Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[frjohnmorris]

The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin is that we are born cursed with the consequences of the sin of Adam, which is mortality and the corruption that causes it, not that we are born deprived of God’s grace. Thus Our Lady and St. John the Baptist were both born in ancestral sin. We know this because they both died. Our Lord in his human nature also took our ancestral sin upon Himself because He also died on the Cross and by His death conquers death so that through Him, we may also conquer death.St. Gregory the Theologian wrote that “that which is not assumed is not healed.”
The teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church is also that God prepared Mary to become the Mother of God through His divine grace. We celebrate this on November 21 with the feast of the Entry of the Blessed Virgin into the Temple. Her parents took her to the Temple when she was three and the High Priest took her into the Holy of Holies where the grace of God descended upon her. She was raised in the Temple until she was 9 or 12 praying and studying the Holy Scriptures. We also teach that Our Lady was sinless.
There is no teaching that St. John the Baptist was born without ancestral sin.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

Im confused

The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin is that we are born cursed with the consequences of the sin of Adam, which is mortality and the corruption that causes it, not that we are born deprived of God’s grace.

Here?

"Ancestral sin (Greek: προπατορική αμαρτία or προπατορικό αμάρτημα, more rarely προγονική αμαρτία) is the object of a Christian doctrine taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Some identify it as “inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors”. But most distinguish it from this tendency that remains even in baptized persons, since ancestral sin “is removed through baptism”

St. Gregory Palamas taught that, as a result of ancestral sin (called “original sin” in the West), man’s image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam’s disobedience.[3]

The Greek theologian John Karmiris writes that “the sin of the first man, together with all of its consequences and penalties, is transferred by means of natural heredity to the entire human race. Since every human being is a descendant of the first man, ‘no one of us is free from the spot of sin, even if he should manage to live a completely sinless day.’ … Original Sin not only constitutes ‘an accident’ of the soul; but its results, together with its penalties, are transplanted by natural heredity to the generations to come … And thus, from the one historical event of the first sin of the first-born man, came the present situation of sin being imparted, together with all of the consequences thereof, to all natural descendants of Adam.”

The doctrine of ancestral sin focuses on human death as an inheritance from Adam. The notion of inheritance of the guilt of Adam is excluded." Wiki Pedia

No one is deprived of Gods grace, its right to say we inherited a Blessing from Adam and Eve and in Gods love. For we inherited the opportunity to spend eternity in His Kingdom contingent on our free-will. This happened after the Cross. Till then Heaven was closed.

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12). Spiritual and physical death came upon all mankind also aside from the blessing

St Athanasius

1. On the other hand there was the consistency of God’s nature, not to be sacrificed for our profit. Were men, then, to be called upon to repent? But repentance cannot avert the execution of a law; still less can it remedy a fallen nature. We have incurred corruption and need to be restored to the Grace of God’s Image. None could renew but He Who had created. He alone could (1) recreate all, (2) suffer for all, (3) represent all to the Father.
2. The Word, then, visited that earth in which He was yet always present ; and saw all these evils. He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life.

Is that the “spot” above in Wiki pedia Athanasius is referring to?

He did not subject Himself “born cursed with the consequences of the sin of Adam,” part. He subjected Himself to our Human Nature and not as a sinner for He had no sin, nor could He. He defeats physical death and spiritual death at the Cross.

Thus Our Lady and St. John the Baptist were both born in ancestral sin.

.

Jesus Christ did not sin nor was God ever subjected to a sin within His essence, that’s why He knew where Adam and Eve were in the Garden, no longer where they in perfect communion with Him.

He was subjected to our humanity, His creation, which He gave an opportunity, they dropped the ball. In humility as God He puts on our nature.

Jesus Christ was conceived in a state of Ancestral Sin or as you say, through St Mary born cursed with the consequences of the sin of Adam? Of course not. St Mary was preserved by Gods love. He built Himself a temple and called Her Mary. Or above as the Saint states He takes a body of our Nature, and that of a spotless Virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own,

We know this because they both died…

I’m getting there your ahead of me here a bit.

