Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[frjohnmorris]

Canon 5.
If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name, indeed a name without a reality, a fiction introduced into the Church by Satan, let him be anathema. ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm#2

Thank you. As you may know Luther and Calvin both denied free will. They claimed that they got their theology from Blessed Augustine. I am glad to know that the Catholic Church rejects this part of Augustine’s teachings.

Fr. John

 

[Peter_J]

mardukm;11391809]Dearest Fr. John, bless,

This is more than a primacy of mere honor.

I’m Oriental Catholic, so this matter does not really affect me. But my own perception has always been that the term “Unia” is not often understood as pejorative, but the term “Uniate” is.

I RESPOND: I do not see much difference. A Uniate is an adherent to the Unia. The term was first used to describe the Union of Brest that established the Ukrainian Catholic Church. However, I do not want to start another fire storm, so am trying to be very careful not to use any terms that offend anyone.

I’ve been reading very little of your conversation with mardukm; but having read this snippet, I think I should point out that the rules about the word “uniate” are set by CAF, not by us, and apply just as much to ECs as anyone else.

 

[Richca]

Dear brother RIchca,

Here is what the Catechism states, contrary to your claim:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not
have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hi mardukm,
I attempted to explain this in a previous post using Holy Scripture, the CCC, and the footnotes the CCC points us too especially from the Council of Trent.
Yes, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants because it is a contracted fault derived from our first parents Adam and Eve and it is in each human being as a true and proper fault or sin of its own by way of origin or propagation of the human species from Adam and Eve.
In the same way, the merits of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the last Adam, which he won for us by His passion, crucifiction and death are applied to us as our own in the sacraments as we are members of His body.

blessings, Richca

 

[edCiv]

Hi mardukm,
I attempted to explain this in a previous post using Holy Scripture, the CCC, and the footnotes the CCC points us too especially from the Council of Trent.
Yes, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants because it is a contracted fault derived from our first parents Adam and Eve and it is in each human being as a true and proper fault or sin of its own by way of origin or propagation of the human species from Adam and Eve.
In the same way, the merits of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the last Adam, which he won for us by His passion, crucifiction and death are applied to us as our own in the sacraments as we are members of His body.

blessings, Richca

No. Original sin is a fault in Adam and Eve only. In the rest of humanity it is only the consequence of Adams fault. The fault is not propagated, its consequences are. It is not a contracted fault. That is impossible. It is no fault at all in any one except Adam. Even better to say the punishment is contracted instead of the fault. This is inaccurate but closer to truth than what you say. You are preaching Calvinism instead of Catholicism.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother RIchca,

I attempted to explain this in a previous post using Holy Scripture, the CCC, and the footnotes the CCC points us too especially from the Council of Trent.
Yes, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants because it is a contracted fault derived from our first parents Adam and Eve and it is in each human being as a true and proper fault or sin of its own by way of origin or propagation of the human species from Adam and Eve.
In the same way, the merits of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the last Adam, which he won for us by His passion, crucifiction and death are applied to us as our own in the sacraments as we are members of His body.

Your explanation, particularly the highlighted portion, is exactly how many Protestants teach the matter. But it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic teaching is that we inherit the reatus (the physical and spiritual consequences of the first sin of Adam), not the culpa.

You are also conflating “fault”(culpa) and “sin”(peccatus).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

I RESPOND: Don’t Eastern Catholics accept the 1st Vatican Council?

Yes, Eastern (and Oriental) Catholics generally accept V1 and its teaching (otherwise we wouldn’t be Catholic), but either
(1) do not understand the teaching in the same way as Absolutist Petrine advocates in the CC or SSPX;
(2) do not understand the teaching in the same way as Absolutist Petrine advocates in the CC or SSPX, yet complain that the teaching is not properly reflected in the praxis;

I’m aware of a handful of EC’s (but not OC’s) who interpret V1 according to the Absolutist Petrine view, and consequently reject it; though, I’ve met some OC’s who interpret V1 according to the Absolutist Petrine view and accept it as such.

That certainly gives the Pope a great deal of authority to unilaterally declare the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

This is the way Absolutist Petrine advocates in the CC and SSPX (mis)interpret V1. I’m not aware of the Pope being able to exercise any unilateral authority in the Catholic Church according to its Magisterial teaching. I’m aware that the Pope has a personal authority in certain matters, but I’m not aware that he can exercise that authority apart from or outside of the College of bishops (unless you - or anyone else - can prove otherwise).

Exactly what authority does the Pope have over Eastern and Oriental Catholics?

Just as the metropolitan is the head bishop for the geographical jurisdiction on the Metropolitan level, the patriarch is the head bishop for the geographical jurisdiction on the Patriarchal level, so also is the pope the head bishop for the geographical jurisdiction on the universal level.

