Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[frjohnmorris]

Dear. Mardukm, I agree!!! It seems to me your statement also holds true concerning our seperated Protestant breathren. Most Catholic’s are not taught how to respond to those who do not understand the teachings of the Catholic Church. Many Catholic’s do not really know or understand their faith as Catholic’s or understand its teachings. This is what I think happens when confronted by non-Catholic’s with questions they do not know and so might or may become confused and end up leaving the Church. Many Catholic’s do not even know that there is a CCC book containing the teachings of the Catholic Church in which they can read. You are correct in that it does take time foir those who are not Catholic’s to come to understand what the Catholic Church teaches as there are a great deal of misinformation and misundersandings of what Catholic’s believe. So I aplauld your efforts to set things right.

That is partially the Catholic’s own fault, because not all Catholics seem to agree on what their Church teaches. Some teach that we inherit guilt from the sin of Adam, others do not. The Eastern Orthodox rejection of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady is based on several issues. Is it a new doctrine that was not approved by an Ecumenical Council, but was unilaterally proclaimed by the Pope on his own authority. According to Orthodox teaching only an Ecumenical Council has that kind of authority, not the Pope. The teaching of the Orthodox Church is that ancestral sin is the inheritance of mortality from the sin of Adam. The liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church make it clear that Mary died. Therefore, Mary was born in ancestral sin. Christ receive his human nature from Our Lady. As St. Gregory the Theologian said, “that which is not assumed is not healed.” If Christ did not assume ancestral sin from Mary, we are not healed from it. Finllally, the human nature of Christ was fully human. Since Adam to be fully human is to be born in ancestral sin. However, because of its union with the divine nature, the human of Christ was deified. did not sin, and defeated the powers of sin and death. We do believe that God prepared Our Lady by His grace to become the Theotokos. Therefore we believe that she was sinless. But since she died, she did inherit ancestral sin.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

The teaching of the Orthodox Church is that ancestral sin is the inheritance of mortality from the sin of Adam. The liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church make it clear that Mary died. Therefore, Mary was born in ancestral sin. Christ receive his human nature from Our Lady. As St. Gregory the Theologian said, “that which is not assumed is not healed.” If Christ did not assume ancestral sin from Mary, we are not healed from it. Finllally, the human nature of Christ was fully human. Since Adam to be fully human is to be born in ancestral sin. However, because of its union with the divine nature, the human of Christ was deified. did not sin, and defeated the powers of sin and death. We do believe that God prepared Our Lady by His grace to become the Theotokos. Therefore we believe that she was sinless. But since she died, she did inherit ancestral sin.

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.

Why did She have to die and Elijah didn’t? Where did Elijah go up there in that Chariot?
.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Also this:

A strong discussion of these divergent views within the EOC can be found here:

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/278/metropolitan-ephraim-original-sin/

Moss sees the teaching on Ancestral sin causing just death and suffering, which lead to sin, rather than a separation from God as innovative and a radical reform oof Orthodox theology.

No it is not. The Orthodox Church has never taught that sin totally separates us from God. God spoke to Adam and Eve after the Fall. God spoke to Cain after he murdered his brother. God spoke to Noah and through the prophets. God speaks to all humanity through his creation. Read the 1st chapter of Romans. This make it perfectly clear that humanity has not been separated from God. It was Augustine who introduced the new and radically different doctrine of original sin. He did so because he could not read the original Greek text of Romans 5:12 and read an incorrect Latin translation.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

Read City of God chapter 13 forward book 13, he doesn’t use the above scripture verse, however, he did misinterpret the above verse, that said, it doesn’t reduce the further teachings of the Church or the point we are at.

 

[dvdjs]

No it is not. The Orthodox Church has never taught that sin totally separates us from God.

Huh? That idea of “total” separation in not the under dispute in the passages that I quoted, it is the novel idea that there is no separation and that legacy ancestral sin involves only mortality. That idea is clearly at odd with the Orthodox catechism that I quoted. And that is the issue - the Romanides, Akzoul development - that is treated by Moss.

It was Augustine who introduced the new and radically different doctrine of original sin. He did so because he could not read the original Greek text of Romans 5:12 and read an incorrect Latin translation.

An internet classic.

But here is what we have from on On-line Catechism of the Orthodox Church - ‘The Mystery of Faith’ by Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev:
orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx

The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race. This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘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). This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘original sin’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘original sin’ means.

If we accept the first translation, this means that each person is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Here, Adam is merely the prototype of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins. Adam’s sin is not the cause of our sinfulness; we do not participate in his sin and his guilt cannot be passed onto us.