Our Lord in his human nature also took our ancestral sin upon Himself because He also died on the Cross and by His death conquers death so that through Him, we may also conquer death…

So God, the hypostatic union takes on “born cursed with the consequences of the sin of Adam” As the Living God, its impossible.

St. Gregory the Theologian wrote that “that which is not assumed is not healed.” …

Amen

However, your splitting His human and Divine Nature and we don’t do that? The Redemption of Jesus Christ consists of His hypostatic union, He takes on our human nature and God humbles and subjects Himself to our very nature for the reparation of what we could not repair ourselves as humans, even through free-will, for our free will in a fractured human nature was captive of evil with no way to communion with God in heaven, He convicts and conquers through the Human/Divine Nature in love. What we inherited from Adam and Eve was a blessing and an opportunity to spend eternity with the Lord. However, He sanctifies Mary for His Temple first in order to redeem mankind. Death of the Flesh, Death of the Soul.

The teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church is also that God prepared Mary to become the Mother of God through His divine grace. .

Amen, and certainly before the Word of God became flesh for Jesus Christ had no sin.

There is no teaching that St. John the Baptist was born without ancestral sin…

No where in Eastern Orthodoxy? I must have received bad info my apology

 

[spina1953]

I want to thank you for your explaination. While I understood the dogma of IC I find that your explaination has increased my own personal understanding of IC. It is still a mystery and will aways be as is, for example of the Blessed Trinity in which there are no human words or any human language that will ever explain them to anyone satisfaction. We either believe or we don’t. Its what faith is all about, believing even though we so often fail to understand completely what we do believe and can not prove. It has been my understanding that Mary the Mother of God was born without sin, this does not mean that she did not die. However, I think that God being perfect wanted Mary to be free from sin so that He could Through Mary’s free will consent to be the Mother of God’s only Begotten Son, that His Son could assume human nature. Of course God could have done it in any way He willed, but willed that it be in the way He wanted and so Mary consenrted to God’s will. As a Catholic I believe that Mary went to heaven body and soul which she did not on her own but only because God assumed her into heaven as the new Eve. For no one goes or enters into heaven without God willing it so, as it is not by man alone that he can get into heaven but by God’s grace and will. If Mary was conceived without sin I think is a mystery that we do not fully understand and may never fully understand.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Whats important here is that in a very real way we are on the same page. We differ with the EO in when this Grace occurred by the Lord. In other words the Council clarifies what we have to contend with.

The Confession of Chalcedon provides a clear statement on the human and divine nature of Christ:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
Wiki Pedia

Thus the Incarnate Word of God. The difference in nuance as to most fitting doesn’t add or subtract to the thinking. Or it shouldn’t we all thought the same before the theology but on emphasis of reparation and divinization.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I am not dividing the human and divine natures of Christ. That would be Nestorianism. Neither am I denying them or teaching that the human nature of Christ was absorbed by His divine nature. That would be Monophysitism. However, there is a doctrine called the communication of attributes or properties (Communicatio idiomatum) which teaches that the divine nature took upon the limitations of the human nature just as the human nature was deified by its union with the divine nature. One of the limitations of human nature is mortality, which is the result of ancestral sin which we inherit from Adam.
God did built Himself a divine temple through Mary, but she was still fully human or Christ would not be fully human. Remember the decree of Chalcedon as explained further by II Constantinople is that just as the divine nature of Christ is of one essence with the Father, so is the human nature of Christ of one essence with us humans. That means that the human nature of Christ shares in all that we are to redeem all that we are. As St. Athanasius wrote, “God became man so that man could become God.” Once again I cite St. Gregory the Theologian, “That which is not assumed is not healed.” Had Christ not assumed human nature complete with its corruption through ancestral sin, we could not be healed of the curse of ancestral sin. St. Paul expresses the same concept when he wrote, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” II Cor. 5:21. Therefore through his death on the Cross and His Glorious Resurrection, Christ not only makes the forgiveness of our sins possible, but makes our liberation from the curse of ancestral sin possible.
God’s grace sanctified Our Lady and made her sinless. However, she still had free will and could have refused to bear Christ when the Archangel Gabriel came to her. That is extremely important because by her yes to God, Our Lady becomes the Second Eve who frees us by the No to God of the first Eve. She still inherited the consequences of the sin of Adam, for she died a real death. However, she also shared in the victory of her divine Son for she rose from the dead and ascended body and soul into Heaven.
The Eastern Orthodox understanding of ancestral sin is that we inherit the corruption that leads to death, but not the guilt of the sin of Adam or the total depravity of Calvinism. Instead, we are born mortal and because of the corruption of mortality commit sins that make us guilty of our own sins. However, no matter how seriously we sin we still retain free will and the Image of God. Because Our Lady died, she was born in ancestral sin, but through the grace of God she was also sanctified and made holy in preparation to become the Theotokos therefore she was also sinless.