On matters of doctrine the Pope has the primary responsibility, not the sole responsibility, in its preservation and guardianship.

On matters of discipline, the Pope has the authority to enforce the universal laws (i.e., canons) of the Church, but does not have the authority to interfere in the particular laws of a particular Church, unless such particular laws conflict with doctrine. Any bishop has the prerogative, for the good of his flock (not for the selfish and worldly reason that his personal authority is being subordinated), to dispense even from universal laws.

On matters of doctrine and discipline, the Pope has universal appellate authority.

I RESPOND: In other words you seem to be saying that we can believe the same thing but express that belief using different terms.

Yes. A popular example (with which you are no doubt familiar) is the matter of the IC. There are EC’s (not so much OC’s) who reject the theological language of the dogma (since it is expressed in Latinese), but they do not reject the dogma.

Another popular example is the issue of Christology between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. We all believe the same dogma, but the particular groups express it doctrinally in a different manner.

Same consideration with the Chaldean Catholics and their other Catholic brethren on the matter of Christology. We all believe the same dogma, but Chaldeans (because of their unique understanding of the term prosopon) express it differently from other Catholics.

I hope that helps.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

=mardukm;11393204]Dearest Fr. John, bless,

Yes, Eastern (and Oriental) Catholics generally accept V1 and its teaching (otherwise we wouldn’t be Catholic), but either
(1) do not understand the teaching in the same way as Absolutist Petrine advocates in the CC or SSPX;
(2) do not understand the teaching in the same way as Absolutist Petrine advocates in the CC or SSPX, yet complain that the teaching is not properly reflected in the praxis;

I’m aware of a handful of EC’s (but not OC’s) who interpret V1 according to the Absolutist Petrine view, and consequently reject it; though, I’ve met some OC’s who interpret V1 according to the Absolutist Petrine view and accept it as such.

I RESPOND: Thank you for your kindness in taking the time to explain to me what you believe. However, It is rather difficult not to interpret V1 according to the Absolutist Petrine view when the decree states, “Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.”
That means that the Pope is subject to no higher authority, not even an Ecumenical Council. Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe that anyone is not subject to a higher authority. A Patriarch in his own Patriarchate is subject to the Holy Synod. There have been several times when our North American Archdiocese disagreed with our Patriarch and appealed to the Holy Synod that supported us against the Patriarch. The highest authority in the Orthodox Church is a Pan-Orthodox Council. Out of respect for the original 7 Ecumenical Councils, we reserve the title Ecumenical Council for them. Instead we use the term Pan-Orthodox Council for what would have been an Ecumenical Council during the first 1,000 years of Church history. However, even a council that claims Ecumenical authority had to be accepted by the Church. The Robber Council of Ephesus of 449 is an example of a council that had all the outward requirements of an Ecumenical Council, but was rejected by the Church. Sometimes local councils are accepted by the whole Eastern Orthodox Church. For example the councils of the 14th century that accepted Palamite theology were local councils within the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but have been accepted by the whole Eastern Orthodox Church.
CONTINUED

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE

This is the way Absolutist Petrine advocates in the CC and SSPX (mis)interpret V1. I’m not aware of the Pope being able to exercise any unilateral authority in the Catholic Church according to its Magisterial teaching. I’m aware that the Pope has a personal authority in certain matters, but I’m not aware that he can exercise that authority apart from or outside of the College of bishops (unless you - or anyone else - can prove otherwise).

I RESPOND: It seems that the 2nd Vatican Council backed off the decrees of the 1st Vatican Council by its emphasis on the College of Bishops as the highest authority of the Church. That is closer to the EO position. During the age of the Ecumenical Councils the Eastern Patriarchs accepted the Pope as the senior Bishop and head of the College of Bishops, but did consider him above the College of Bishops, or believe that the Pope could veto a decision by the College of Bishops or unilaterally make doctrinal decrees. The Popes had no power to speak “ex cathedra” in the ancient Church. Therefore although we could accept the right of the Pope to preside over councils personally or thorough his representatives as was the case with the 7 Ecumenical Councils, we would also have to insist that the Pope like every other Bishop accept the decisions of the College of Bishops. Thus we could not recognize the authority of the Pope to veto a decision of the College of Bishops or declare doctrine on his own authority. Here again I refer to the Robber Council. Pope St. Leo did not veto the decisions of the Council of Ephesus of 449, but appealed to the other Patriarchs and the emperor for another council to reconsider its decisions. This led to Chalcedon which did veto the decisions of the Robber Council of Ephesus.

Just as the metropolitan is the head bishop for the geographical jurisdiction on the Metropolitan level, the patriarch is the head bishop for the geographical jurisdiction on the Patriarchal level, so also is the pope the head bishop for the geographical jurisdiction on the universal level.