However, if we read the text to mean ‘in whom all have sinned’, this can be understood as the passing on of Adam’s sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal. As St Cyril of Alexandria states, human nature itself has ‘fallen ill with sin’; thus we all share Adam’s sin as we all share his nature. St Macarius of Egypt speaks of ‘a leaven of evil passions’ and of ‘secret impurity and the abiding darkness of passions’, which have entered into our nature in spite of our original purity. Sin has become so deeply rooted in human nature that not a single descendant of Adam has been spared from a hereditary predisposition toward sin.

The Old Testament writers had a vivid sense of their inherited sinfulness: ‘Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’ (Ps.51:7). They believed that God ‘visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation’ (Ex.20:5). In the latter words reference is not made to innocent children but to those whose own sinfulness is rooted in the sins of their forefathers.

From a rational point of view, to punish the entire human race for Adam’s sin is an injustice. But not a single Christian dogma has ever been fully comprehended by reason. Religion within the bounds of reason is not religion but naked rationalism, for religion is supra-rational, supra-logical. The doctrine of original sin is disclosed in the light of divine revelation and acquires meaning with reference to the dogma of the atonement of humanity through the New Adam, Christ: ‘…As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous… so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Rom.5:18-21).

 

[frjohnmorris]

Huh? That idea of “total” separation in not the under dispute in the passages that I quoted, it is the novel idea that there is no separation and that legacy ancestral sin involves only mortality. That idea is clearly at odd with the Orthodox catechism that I quoted. And that is the issue - the Romanides, Akzoul development - that is treated by Moss.

An internet classic.

But here is what we have from on On-line Catechism of the Orthodox Church - ‘The Mystery of Faith’ by Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev:
orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx

If you read the writings of Metropolitan Hilarion, it is clear that he teaches the traditional Orthodox understanding of ancestral sin. The teaching of the Orthodox Church is that we inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam, which is the corruption of mortality. No where in his other writings does Metropolitan Hilarion teach the doctrine of inherited guilt. I set with Frs. John Meyendorff, Stanley Harakas and Metropolitan Maximos two of the best Orthodox theologians in the United States when we went through this issue with the Lutherans during the North American Orthodox Lutheran Dialogue. So I know the correct Orthodox doctrine on this particular issue. Read the section on ancestral sin in Meyendorff’s Byzantine Theology. He gives a detailed treatment of this subject. Once again, we do believe that we inherit corruption form Adam in the form of mortality. No Orthodox theologian teaches that we inherit guilt from the sin of Adam. We are only guilty of our own sins. In Fr. Michael Pomazansky’s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology we read, “The Eastern Orthodox Holy Fathers often affirm that all of Adam’s descendants inherit his sin, in accordance with the words of St. Paul: By one man’s disobedience, many were made sinners (Romans 5:19). However in saying this they do not mean that the guilt of Adam’s sin was imputed to his descendents; rather, it was the consequences of that sin that was imputed. These consequences, as we have seen include suffering, death, and physical corruption; a corruption of human nature and the subsequent loss of the indwelling grace of God.” ffn 10 p. 163.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

Guilt is non sequitur, we inherited a fallen human nature by Adam and Eves transgression, the exact same state of Grace then did not exist post fall Genesis, mankind was taken captive of evil. Jesus Christ redeems all including Elijah and whoever else flew where they did, or was Blessed, etc… or as when He descended to spread the good news.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Gary Taylor; Here’s the thinking from the CCC. Slightly more difficult path which arrives at the like goal.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? 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. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

I RESPOND: Except for the part about “original holiness and justice,” I agree. The Eastern Fathers teach that Adam and Eve were created innocent of sin, but not fully sanctified. They were as children. They failed in their responsibility to grow to full deification for themselves and all creation.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

I RESPOND: I agree. Notice that the text that you have quotes carefully does not include the idea of inherited guilt.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example.

I RESPOND: That is why Pelagius was an heretic. He taught that we are not born corrupted by ancestral sin, and that we could by our own ability without the aid of grace earn eternal life by good works.

The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

I RESPOND: I totally agree the Protestants went too far. Luther and Calvin based their theology on only part of Augustine and did not have the balance of the other Fathers that both the East and the West had.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”

I RESPOND: I agree.

1426 Conversion to Christ, the new birth of Baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Christ received as food have made us “holy and without blemish,” just as the Church herself, the Bride of Christ, is “holy and without blemish.” Nevertheless the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life. This is the struggle of conversion directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never ceases to call us.