Fr, John

 

[spina1953]

I awould like to add that God’s grace and love is so vast that no one can understand or conceive it because it is beyond ouw understanding because who can know and understand God bettrer than God Himself? With that said, to me it is a miracle beyond words that God would assume mary into heaven body and soul. Mary has a special place as only Mary as a completely human nature was assumed innto heaven body and soul. This has not happened to any other human. Only Jesus in having two natures Divine and human, so that being God, He could raise from the dead and Ascension by His own power. I think we tend to forget the special gift God gave to Mary and special love God has for her as well as the Son of God’s love for her as His Mother. we agrue over if she was born with or without sin etc. yet, forget the deeper meaning of what took place in Mary’s being assumed into heaven body and soul. I do not know if any of the Apostles saw Mary being assumed into heaven or that they saw her die or her death or of all of the Apostles saw, but that in of itself is not important, only that she was by God’s will assumed into heaven body and soul and that is what we believe to be so, no one can prove it happenedand neither can anyone prove that it did not happen, it is of our faith that we believe it happed.

 

[frjohnmorris]

According to Eastern Orthodox belief the Apostles saw her die and also her assumption. As she was assumed into Heaven she dropped her belt, which is the only relic we have of Our Lady. It is usually kept in a monastery on Mt. Athos, but has recently been taken to Russia so that the faithful there can venerate it. However, Our Lady was not the only one taken directly to Heaven body and soul. You forget St. Elijah, who ascended into heaven in a fiery chariot and Enoch who walked with God.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am not dividing the human and divine natures of Christ. That would be Nestorianism. Neither am I denying them or teaching that the human nature of Christ was absorbed by His divine nature. That would be Monophysitism. However, there is a doctrine called the communication of attributes or properties (Communicatio idiomatum) which teaches that the divine nature took upon the limitations of the human nature just as the human nature was deified by its union with the divine nature. One of the limitations of human nature is mortality, which is the result of ancestral sin which we inherit from Adam…

Right, but Divine Essence was never subjected to sin nor could it be, not even a spot, be it the human nature which Christ puts on in indeed human. What I’m attempting to show the very same arguments apply either way as to the Cross and to the Universal law per Genesis and St Paul.

God did built Himself a divine temple through Mary, but she was still fully human or Christ would not be fully human.

Exactly but with the Divine Essence no stain has access. Some would say since this point it didn’t have access to Mary either. Though as we see in scripture temptation, the Cross, suffering, all still very real.

Remember the decree of Chalcedon as explained further by II Constantinople is that just as the divine nature of Christ is of one essence with the Father, so is the human nature of Christ of one essence with us humans.

Right, still no sin with Jesus Christ in the Hypostatic Union. Regardless of when East or West states St Mary is sanctified.

That means that the human nature of Christ shares in all that we are to redeem all that we are. As St. Athanasius wrote, “God became man so that man could become God.” Once again I cite St. Gregory the Theologian, “That which is not assumed is not healed.” .

But no sin in the Divine Essence. That which is not yet resurrected is not yet saved and judged.

Had Christ not assumed human nature complete with its corruption through ancestral sin, we could not be healed of the curse of ancestral sin. .

This is true but not by the Divine Essence partaking in what its cannot be, the dark.