CONTINUED

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE

I RESPOND: In the Eastern Orthodox Church a Metropolitan or Patriarch must accept the decisions of the local Synod under a Metropolitan or Holy Synod under a Patriarch.

On matters of doctrine the Pope has the primary responsibility, not the sole responsibility, in its preservation and guardianship.

On matters of discipline, the Pope has the authority to enforce the universal laws (i.e., canons) of the Church, but does not have the authority to interfere in the particular laws of a particular Church, unless such particular laws conflict with doctrine. Any bishop has the prerogative, for the good of his flock (not for the selfish and worldly reason that his personal authority is being subordinated), to dispense even from universal laws.

I RESOND: In Eastern Orthodoxy, if an individual priest or theologian were to embrace heresy, it would be dealt with locally by the Bishop. However, if the Metropoltian excommunicates or laicizes a Priest, he or she can appeal to the Patriarch who will appoint a court to deal with the case. However, if a Patriarch embraces heresy it would be dealt with by the Holy Synod. If a whole autocephalous Church embraces heresy or the heresy becomes international, it would be dealt with by a Pan-Orthodox Council. For example, in 1672 the Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem met to deal with the heretical Calvinist catechism published under the name of Patriarch Cyril Lukaris who was the Ecumenical Patriarch. Sometimes a document condemning heresies is received by the Church in a more informal manner. For example in 1576 a group of Lutheran theologians at the University of Tubingen sent a Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople. The correspondence that was circulated accepted as an official Eastern Orthodox answer to Lutheranism.

On matters of doctrine and discipline, the Pope has universal appellate authority.

Yes. A popular example (with which you are no doubt familiar) is the matter of the IC. There are EC’s (not so much OC’s) who reject the theological language of the dogma (since it is expressed in Latinese), but they do not reject the dogma.

I RESPOND: Exactly what do Eastern Catholics believe about the Immaculate Conception? We believe that Our Lady was prepared by the grace of God to become the Theotokos. We celebrate a feast on Nov. 21 of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple that embodies this principle. The liturgical texts for the feast tell of her being taken to the Temple as a child where she was raised and prepared by God’s grace to become the Theotokos. However, it is important to Orthodox theology that Mary had free will and could have refused. Her obedience to God makes her the Second Eve, whose obedience to God begins our liberation from the curse of sin and death that came into the world through the First Eve. However, we also believe that she was born in ancestral sin. That is she was born mortal. There seems to be a question among Catholics on whether or not Our Lady died. We both agree that she ascended soul and body into heaven, but the EO teaching is that she died and then ascended. I know that the Melkites believe as we do, because they use the same liturgical texts for the Feast of the Dormation of the Theotokos, which tell of her death and the opening of her tomb so that St. Thomas who was not there when she died so that he could see her. The tomb was empty and the Apostles had a vision of her ascending body and soul into Heaven.

Another popular example is the issue of Christology between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. We all believe the same dogma, but the particular groups express it doctrinally in a different manner.

Same consideration with the Chaldean Catholics and their other Catholic brethren on the matter of Christology. We all believe the same dogma, but Chaldeans (because of their unique understanding of the term prosopon) express it differently from other Catholics.

I RESPOND: The Chalcedonians made it clear that the decrees of Chalcedon must be interpreted in conformity with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria at the 5th Council. As you remember, Pope Vigilus objected to the decisions of the 5th Council and had to be forced to accept them after imprisonment by the emperor and the threat of excommunication by the council. Here we see a clear example of an Ecumenical Council assuming authority over a Pope.

I hope that helps.

Humbly,
Marduk

Fr. John

 

[Richca]

No. Original sin is a fault in Adam and Eve only. In the rest of humanity it is only the consequence of Adams fault. The fault is not propagated, its consequences are. It is not a contracted fault. That is impossible. It is no fault at all in any one except Adam. Even better to say the punishment is contracted instead of the fault. This is inaccurate but closer to truth than what you say. You are preaching Calvinism instead of Catholicism.

Hello edciv,
If you read the canons of the Council of Trent on original sin which the CCC points us to in the footnotes, you will see that they distinguish between sin itself or guilt and the punishment consequent upon sin.
The Church teaches that every human being is born with original sin. Original sin or original fault (CCC#390), of course, is the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden from Genesis. Now the Church teaches that all men are implicated in Adam’s sin ( CCC#402). So all men participate in Adam’s sin in one way or another.
So, the CCC#404 says "How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants?
The CCC answers : “the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.”