I RESPOND: I agree.
2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the “spirit.” Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.

Needless to say we can begin to see how the EOC has streamlined the theology while admittedly the CCC is confronted with history Anselm/Augustine/Aquinas/Scotus/Suarez.

I RESPOND: We seem to agree on the basics, but because of our different traditions express it differently.
I admit that my view of the Western doctrine of original sin was largely shaped by my participation in the Lutheran dialogue, especially the Lutheran interpretation of original sin as total depravity and the denial of free will.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Guilt is non sequitur, we inherited a fallen human nature by Adam and Eves transgression, the exact same state of Grace then did not exist post fall Genesis, mankind was taken captive of evil. Jesus Christ redeems all including Elijah and whoever else flew where they did, or was Blessed, etc… or as when He descended to spread the good news.

On that we agree.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

On that we agree.

Fr. John

Agree’d,

Here’s a link I have found which sheds a little light on the further thinking with Elijah. etc.

ecclesia.org/truth/enoch.html

This brings the purification and continued divinization into the light. Though as with Daniel as God speaks to him and tells him to remain on this step. This has been interpreted by the Saints as the ninth step on Jacobs ladder. Then while complete pre fall communion wasn’t possible, the prophets, the Lords Saints never were not covered by Gods hand and Grace.

 

[Peter_J]

Fr. Morris,

If the general council is teaching the orthodox faith, then why should the Pope overrule it?

I hate to “butt in”, but I seriously doubt that Father is saying that the pope should overrule a general council that is teaching the orthodox faith.

 

[dvdjs]

If you read the writings of Metropolitan Hilarion, it is clear that he teaches the traditional Orthodox understanding of ancestral sin. The teaching of the Orthodox Church is that we inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam, which is the corruption of mortality. No where in his other writings does Metropolitan Hilarion teach the doctrine of inherited guilt.

What is clear is that he does not buy into the facile theory of a unique meaning/translation of the Greek, that was mistranslated into Latin, and that that mistranslation led to mistaken ideas of original sin in the West. As to “inherited guilt” , you would have to define that for me; I am not sure what you mean by it. It is clear, however, that there is an opinion in Orthodoxy ( I noted a couple) that we inherit a penalty, that involves a separation from God, that baptism mitigates heals that rift, and that without this healing we are in jeopardy - overall a view that is scarcely distinguishable for the Catholic one,

I set with Frs. John Meyendorff, …

I am not doubting that your line of thinking exists within contemporary Orthodoxy ad developed by the Parisians and others. Just that the thinking of such thologians does not represent the totality of Orthodox thinking on the subject, and that there have been theological currents and development over time within the EOC.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Mardukm;11405514]Dearest Fr. Ambrose, bless,

May I humbly suggest you reread Eusebius. There you will discover:
(1) The synodal letter of the Asian churches explicitly admitting that it was Pope St. Victor who gave instruction to have the synod held.
(2) Another synodal letter from the Palestinian Churches to the Pope containing an admission that it is from him whereby the decision of that Synod is to be transmitted to the other Churches. That indicates that there was a prior instruction from the Pope that the Synod should send him their findings; otherwise, if the Palestinian Synod was convened completely on their own initiative and wanted their decision to be transmitted to the other Churches, it could have done so on its own authority.

I RESPOND: I am in my office and did reread Eusebius.
Hence, there were synods and convocations of the bishops on this question: and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which they communicated to all the church in all places: p. 181

Note the text says nothing indicating that the Pope called these councils or that he made the decision on the matter. In fact there is no reference to the Bishop of Rome in Eusebius’ discussion of this matter.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

What is clear is that he does not buy into the facile theory of a unique meaning/translation of the Greek, that was mistranslated into Latin, and that that mistranslation led to mistaken ideas of original sin in the West.

I RESPOND: It is not a misconception that the Latin translation is incorrect. The Greek words involved are “ephi ho” which mean because or in that, not in whom. I have a web site that gives 100 translations of the New Testament. All but the Duoay-Rheims 1899 American Edition agree that the correct translation is “in that” or “because.” The Duoay Rheims is a translation not from the original Greek, but from the Latin Vulgate. With all due respect to Metropolitan Hilarion, he is wrong on this particular matter.
Augustine used this incorrect translation when he developed his doctrine of original sin, which has been defined by a neutral source as, “In Augustine’s view (termed “Realism”), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#Augustine
Thus it is obvious from that Augustine denied free will at least in his writings on original sin. I look upon Augustine as a kind of Western Origen who had some good ideas, but also some very wrong ones.
The decree on original sin of the Council of Trent quoted directly from the incorrect Latin text of Romans 5:12.