St. Paul expresses the same concept when he wrote, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” II Cor. 5:21…

Gods Divine Essence again. * [5:21] This is a statement of God’s purpose, expressed paradoxically in terms of sharing and exchange of attributes. As Christ became our righteousness (1 Cor 1:30), we become God’s righteousness (cf. 2 Cor 5:14–15).

Therefore through his death on the Cross and His Glorious Resurrection, Christ not only makes the forgiveness of our sins possible, but makes our liberation from the curse of ancestral sin possible. .

Amen

God’s grace sanctified Our Lady and made her sinless. However, she still had free will and could have refused to bear Christ when the Archangel Gabriel came to her. .

Amen, Her, yes, the same yes we all need to consider daily.

That is extremely important because by her yes to God, Our Lady becomes the Second Eve who frees us by the No to God of the first Eve…

Disobedience vs Obedience

She still inherited the consequences of the sin of Adam, for she died a real death. However, she also shared in the victory of her divine Son for she rose from the dead and ascended body and soul into Heaven…

I’m praying the Lord raises me up also. She was the first.

The Eastern Orthodox understanding of ancestral sin is that we inherit the corruption that leads to death, but not the guilt of the sin of Adam or the total depravity of Calvinism. Instead, we are born mortal and because of the corruption of mortality commit sins that make us guilty of our own sins. However, no matter how seriously we sin we still retain free will and the Image of God. Because Our Lady died, she was born in ancestral sin, but through the grace of God she was also sanctified and made holy in preparation to become the Theotokos therefore she was also sinless.

Ok, so the bigger next difficult question. Why did Mary need Her Sons redemption on the Cross if She was already sanctified?

Marys redemption is at Her sanctification, then She walked with Christ to the Cross and witnessed it in reality.

 

[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?

Hi frjohn,
The fall of Adam and Eve was very great as a reading of Genesis portrays. Upon their disobedience to God’s command, they went from a state of immortality to a state of being mortals and dying.
Original justice and holiness means that God created Adam and Eve with sanctifying grace and other gifts of grace by which their bodies were subject to their souls and the sensitive powers of their souls were subject to their intellect and will. Before their fall, Adam and Eve did not experience any inordinate movements of the senses which we call concupiscence.
Upon their sin, Adam and Eve lost sanctifying grace and the other gifts of grace by which their bodies and the sensory powers of their souls were subject to their intellect and will. This is signified by being banished from the garden of Eden and thus not being able to eat of the Tree of Life. Their sin was a mortal sin which is signfied by them being subject to death after their fall.

What do you mean by fault? Do you mean that we have faults, or do you equate fault with guilt?

 

[Richca]

 

[spina1953]

According to Eastern Orthodox belief the Apostles saw her die and also her assumption. As she was assumed into Heaven she dropped her belt, which is the only relic we have of Our Lady. It is usually kept in a monastery on Mt. Athos, but has recently been taken to Russia so that the faithful there can venerate it. However, Our Lady was not the only one taken directly to Heaven body and soul. You forget St. Elijah, who ascended into heaven in a fiery chariot and Enoch who walked with God.

Fr. John

I understand that according to Eastern Orthodox belief that the Apostles saw her die and also her assumption… I understood that St. John the Apostle took care of Mary till her death. However, the date and death of ther Virgin Mary are debatable. There is a strong tradition that Mary went to Ephesus with St. John the Apostle and died there. Ther is also the tradition that Mary died in Jerusalem. It some point, it seems that all of the Apostles except James who died in Jerusalem went all over the known world, till they were martyred, with only St. John the Apostle who died a natural death. The belt that you say she dropped is like the Shourd of Turin a devotion as it can not be proved one way or te other that that happened as you state. I do understand that it could have happened but one should not base their belief just on that. Yes, Enoch walked with God as the Old Testament states, but since no one has ever seen the face of God, it was God’s Persence, also though it says that Elijah ascended into heaven in a fiery Chariot how does one reconcile this with Heaven as it was closed to all till Christ opened it by His death and resurrection?

 

[GaryTaylor]

II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS

391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: “You will be like God.”
270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271

393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272

394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning”, who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.273 "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil."274 In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.