The 293 footnote refers us to St Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1. Here we will find an explanation how the sin of Adam is also our sin.
"We should note that we can consider particular human beings in two ways: in one way as individual persons; in the second way as members of a community.And acts can belong to human beings in both ways. For example, acts that human beings do by their own choice and by their very selves belong to them as individual persons. And acts not done by their own choice or by their very selves but by the whole community or by the majority of the community or by the ruler of the community belong to human beings as members of the community. For we reckon such a community as if one human being, so that different human beings with different functions are united as if different members of the same natural body, as the apostle points out in 1 Cor. 12:12 regarding members of the Church. Therefore, we should consider the whole poplulation of human beings receiving their nature from our first parent as one community, or rather as the one body of one human being. And regarding this population, we can indeed consider each human being, even Adam himself, either as an individual person or as a member of the population that originates by physical descent from one human being…

…Therefore, if we should consider this privation (original justice and holiness) so transmitted by physical descent to a particular human being insofar as the human being is an individual person, then such privation cannot have the nature of moral fault, for which voluntariness is a prerequisite. But if we should consider a particular begotten human being as a member of the whole human nature propagated by our first parent, as if all human beings were one human being, then the privation of original justice has the nature of a moral fault because of its voluntary source, that is, the actual sin of our first parent."

Richca

 

[GaryTaylor]

“I RESPOND: Exactly what do Eastern Catholics believe about the Immaculate Conception? We believe that Our Lady was prepared by the grace of God to become the Theotokos. We celebrate a feast on Nov. 21 of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple that embodies this principle. The liturgical texts for the feast tell of her being taken to the Temple as a child where she was raised and prepared by God’s grace to become the Theotokos. However, it is important to Orthodox theology that Mary had free will and could have refused. Her obedience to God makes her the Second Eve, whose obedience to God begins our liberation from the curse of sin and death that came into the world through the First Eve. However, we also believe that she was born in ancestral sin. That is she was born mortal. There seems to be a question among Catholics on whether or not Our Lady died. We both agree that she ascended soul and body into heaven, but the EO teaching is that she died and then ascended. I know that the Melkites believe as we do, because they use the same liturgical texts for the Feast of the Dormation of the Theotokos, which tell of her death and the opening of her tomb so that St. Thomas who was not there when she died so that he could see her. The tomb was empty and the Apostles had a vision of her ascending body and soul into Heaven.”

When you say she was born in ancestral sin. St. Mary was indeed completely human, She was also subjected to the consequence of the fall. Raised, prepared and consistent with St Maximus the Confessors work “Life of the Virgin” just as you saying. Very plausible.

Thus the thinking as your describing is completely in line with apostolic teaching. Except on a couple points. St Mary had no birth pain as indicated by Genesis. Thus we have to conclude St Mary was indeed preserved by a singular act of Grace?

Also there is no patristic writing to support the idea that St Mary was born in Ancestral Sin. In fact early Church there is no mention of Original or Ancestral Sin till Augustine came along.

Through the course of history we have abundant statements and very early on which fall short of elaborating on this early, especially the first 300-years. In fact either way, preserved of sin or not. Though the consistency indicates a situation very different as we see early with the New Eve, Irenaeus forward.

Taken this into account its also plausible St Mary in predestination of Gods love could well have been conceived without sin. God isn’t Himself subjected to the condition of mankind, there is no reason to believe He cannot act outside His law opposed on man, and in particular regarding time, this is a known, its exactly how miracles occur on the horizontal plane we are one with God interacting on the lateral. Mary was surely further sanctified at the Annunciation/Incarnation, which is consistent with early Church teaching also, and also I might add myself at the Cross and Her resurrection. This is why indeed we consider Her Queen of Heaven and in those pious prayers of Church antiquity place Her above the Angels and the communion of Saints.

 

[Richca]

CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE

This is the way Absolutist Petrine advocates in the CC and SSPX (mis)interpret V1. I’m not aware of the Pope being able to exercise any unilateral authority in the Catholic Church according to its Magisterial teaching. I’m aware that the Pope has a personal authority in certain matters, but I’m not aware that he can exercise that authority apart from or outside of the College of bishops (unless you - or anyone else - can prove otherwise).

I RESPOND: It seems that the 2nd Vatican Council backed off the decrees of the 1st Vatican Council by its emphasis on the College of Bishops as the highest authority of the Church.

CONTINUED

Hi frjohn,
I don’t think the 2nd Vatican Council backed off the decrees of the 1st Vatican Council by an emphasis on the College of Bishops as the hightest authority in the Church unless this college of bishops is united with the Pope as its head. The Pope has the primacy of power or authority in the Church. The following is taken from the CCC which quotes Lumen Gentium from the 2nd Vatican Council:

“For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (CCC#882).

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

884 “The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.” But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.”

“It is the perogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke such councils (ecumenical), to preside over them and to confirm them.” (Lumen Gentium).

The pope has supreme power or authority in the Church simply. An ecumenical council when united with the Roman Pontiff and in agreement with him also has supreme authority in the Church.

