance. Pray to recognize the difference everyday, and strive to be in the Light and not the darkness.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chimo]

Here is an interesting podcast on ancient Faith radio that is part of a series called “Orthodoxy and heterodoxy”. I want to know how a Catholic answers some of the objections to the Catholic Faith from this very knowledgable Orthodox priest.

Here are some of the issues he brings up:

1. The development of doctrine
2. Papal supremacy and infallibility and how they can be believed in light of some of the Popes being condemned as heretics by councils and even some Popes.
3. The filioque and Pope John the VIII’s opposition to it.
4. The distinction between uncreated and created grace.
5. The practical problem of papal infallibility in the Church.
6. The Western legalistic mindset and its need for absolute certainty and assurance.
7. The Role of Peter in the council of Jerusalem and the absence of papal authority in the early Church.

Before any of you respond, please listen to the full podcast to avoid reactionary and immediate posting. Also, please season your posts with salt and charity. I have been guilty of not doing this in the past so I know how easy it is to be bombastic and aggressive. God have mercy.

Fr. Damick’s podcast is easy to understand and is accessible to the common layman. He does use technical theological terms when the need requires it but he explains what they mean clearly.

Here is the podcast:ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy/orthodox_and_roman_catholic_differences

Papal infallibility is a problem for the Orthodox not for the Roman Catholic. While the Orthodox priest might say it is a problem for the Church he would be better to say it is only a problem for the Orthodox. Papal infallibilty seems to work for the Roman Catholic Church. It does not work for the Orthodox. While this priest seems to talk a lot about the Church of Rome I sense his reasoning not to give thumbs up to certain doctrines of the Catholic Church will put a wedge into whatever unity there will be. I am one of those Orthodox who do not see it this way. I am an Orthodox who says let Rome be Rome and let the Orthodox be Orthodox. Why insist on each other to change when we need the other its right to be. In other words allow the other to be without insisting on the other to change. We can try to unite on this principal rather than what this Orthodox priest has said or what others have said. Doctrines such as Purgatory is an excellent example of how the development of doctrine helps the Church. Purgatory is an example of how the Justice of God works for us. Since the Church of Rome understands this principal of Justice more than the Eastern Churches than it was possible for the Church of Rome to enlarge on this doctrine of Purgatory. Another fine example of the development of doctrine is Rome’s Redemptive Suffering teachings. You do not find Redemptive Suffering in the Eastern Churches. These differences tells us that no Church is complete unto herself. What is lacking in one Church the other Church will be able to fill in. In other words there are certain teachings from the Eastern Churches that are lacking in the Catholic Church or at least not as profound. It works both ways. While this Orthodox priest means well in his valuation of the Church of Rome he needs to see the Church of Rome which can best describe her and that will be her saints in what God has done for her.

 

[Rohzek]

Predestination is a worthy topic of discussion, but it really has nothing to do with the notion that there is something added to the soul by Adams 's sin. One can believe or disbelieve in one without the other, as can be seen by the fact that predestination has been taught by the Catholic Church, and by Paul, while the “stain as a residue” has never been an accepted teaching, and in fact directly contradicts everything the Church teaches and has taught about sin.

Predestination is nothing other than the recognition that God must know who ends up in Heaven since He is timeless and omniscient, and also that everyone who gets to Heaven gets there by God’s Grace. Everything else is just details, and great Saints have differed about the mechanisms and implications of these facts.

The fundamental teaching of the Church has been and continues to be that there is room for debate on the matter, and that it can’t be settled. This can be seen by the non-settlement of the debate between the Jesuits and the Dominicans on this very matter.

Now I know the Orthodox don’t disagree with the facts I put forth, so why would I enter a debate over it? God gives Grace, we don’t take it even though we work with it. God knows the saved and the damned from all eternity; He is not surprised. What is distasteful is Augustines approach to answering this question, and that’s is fine since his approach, while historically popular, has never been dogmatic.

One last thing to note, however, is that “predestination”, despite being held in the Latin West since long before the various splits, was never until recently held up as a barrier to reunion. If it was not a reason for a split then, I will not be one to invent reasons for a split now. We can always find ways that we’re different, or ways that we express things differently, but that is not grounds for separation. If it were then the Sacrament of Marriage would be a lie rather than a Blessing from God.

In short, if it wasn’t brought up initially when people cared enough to break apart the worldly Church, then I won’t debate it as if it is a point of separation now.

Peace and God bless!

Orthodox have no problem with the current formulation of the Catholic Church’s concept of Original Sin. However, historically, the concept has gone back and forth like a pendulum on this issue regarding it as a personal stain. Large swaths of the Latin Church did accept such a belief throughout its history, and I do not say this out of polemics. Now whether or not these are errors and do not reflect authoritative teaching is something I personally do not care to address. But this was the major dividing issue between the Massilians, John Cassian, and a very few Franks during the ninth century Predestination debate and staunch Augustinians. Augustinians clearly did not regard predestination as a simple consequence of divine foreknowledge. Such a view has actually been historically criticized as semi-Pelagian (which I think is a useless term and a phantom heresy personally). If you look at Augustinian theology of grace closely, original sin and predestination are intimately related and connected.

I agree that it is not currently a major point of separation. But as us Orthodox have studied the past of the Latin West more, the history of the doctrine does give us cause for concern. We fear that if there were reunion without addressing this issue, then the pendulum could swing back towards something we would find objectionable. Timothy Ware is probably the most worried about this despite his high hopes for reunion.

I won’t go on much about it here. I think it is a topic worthy of its own thread - that is to discuss the history of the theologies on predestination, original sin, grace, etc. So if you would like, I would be willing to engage in this discussion in a thread that you start. Or if you prefer, we could discuss it via PM.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Orthodox have no problem with the current formulation of the Catholic Church’s concept of Original Sin. However, historically, the concept has gone back and forth like a pendulum on this issue regarding it as a personal stain. Large swaths of the Latin Church did accept such a belief throughout its history, and I do not say this out of polemics. Now whether or not these are errors and do not reflect authoritative teaching is something I personally do not care to address. But this was the major dividing issue between the Massilians, John Cassian, and a very few Franks during the ninth century Predestination debate and staunch Augustinians. Augustinians clearly did not regard predestination as a simple consequence of divine foreknowledge. Such a view has actually been historically criticized as semi-Pelagian (which I think is a useless term and a phantom heresy personally). If you look at Augustinian theology of grace closely, original sin and predestination are intimately related and connected.

I agree that it is not currently a major point of separation. But as us Orthodox have studied the past of the Latin West more, the history of the doctrine does give us cause for concern. We fear that if there were reunion without addressing this issue, then the pendulum could swing back towards something we would find objectionable. Timothy Ware is probably the most worried about this despite his high hopes for reunion.

I won’t go on much about it here. I think it is a topic worthy of its own thread - that is to discuss the history of the theologies on predestination, original sin, grace, etc. So if you would like, I would be willing to engage in this discussion in a thread that you start. Or if you prefer, we could discuss it via PM.

That pendulum swing describes much of the Orthodox position on various Catholic areas as well. Sometimes the Papacy is completely unacceptable, other times the Pope is to have primacy; sometimes Transubstantiation is an acceptable statement, other times it’s too specific; sometimes Catholics are said to worship Mary, other times it’s acceptable. In the past, some Orthodox catechisms had swung all the way to Calvinism - this is not something that only affects Catholicism.