395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him."275

266 Cf. Gen 3:1-5; Wis 2:24.
267 Cf Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9.
268 Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 800.
269 Cf. 2 Pet 2:4.
270 Gen 3:5.
271 1 Jn 3:8; Jn 8:44.
272 St. John Damascene, De Fide orth. 2,4: PG 94,877.
273 Jn 8:44; cf. Mt 4:1-11.
274 1 Jn 3:8.
275 Rom 8:28.

Free will.

Isaiah 45:7:

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

Amen.

 

[Peter_J]

By that logic, it should be impossible for a local synod to remove its own metropolitan.

Can a man cut off his own head? I don’t know.

• Father Brown, The Secret Garden

 

[frjohnmorris]

QUOTE=Richca;11400846]

Hi frjohn,
The fall of Adam and Eve was very great as a reading of Genesis portrays. Upon their disobedience to God’s command, they went from a state of immortality to a state of being mortals and dying.
I RESPOND: We inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin which is mortality and the corruption that accompanies it. We are also born into a world filled with the corruption of sin. However, the Eastern Fathers taught that Adam and Eve were innocent, but spiritually immature. That means that they had not been fully sanctified. That is what it means to be created in the Likeness of God. They had the potential to be deified, but fell into sin instead. We also believe that although it has been soiled by our sins, all of us still bear the Image of God as we know from Genesis 9:6. That means that we reject the Calvinist doctrines of Total Depravity or the rejection of free will.

Original justice and holiness means that God created Adam and Eve with sanctifying grace and other gifts of grace by which their bodies were subject to their souls and the sensitive powers of their souls were subject to their intellect and will. Before their fall, Adam and Eve did not experience any inordinate movements of the senses which we call concupiscence.

I RESPOND: Where does that come from? They obviously felt hunger. The also were told to “be fruitful and multiply,” Genesis 1:28 There is only one way to do that and it is quite physical. I realize that there are those, chiefly in monastic circles, that claim that Adam and Eve could have produced offspring without sexual intercourse, but that is only a theologoumena and in my personal opinion a very bad one without foundation.

Upon their sin, Adam and Eve lost sanctifying grace and the other gifts of grace by which their bodies and the sensory powers of their souls were subject to their intellect and will. This is signified by being banished from the garden of Eden and thus not being able to eat of the Tree of Life. Their sin was a mortal sin which is signfied by them being subject to death after their fall.

I RESPOND: We do not have the complex categorization of grace that the Catholic Church inherited from Scholasticism. We only know of grace, which is an uncreated and fully divine energy of God flowing from His divine essence. God’s grace fills and sustains the world. Even the pagan is experiences God’s grace through natural revelation through God’s creation as we know from the 1st chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Although we are born in ancestral sin we are not cut off from God, because God continued to speak to Adam and Eve after the Fall and even spoke to Cain after he killed his brother Abel, Genesis 4:8-10.

CONTINUED

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONTINUATION OF ABOVE
Fault and guilt are synonymous terms and sometimes the one is used for the other. Strictly speaking, fault is the sin itself or the act of sin while guilt and punishment are the effects of sin or the fault. So guilt and punishment follow upon moral fault. In a wide sense, sin is related to all three terms since one follows upon the other. For example, suppose a man commits an act or sin of murder. He is brought before a judge and jury and is found guilty. Consequent on being found guilty, the judge sentences him to some form of punishment such as a lifetime in prison.
In regard to Adam and Eve, their sin or fault was eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil against God’s command. Upon their eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the scripture says that their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked which signifies a loss of innocence and guilt. God punished Adam and Eve for their disobedience by banishing them from the garden of Eden and He said to Eve that she would bring forth children in pain and to Adam that he would eat bread by the sweat of his brow. Finally, they would return to the ground from which they were taken; for “you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

I RESPOND: The sin of Adam and Eve was pride in trying to be like God on their own efforts rather than through the grace of God. Remember Satan told Eve that if she ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that she would be like God. Genesis 3:9. According to Genesis :17-19 the chief aspect of ancestral sin is the inheritance of mortality. Because we are born mortal, and are born fallen in a world that is corrupt and because of that we all sin. Because we all sin, we die. Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death…” This is affirmed by Romans 5:12 which teaches that we all die because we all have sinned.