As far as individual bishops are concerned the CCC#895 says “The power which they (bishops) exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.”

blessings, Richca

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Richca,

The Church teaches that every human being is born with original sin. Original sin or original fault (CCC#390)

CCC#390 does not equate “original sin” and “original fault.” Rather it simply says that Adam and Eve had original fault. It does not mention the term “sin.” To equate “sin” and “fault” is an unjustified novelty.

n the garden of Eden from Genesis. Now the Church teaches that all men are implicated in Adam’s sin ( CCC#402). So all men participate in Adam’s sin in one way or another.So, the CCC#404 says "How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants?The CCC answers : “the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.”

Yes, all men are implicated in Adam’s sin. It does not say all men are implicated in Adam’s fault. The source of the invention is the error that CCC#390 equates “sin” and “fault.”

The 293 footnote refers us to St Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1. Here we will find an explanation how the sin of Adam is also our sin.

Yes. Adam’s sin, defined as a privation of Grace, is also ours. Adam’s fault, on the other hand, is not.

…Therefore, if we should consider this privation (original justice and holiness) so transmitted by physical descent to a particular human being insofar as the human being is an individual person, then such privation cannot have the nature of moral fault, for which voluntariness is a prerequisite. But if we should consider a particular begotten human being as a member of the whole human nature propagated by our first parent, as if all human beings were one human being, then the privation of original justice has the nature of a moral fault because of its voluntary source, that is, the actual sin of our first parent."

Are you absolutely sure that the CCC accepts this portion of De Malo, especially since the CCC actually and explicitly states the exact opposite - that original sin does not have the nature of a personal fault? Is it not more likely that it refers to De Malo only as far as accepting the first paragraph you cited - regarding sin?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[spina1953]

That is a very good comparison, as you know in order to restore a failed marriage the problems between the husband and wife must be resolved. If they come together again without resolving them, further problems will result. In order for Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism to reunite, we must speak openly and honestly in order to resolve the differences between us.

Fr. John

I quite agree with you. Our Churches are two halves of a whole. Yes married couples have their ups and downs and most of the time are able to work it out. when they are not willing to listen to the other that does not help or become so stubbern that they are no longer willing to work out whatever differences its; bad for both. And you are correct in saying that Eastern and Catholicism to reunite have need to be open and honest. The problem as I see it is that we have so much in common that we have allowed some issues to out weigh what is common to both. And in this day and age it is all the more important to try and resolve the issues so that some agreement can be reached. In my humble opinion if we could find some way to reunite without having all give up everything we all believe, we would then be in a much better postion to counter the evil occuring in this world we live in. As has been posted in other posts( it seems to me we need to learn more about our respective faith and how out Churches work.) there are different ways to express what we all believe which should not be in question but only those issues that effect us all that had caused the split in the first place. This is just my opinion.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Hello edciv,
If you read the canons of the Council of Trent on original sin which the CCC points us to in the footnotes, you will see that they distinguish between sin itself or guilt and the punishment consequent upon sin.
The Church teaches that every human being is born with original sin. Original sin or original fault (CCC#390), of course, is the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden from Genesis. Now the Church teaches that all men are implicated in Adam’s sin ( CCC#402). So all men participate in Adam’s sin in one way or another.
So, the CCC#404 says "How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants?
The CCC answers : “the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.”

The 293 footnote refers us to St Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1. Here we will find an explanation how the sin of Adam is also our sin.
"We should note that we can consider particular human beings in two ways: in one way as individual persons; in the second way as members of a community.And acts can belong to human beings in both ways. For example, acts that human beings do by their own choice and by their very selves belong to them as individual persons. And acts not done by their own choice or by their very selves but by the whole community or by the majority of the community or by the ruler of the community belong to human beings as members of the community. For we reckon such a community as if one human being, so that different human beings with different functions are united as if different members of the same natural body, as the apostle points out in 1 Cor. 12:12 regarding members of the Church. Therefore, we should consider the whole poplulation of human beings receiving their nature from our first parent as one community, or rather as the one body of one human being. And regarding this population, we can indeed consider each human being, even Adam himself, either as an individual person or as a member of the population that originates by physical descent from one human being…

…Therefore, if we should consider this privation (original justice and holiness) so transmitted by physical descent to a particular human being insofar as the human being is an individual person, then such privation cannot have the nature of moral fault, for which voluntariness is a prerequisite. But if we should consider a particular begotten human being as a member of the whole human nature propagated by our first parent, as if all human beings were one human being, then the privation of original justice has the nature of a moral fault because of its voluntary source, that is, the actual sin of our first parent."