As to “inherited guilt” , you would have to define that for me; I am not sure what you mean by it. It is clear, however, that there is an opinion in Orthodoxy ( I noted a couple) that we inherit a penalty, that involves a separation from God, that baptism mitigates heals that rift, and that without this healing we are in jeopardy - overall a view that is scarcely distinguishable for the Catholic one,

I RESPOND: I just read the decree of the Council of Trent on original sin and the only thing that I find troubling as an Orthodox Christian is the reference to inherited guilt. Eastern Orthodoxy tends to consider original sin as more in terms of an inherited illness than in the legalistic terms than the phrase “inherited guilt” implies. Thus salvation according to Orthodox thinking is healing rather than a legalistic transaction between the believer and God.
Perhaps the two views are not irreconcilable. The difference between the Catholic view and the Eastern Orthodox view may be only a matter of emphasis. However the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of original sin is irreconcilable with the doctrine of original sin derived from Augustine by Luther and Calvin.
Orthodoxy teaches that we inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam, but also teaches that we are only guilty of our own sins. The major consequence of ancestral sin is mortality and the corruption that comes with mortality and estrangement from God. Because we are born corrupted with mortality, we sin ourselves and become guilty of sin. In the case of an infant the infant is born with the curse of ancestral sin. Thus it is proper to refer to the Baptism of an infant for the remission of sins. However, we also believe that although it is soiled by our sins, that we never lose the Image of God in which we are all created. Thus we cannot accept any teaching that we have lost free will. This concept is important to the Orthodox doctrine that we are saved by cooperating with the grace of God for our salvation. God offers salvation to all but we must use our free will to accept or refuse to cooperate with His grace for our salvation.

I am not doubting that your line of thinking exists within contemporary Orthodoxy ad developed by the Parisians and others. Just that the thinking of such thologians does not represent the totality of Orthodox thinking on the subject, and that there have been theological currents and development over time within the EOC.

I RESPOND: The East never really was confronted with Augustine’s ideas until long after the schism. His works were not translated into Greek until the 13th or 14th century. What the Parisians wrote was not new, however, because Patriarch Jeremias II wrote the same thing in three responses to the Lutheran Theologians from Tubingen University who sent him a Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession written between 1575 and 1581.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

I hate to “butt in”, but I seriously doubt that Father is saying that the pope should overrule a general council that is teaching the orthodox faith.

The difference between us is that according to Eastern Orthodox teaching an Ecumenical Council not the Pope determines what is and what is not the orthodox faith.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Baptism is literally and symbolically not only cleansing, but also dying and rising again with Christ. Death of the body Death of the Soul. Mary was Baptized at the moment of conception.

No one is saved until they stand before the Eternal Throne of God in Heaven. Jesus Christ judges the Living and the Dead. And He did not redeem by His Blood at the Cross till after Elijah and Enoch, where were they in Eastern Orthodox thinking? They were “NOT” assumed body and soul into heaven “wrong”! Death of the body, death of the soul, communion with God was broken by Adam and Eve.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE “Eastern Orthodox” OBJECTIONS to the IC along with all these other nuances as with Elijah, also applies to Eastern Orthodox teaching. And they are so focused and wrongly I might add that the CC is wrong and teachs only the world according to Augustine, and as you see “incorrectly” I might add, they fail to supply answers to their very own questions.

Hopefully a light was shined on this here. How they (EO) continue to miss this is astonishing.

We have always needed salvation. Our spiritual reality was, and is, linked to our communion with God. Ancestral sin broke that link for Adam, and for his descendents - that is Original Sin. Baptism restores the link and enables us as fully as we can choose to cooperate with grace to work toward salvation in free-will.

Whatever time the Orthodox says St Mary was preserved by the Lord the questions are the same!!! And as you see on this thread the obvious confusion on the Divinity and sinless essence of the Living God Let alone the purpose of Redemption And astonishing as this is it continues in insisting the CC places more emphasis on reparation and they focus on divinization. How in the world is that possible. They take the low road in this conversation while the CC takes the high road with Gods Grace thus divinization. WITH reparation clearly intact.

What do you say when one asks you: why did Mary need to be saved if she was sinless? And as on this thread after pulling teeth you “ADMIT” She as GOD were SINLESS!!! You present this question to the West and astonishing as it is don’t think to ask yourself, or that it applies to you.