CONTINUED

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE

The Catholic Church teaches that not only are the effects or consequences of Adam’s sin such as guilt and punishment, a fallen nature, the loss of sanctifying grace, and being subject to death, are transmitted to every human being but sin itself too which is the fault of Adam and Eve. St Paul says that “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners.” (Romans 5:19). And “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” (Romans 5:12). And the Psalm says “Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me.” (51:5).

I RESPOND: Once again the difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism stems from a mistranslation of the original Greek text of the Bible into Latin. Translated correctly Romans 5:12 reads, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” The original Greek does not read, “in whom all sinned.” The Greek words are ep ho, which do not mean “in whom.” These words mean “because” or “in that.” From this incorrect translation, Blessed Augustine developed the Western doctrine of original sin as inherited guilt caused by sharing in the sin of Adam, but we do not share in Adam’s sin. We inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin which is death and mortality. Another consequence of Adam’s sin is that we are born in a world that is filled with sin. Because we are mortal, we are corrupt and because we are corrupt and are born into a world filled with sin, we all sin. Thus we do not inherit guilt, but are only guilty of our own sins. The result of this is that the East has never seen salvation in legalistic terms like the West, especially the Protestants. Salvation is healing of the corrupt condition in which we are all born.

Here I think that it is important to define sin. In Greek the word for sin is hamartina, which means literally to miss the mark. God calls us to perfect communion with him. Because we are not in perfect communion with him, we are not perfect. Our Lord said, “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matthew 5:28. Therefore if we are less than perfect, we have missed the mark of perfection that Our Lord has set for us. The sinful acts that we do are a manifestation of our imperfect condition. Therefore, salvation is healing of our imperfect condition by God’s grace. This healing is possible because God became man to deify us as the human nature of Christ was deified by its union with His divine nature. The Fathers call this the communication of attributes, communicatio idiomatum. Just as the divine nature is of one essence with the father, homoousios, the human nature of God is of one essence with us as was defined at Chalcedon. Therefore if we are united to Christ through the Sacramental Life of the Church, we are deified as the human nature of Christ was deified. There was a German philosopher named Ludwig Feuerbacher, who said, “you are what you eat.” When we eat the sacred Body and Blood of Christ we become like Christ.

So the Church teaches that all human beings are implicated in Adam’s sin (CCC#402). The Church also teaches that the baptism of infants is truly for the forgiveness of sins, namely, original sin. Original sin is a true sin in every human being born of the stock of Adam; for the first fault of the human race, namely, of Adam and Eve, was indeed a true sin. It is evident that every person born is subject to death which is the penalty of sin even infants and children who have not committed any personal sin. But the penalty of death cannot be in every person without some fault or sin. So some kind of sin is in every person. It is not an actual fault or sin, but a contracted fault or sin which is transmitted to each person by way of origen from our first parents and thus is called original sin.

I RESPOND: Ancestral sin means that we are born in sin in that we inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam, or to put it another way the penalty of the sin of Adam which is mortality. However, we are only guilty of our own sins. There is no inherited guilt. Baptism cleanses us from these consequences of Adam’s sin and we are born again. However, we are born again as spiritual infants and must grow to spiritual maturity. Because we are not spiritual mature we all fall into temptation and sin after our Baptism. That is why God gave us the Sacrament of Confession, which is a renewal of our Baptism.
We may be saying almost the same thing, but express it differently.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Mary is already fully graced (“Kecharitomone”) prior to saying, “Let it be done to me…”.

The sanctifying Grace according to my understating with John the Baptist occurs at the Visitation when Elisabeth is already blessed with St John and he jumps in the womb. I may be understanding wrong from a Eastern perspective but its my understanding he was conceived without the spot or stain of the consequence of the fall thus sin?

My confusion resides above. See the difference in the order of Grace?