Richca

Can you explain what that means to a person who does not understand Latin theology? Eastern Orthodox theology begins with the understanding that Adam and Eve were not as spiritually mature as Latin theology assumes. Thus the fall was not as great as is assumed in Latin theology. What does original justice mean exactly? What do you mean by fault? Do you mean that we have faults, or do you equate fault with guilt? Orthodox theology teaches that we inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin, but not guilt. Therefore we are born corrupted with mortality and as a result commit our on sins. From our own sins we become guilty ourselves. Therefore, we are do not inherit guilt. Instead, we inherit the fallen condition that leads to sin and guilt for our own sins. We also believe that although sin distorts our very nature, it cannot completely destroy the Image of God in which we are all created. Therefore Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the Calvinist (I use Calvinism because I know what they teach) the doctrine of total depravity and affirms free will.
On another subject. As you may know Eastern Orthodox do not believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. We believe that she was sinless and that God prepared her to become the Theotokos, but still believe that she was born in ancestral sin. There is a sentence in the Prayer to Mary at the end of the Compline service that illustrates what we believe in very moving language,
“O Spotless, undefiled, incorrupt, immaculate, pure Virgin, Lady Bride of God, who by thy wondrous conceiving hast united God the Word to man, and joined the outcast nature of our race to heavenly things.”

Fr. John

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

mardukm:

Yes, Eastern (and Oriental) Catholics generally accept V1 and its teaching (otherwise we wouldn’t be Catholic), but either
(1) do not understand the teaching in the same way as Absolutist Petrine advocates in the CC or SSPX;
(2) do not understand the teaching in the same way as Absolutist Petrine advocates in the CC or SSPX, yet complain that the teaching is not properly reflected in the praxis;

I’m aware of a handful of EC’s (but not OC’s) who interpret V1 according to the Absolutist Petrine view, and consequently reject it; though, I’ve met some OC’s who interpret V1 according to the Absolutist Petrine view and accept it as such.

I RESPOND: Thank you for your kindness in taking the time to explain to me what you believe. However, It is rather difficult not to interpret V1 according to the Absolutist Petrine view when the decree states, "Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable." That means that the Pope is subject to no higher authority

Your own kindness and civility is an example to me of true Christian charity, Father.

I believe I have rather concisely explained the intent of V1’s addition of the phrase at issue (highlighted above) in the Petrine views thread. It was not to claim that “the Pope is subject to no higher authority,” but rather to assert the nature of Truth (with a capital “T”) as being from God, not from consensus. It is important to realize and remember that the original purpose of V1 was to combat the heresies of modernism – the idea that Truth is determined by consensus is a modernist heresy.

The intent of the phrase at issue might not be so obvious to one who has not studied the background debates of V1. A great number of people misunderstand the phrase, and think that it is intended to place the idea that “the Pope says so” in contradistinction to “the consent of the Church.” That would be a false understanding. A fair reading of the whole canon will reveal that “the consent of the Church” is not placed in contradistinction to “the Pope says so,” but rather is placed in contradistinction to “divine assistance.” It is the divine assistance that guarantees irreformibility, not consensus.

Vatican 2 actually clarified the matter quite concisely:“his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformible, FOR they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit….”

That means that the Pope is subject to no higher authority, not even an Ecumenical Council.

The Catholic teaching is that the Pope is not subject to an Ecumenical Council as to a higher authority. However, the Pope is subject to the correction of his brother bishops within the Council, but the Council is never above the Pope, for a Council cannot exist as such without the Pope. There will never be any agreement between EOC and CC, as long as EO wish to style the matter as the Ecumenical Council being above the Pope, for that idea is condemned as a heresy in Catholicism. Father, would you accept the idea that

(1) the Pope is subject to the correction of his brother bishops within the Council

versus

(2) the Pope is subject to the Council.

(2) will never be acceptable to the Catholic Church. However, (1) can be accepted. Would you agree with (1), Father?

However, even a council that claims Ecumenical authority had to be accepted by the Church. The Robber Council of Ephesus of 449 is an example of a council that had all the outward requirements of an Ecumenical Council, but was rejected by the Church. Sometimes local councils are accepted by the whole Eastern Orthodox Church. For example the councils of the 14th century that accepted Palamite theology were local councils within the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but have been accepted by the whole Eastern Orthodox Church.

I believe the Catholic Church can accept the idea that the acceptance of the Church as a whole is necessary for the ecumenicity of a council. But this would depend on whether or not the concept of “ecumenicty” would acceptably be distinguished from the concept of “infallibility.” “Infallibility” is a gift from God alone. It is not the Church which grants “infallibility” to the teaching of a Council, but rather God Himself. The Truth taught by an Ecumenical Council is not established by consensus (an idea which is a modernist heresy). What establishes the Truth taught by an Ecumenical Council as Truth is nothing more nor less than the divine assistance which we (as Catholics) believe is given by God to the Ecumenical Council. A Council can obtain the status of “Ecumenical” depending on several conditions (sufficient participation by various Churches, confirmation by the head bishop, consequent acceptance by the Church as a whole, etc.) but the doctrines/dogmas taught by a Council that is considered “Ecumenical” has the status of Truth (with a capital “T”) because of nothing more nor less than the divine assistance of God, not because of consensus.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

mardukm:

This is the way Absolutist Petrine advocates in the CC and SSPX (mis)interpret V1. I’m not aware of the Pope being able to exercise any unilateral

authority in the Catholic Church according to its Magisterial teaching. I’m aware that the Pope has a personal authority in certain matters, but I’m not aware that he can exercise that authority apart from or outside of the College of bishops (unless you - or anyone else - can prove otherwise).
I RESPOND: It seems that the 2nd Vatican Council backed off the decrees of the 1st Vatican Council by its emphasis on the College of Bishops as the highest authority of the Church.