It is not the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church that St. John the Baptist was conceived without the inheritance of ancestral sin. Neither was the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary.
The Orthodox problem with the Catholic doctrine of original sin is that it is based on the Augustinian concept of original sin as inherited guilt. The Eastern Orthodox doctrine is that we inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin, not the guilt. That consequence is mortality. The teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church is that Our Lady died. That can be seen in the icon and the name of the feast that we celebrate on August 15, it is called the Falling Asleep or Dormition of the Theotoks and Ever-Virgin Mary. The icon shows her dead with Christ standing behind her holding soul just as the icons of Mary show her holding the infant Christ. When someone has died, we say they have fallen asleep in the Lord. That Mary died shows that she was born in ancestral sin which we define as the inheritance of the consequences of the sin of Adam, which is mortality. This is a very important theological issue, because the human nature inherited ancestral sin from Mary and was healed by Christ’s death and Glorious Resurrection. The divine nature through the communication of attributes also took upon itself ancestral sin by dying on the Cross. The principle was expressed by St. Gregory the Theologian, “That which is not assumed is not healed.” One way that Christ saved us is dying and defeating death. If Christ had not assumed ancestral sin from His human nature which he received from Mary we would not be saved, because we could not be healed by Christ of ancestral sin. It is the Incarnation that saves us, not just the Cross. The Eastern Orthodox Church is not Anselmic in its doctrine.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

I understand that according to Eastern Orthodox belief that the Apostles saw her die and also her assumption… I understood that St. John the Apostle took care of Mary till her death. However, the date and death of ther Virgin Mary are debatable. There is a strong tradition that Mary went to Ephesus with St. John the Apostle and died there. Ther is also the tradition that Mary died in Jerusalem. It some point, it seems that all of the Apostles except James who died in Jerusalem went all over the known world, till they were martyred, with only St. John the Apostle who died a natural death. The belt that you say she dropped is like the Shourd of Turin a devotion as it can not be proved one way or te other that that happened as you state. I do understand that it could have happened but one should not base their belief just on that. Yes, Enoch walked with God as the Old Testament states, but since no one has ever seen the face of God, it was God’s Persence, also though it says that Elijah ascended into heaven in a fiery Chariot how does one reconcile this with Heaven as it was closed to all till Christ opened it by His death and resurrection?

I do no know. It is a mystery. I do not have to understand everything. In fact it is very dangerous to try, because the human mind cannot comprehend the mysteries of God. The divinely inspired Scriptures tell us “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.” Genesis 5:24 and that Elijah went to Heaven in a fiery chariot. II Kings 2:11. That is one of the major difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholics rely far too much on human reason, when they should stand in silent awe before the mystery of God and recognize that God and the ways of God are beyond human understanding.

Fr. John

 

[ronyodish]

But the praxis of the Early Church did not seem to follow this organizational concept. Numerous times, bishops sent appeals to foreign sees, such as Rome, and the local synod told Rome to mind its own business. This was the case for example, with the synod of North African bishops in Carthage which passed canons forbidding appeals across the sea (meaning appeals to Rome) in reaction to the Pope attempting to reinstate a bishop which the synod had deposed. The Pope’s sole claim to have the authority to do so (at that time) were the Sardican Canons, which the Carthaginians believed to be spurious, for they themselves never had received or heard of such a collection of canons. And even granting the concession that the Sardican Canons were in fact authentic, the Pope in that case still would have overstepped his canonical prerogatives, because the Sardican canons only gave the pope the authority to demand a retrial in a neighboring province, not to annul the acts of the synod entirely.

Cavaradossi,

What happens in the praxis of Church history may or may not reflect the original model of Peter and the Apostles. I believe that the original model of Peter as the Resha daShleehe (Head of the Apostles), is the model by which the successor of Peter in Rome and the successors of the Apostles throughout the world should live by. This is how it should be. Whether or not this is how it is played out in history is another matter.

Now, I am not saying that when the deposed metropolitan appeals to the Pope, then the Pope should then automatically reject the decision of the synod and reinstate the metropolitan. I am saying that the Pope, and not just the Pope but all the patriarchs and bishops in full communion with him, should have the authority to hear appeals. In other words, I am saying that the local synod should not automatically assume the final say in such matters. The local synod is not the highest authority in the Church.

The question then still remains: If the body cannot depose the head bishop, what are we to make of the numerous times when popes were deposed for moral failings in the first and even early second millennium?

What was done is a different question from what should be done. In times of personal moral failures on the part of the Popes, such Popes should be counseled by the rest of the body of bishops in full communion with him to repent of these sins and heed back the call of Christ… “when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:32). The Bishops are to pray for the conversion of such a Pope, so that he may turn around and strengthen his body of bishops. If he persists in his grave sins, they may also ask him to resign or abdicate the Papacy for the good of the universal Church. What the bishops should not do… is depose the Pope. They should not cut off their head.

If the Church, after all should have invalidly deposed a Pope (because such a power does not belong to the body of the episcopacy, according to the theory in question), then the election of a new one would automatically have been invalid by virtue of there already being a living Pope, and it should stand to reason also that the body of bishops which united themselves to this new and invalid anti-pope would never be able to elect a new pope after the death of the old pope, by virtue of the fact that the body would be “lifeless” in its schism from the true and unacknowledged head according to the ideas laid out in post #359.

In fact, one must wonder what exactly happens during the interregnum. How does a lifeless and headless body elect a new head, if the power of the head does not reside also in its fullness in the body (though latently)?

If they do cut off their head bishop, the Pope, they become a decapitated corpse, meaning, they lose the virtue of charity or love, that is, the bond of peace and full communion willed by Christ to his disciples. They do not lose their powers as Bishops to perform the Holy Mysteries, that is, to baptize, to ordain, and such. They can even preserve the true Faith, since “even the demons believe and tremble” (James 2:19). When the head bishop, who was forcibly cut off, passes away, then whoever is next acknowledged to have been validly elected, he then becomes the next successor of Peter, and the body of bishops should then extend their full communion with him as their new head.

By the way, this also pertains, reciprocally, to the Pope. The Pope should not depose collectively the body of bishops, because otherwise, he becomes a severed cranium. He may, together with the body of bishops in a collegial fashion, depose a certain bishop, but he may not collectively depose the whole body. If he does so, then he loses Christian charity, and wounds the will of Christ for his disciples, the full communion of all bishops, the head with the body.

God bless,

Rony

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

Only after the 4th and 6th Ecumenical Councils accepted the Tome of Leo and the statement of Pope St. Agtho did their statements become the official doctrine of the Church. Thus they did not proclaim the correct doctrine on Monophysitism and Monothelitism unilaterally by speaking “ex cathedra.” Thus these two examples only prove my argument that an Ecumenical Council is the highest authority in the Church, not the Pope.

That is not exactly true. The only Ecumenical Council presided over by the papal representatives was…Thus the practice of the Ecumenical Councils shows that like every other Bishop, the Bishop of Rome was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.

For all that, Father, the Councils still needed the confirmation of the head bishop of the Church universal for their authority to be truly Ecumenical. We have explicit historical records requesting such confirmation from the Pope of Rome by the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th councils.

Should High Petrine advocates then concede to the Absolutist Petrine advocates who claim that the Popes are above Ecumenical Councils because the confirmation of the Popes was necessary? Absolutely not.

Or should High Petrine advocates concede to the Low Petrine advocates who claim that the Ecumenical Councils are above the Popes because the consensus of the bishops was necessary? Absolutely not.

In opposition to both camps, High Petrine advocates stand fast to the Tradition of the Fathers as enshrined in the ancient Apostolic Canon 34 - that both the consent of the head bishop, on the one hand, and the consent of his brother bishops, on the other, are equally necessary to ensure unanimity for the glory of God.

When Pope St. Leo I objected to the Council of Ephesus of 449…

The full story is that his brother bishops appealed to Pope St. Leo on the matter, who thence initiated proceedings for the realization of the 4th Ecum. The facts of history do not demonstrate that the Ecum Council is above the Pope, but rather that there is a dynamic of cooperation between the head bishop and his brother bishops.

Humbly,
Marduk