V2 did not back down from V1 in any sense. The concept of collegiality was already present at V1, but people who have not studied the background debates of V1 do not realize that. This is why the Absolutist Petrine NEO-ultramontanists in the SSPX are not in communion with the Catholic Church - they think V2 was a betrayal of V1. Absolutist Petrine advocates do not realize that Pope PIus IX himself submitted to the corrections of his brother bishops within the Council (Pio Nono evinced NEO-ultramontanist leanings before the Council, but rejected such ideas explicitly after the Council (from the Petrine views thread – forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11371138).

It is admitted by all Catholic historians that V1 was an incomplete Council. In fact, the original agenda contained the following:
(1) a definition on the infallibility of the Church (prepared, discussed, but not voted on in general congregation);
(2) a definition on the teaching and governing authority of the Church (prepared, discussed, but not voted on in general congregation):
(3) a definition on papal Primacy (prepared, discussed, and voted on in general congregation; because of the concerns of the secular powers, a chapter on “papal” infallibility was introduced under this heading, prepared, discussed and voted on in general congregation);
(4) a definition on the office of bishop (introduced during Primacy debate, prepared, but not discussed or voted on in general congregation; ch.3, parag. 3 of Pastor Aeternus
(5) a definition on the relationship between Church and State (three of its points were incorporated into the definition on papal Primacy; the rest was prepared, but not discussed or voted on in general congregation).

As mentioned in the Petrine views thread. the definition on “papal” infallibility was not even on the original agenda of the Council, but was forced due to the concerns of the secular powers because of NEO-ultramontanist excesses. Hence, papal primacy, with a concurrent definition of “papal” infallibility, was defined out of its proper order on the agenda. The Franco-Prussian War prematurely prorogated V1, and (1), (2), and (4) were not voted on, but if they were, they would have put the papal prerogatives in their proper collegial context. V2 completed the original intentions of V1 regarding the ecclesiology of the Church, particularly with regards to (1), (2), and (4).

That is closer to the EO position. During the age of the Ecumenical Councils the Eastern Patriarchs accepted the Pope as the senior Bishop and head of the College of Bishops, but did consider him above the College of Bishops,

Yes, we can agree that the Pope is not above the College of bishops, but is an inherent member of it.

believe that the Pope could veto a decision by the College of Bishops

Yes, we can agree that the Pope cannot veto a decision by the College of Bishops, not only because (1) he is a member of the College as its head, without whom the decisions of the College cannot be valid, according to the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 (so if he was to veto the college he would be vetoing himself, which is a silly concept), but also because (2) the idea of a “veto” indicates that all other bishops are heterodox and only the Pope is orthodox, a situation which is utterly impossible accordng to the divine constitution of the Church.

or unilaterally make doctrinal decrees.

Yes, we can agree that the Pope cannot make doctrinal decisions unilaterally.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

The Popes had no power to speak “ex cathedra” in the ancient Church.

To this, I seriously doubt the CC can agree. Bishops from everywhere always appealed to the Pope for his decisions. Such appeals bore fruit in dogmatic statements by Popes such as St. Damasus, St. Leo, St. Martin, and St. Agatho, on the respective heresies to which they responded. Catholic apologists normally and unequivocally affirm the dogmas established by, in particular, Popes St. Leo and St. Agatho as examples of ex cathedra decrees. It needs to be realized that the definition of V1 on “papal” infallibility technically and simply affirms the status of certain papal decrees as Truth (with a capital “T”), and does not delve into the methods by which such decrees might be disseminated and accepted by the Church. So very far from contradicting the definition of V1, the Fathers of the Councils who afterwards agreed with the ex cathedra teachings of Popes St. Leo and St. Agatho provide a resounding affirmation of the dogma defined by V1. If you wish to find an Ecum Council which contradicts V1, then provide one that contradicted . Otherwise, there would be no historical basis for your above statement.

Therefore although we could accept the right of the Pope to preside over councils personally or thorough his representatives as was the case with the 7 Ecumenical Councils, we would also have to insist that the Pope like every other Bishop accept the decisions of the College of Bishops.

I believe we can accept that the Pope, like every other bishop, must align his decision and pronounce with the consensus of his orthodox brother bishops within the College, but I seriously doubt the CC can accept the statement that he must accept “the decisions of the College,” as if he was not a member of the College to begin with and participating in its decisions as its head.

frjohnmorris:

mardukm:

On matters of doctrine the Pope has the primary responsibility, not the sole responsibility, in its preservation and guardianship.

On matters of discipline, the Pope has the authority to enforce the universal laws (i.e., canons) of the Church, but does not have the authority to interfere in the particular laws of a particular Church, unless such particular laws conflict with doctrine. Any bishop has the prerogative, for the good of his flock (not for the selfish and worldly reason that his personal authority is being subordinated), to dispense even from universal laws.

On matters of doctrine and discipline, the Pope has universal appellate authority.

I RESOND: In Eastern Orthodoxy…

It seems we can be in agreement on this matter, as long as it is made explicit by the Catholic Church that the primatial authority of the Pope is not a unilateral authority?

frjohnmorris:

mardukm:

Yes. A popular example (with which you are no doubt familiar) is the matter of the IC. There are EC’s (not so much OC’s) who reject the theological language of the dogma (since it is expressed in Latinese), but they do not reject the dogma.

I RESPOND: Exactly what do Eastern Catholics believe about the Immaculate Conception?..

All the Churches agree on this, according to your explanation. As explained earlier in this thread, the teaching of the IC (according to Latinese) only goes as far as defining her spiritual condition, and says absolutely nothing of her being subject to the physical consequences of original sin. In the Apostolic Constitution to the dogma of the Assumption, the physical death of Mary is mentioned several times.

frjohnmorris:

mardukm:

Another popular example is the issue of Christology between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. We all believe the same dogma, but the particular groups express it doctrinally in a different manner.

Same consideration with the Chaldean Catholics and their other Catholic brethren on the matter of Christology. We all believe the same dogma, but Chaldeans (because of their unique understanding of the term prosopon

) express it differently from other Catholics.
I RESPOND: The Chalcedonians made it clear that the decrees of Chalcedon must be interpreted in conformity with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria at the 5th Council.

Yes. It might interest you to know that in the mid-1990’s, the COC and the ACOE were actually on the verge of signing a common Christological agreement. The hang-up? ---- the refusal of the ACOE to anathematize Nestorius by name. This caused COC participants in the dialogue to accuse the ACOE of being two-faced. The situation, imo, is similar to the conflict over Sts. Dioscorus and Severus between the EOC and the OOC.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

As you remember, Pope Vigilus objected to the decisions of the 5th Council

Yes, not on any grounds of heterodoxy, but because he felt he was defending the decisions of the 4th Ecum. He stated at one point that the writings of Ibas and Theodoret could be interpreted in an orthodox manner (as the writings were actually exonerated by the 4th Ecum). Of course, the Emperor was not really interested in any dialogue with the Church of the East (which was not within his political sphere of influence), but was only interested in re-union with the non-Chalcedonians (which were within his political sphere of influence).

and had to be forced to accept them after imprisonment by the emperor and the threat of excommunication by the council. Here we see a clear example of an Ecumenical Council assuming authority over a Pope.

(1) The Pope confirmed the decisions of the Council freely, after due deliberation over the texts and arguments of the Council Fathers (accordng to his address to the Council Fathers upon confirming their deliberations). After his confirmation, then and only then could the Council be considered to have the status of “Ecumenical.”
(2) I’m not aware that the Council Fathers threatened excommunication. Where is the proof for this claim? I’m aware that the Emperor wanted his name removed from the diptychs (which the Fathers may or may not have done). As I understand it, in the EOC, striking a bishop’s name from the diptychs is not a sign of excommunication from the Church universal, but is rather intended as something less as far as displinary measures go(?).
(3) A true gauge of “authority over the Pope” would be for the Fathers to have deposed or excommuncated the Pope – but this was not done (as distinguished from the prior excommunications/depositions of an Alexandrian and a Constantinopolitan patriarch by Ecumenical Councils). From the Catholic perspective, patriarchs can be deposed by an Ecumenical Council, because their role and position in the local Churches were granted to them by an Ecumenical Council (i.e., the Church). But the role and position of him who has the primacy in the Church universal (as well as office of every local bishop) was established by Christ Himself.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

Father John, I don’t want to distract with the IC, but I should add the question the EO and Coptic Church pose; “The rejection of our Lord from Genesis would not be universal if the condition of sin isn’t a common factor with all human beings.”

Safe to say we have to all admit, St Mary is not the same as all human beings as there is but one Mother of the Lord. I started to answer the question but I don’t want to further distract on this thread. Safe to say, I don’t see anything which cannot be resolved with the IC. Dogma became the issue East/West which the West spoke on a Universal level here. I’m not sure how this will be dealt with.