The erroneous assumption is the Catholic Church only teaches the World According to St Augustine. Obviously incorrect and it insures the disorientation in the East. READ THE THREAD. Who is confused about Gods love and Grace but the EO?

On the other thread brother mardukm is absolutely spot on with this post

NOTE: Ms Grant is there any way we could place the posts from this thread in relation to sin with the thread on “Eastern Catholic view of Original Sin”. I apologize for any distraction or even asking.

Of course Mary had to be saved. She said it herself when she referred to “God my savior,” St…Luke 1:47. Mary also inherited ancestral sin because she died, as the liturgical texts used by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Melkite Eastern Catholics clearly state. Obviously since the Melkites are in Communion with Rome, it is apparent that Rome does not reject the teaching that Mary died. However, she was also prepared by the grace of God to become the Theotokos and was sinless. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, we celebrate this on the Feast of the Entrance of the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary in the Temple on November 21.
As I have written before and no one seems to respond. Christ received His human nature from Mary as He received His divine nature by being begotten by the Father. However, through the communication of attributes, the human nature was deified by the union between the two natures. The divine nature also too upon human attributes through its union with the human nature.
It is important that Christ took upon himself all that is human including ancestral sin, because as St. Gregory the Theologian wrote, “That which is not assumed is not healed.” To heal us of ancestral sin, Christ took upon Himself our sins. II Cor. 5:21, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Christ took upon himself our sins when He died on the Cross.
So, you see there are very important theological implications caused by teaching that Our Lady was not born in ancestral sin that have direct impact on our salvation.
However, we both believe that God prepared Our Lady to become the Theotokos by his grace. We also both affirm the sinlessness of Mary.
Fr. John

 

[ronyodish]

I hate to “butt in”, but I seriously doubt that Father is saying that the pope should overrule a general council that is teaching the orthodox faith.

Peter,

Granted.

I hope that the good Father understands that we Catholics do not believe that the Pope should, or even has the authority to, overrule a general council that is teaching the orthodox faith. Since the Pope is in full communion with all the bishops in a general council, like a head to a body. And when the body speaks the truth, the head confirms as true, and when the head speaks the truth, the body confirms as true.

The difference between us is that according to Eastern Orthodox teaching an Ecumenical Council not the Pope determines what is and what is not the orthodox faith.

But what is an Ecumenical Council, dear Father, if not the full communion of the Pope and all the bishops that are gathered in the name of Christ? It is not correct to set the Pope, the head, in opposition to the bishops, the body. It is the role of both the head, and the body, in a collegial fashion, to determine and confirm the orthodox faith. It is not correct to place a false dichotomy between the successor of Peter and the successors of the rest of the Apostles.

God bless,

Rony

 

[frjohnmorris]

Perhaps, but that really misses the depth of the texts, which proclaim her falling asleep as an ineffable wonder and emphasize her incorruption, her continuing life, her translation to heaven, and her continuing presence in our lives.

Her leaving the world is clear, but so is her immortality and translation to heaven. Texts explicitly refer her dormition as “deathless” or “death-free”.

Death had been vanquished - and that is the important belief, much more important than speculation on how much time elapsed between her last breath and her translation to heaven.

Dormition means Falling Asleep. Falling Asleep is a way that the Eastern Orthodox refer to death. Mary died and then rose after her death and was assumed into Heaven, just like her son, Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Peter,

Granted.

I hope that the good Father understands that we Catholics do not believe that the Pope should, or even has the authority to, overrule a general council that is teaching the orthodox faith. Since the Pope is in full communion with all the bishops in a general council, like a head to a body. And when the body speaks the truth, the head confirms as true, and when the head speaks the truth, the body confirms as true.

But what is an Ecumenical Council, dear Father, if not the full communion of the Pope and all the bishops that are gathered in the name of Christ? It is not correct to set the Pope, the head, in opposition to the bishops, the body. It is the role of both the head, and the body, in a collegial fashion, to determine and confirm the orthodox faith. It is not correct to place a false dichotomy between the successor of Peter and the successors of the rest of the Apostles.

God bless,

Rony

The Bishop of Rome is not the head of the Church. Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. An Ecumenical Council is a general council recognized by the Church, not just the Pope as an Ecumenical Council. The recognition of the other Patriarchs was just as necessary as was the recognition of the Pope. In a very real sense all Bishops are successors to St. Peter, not just the Bishop of Rome. That is a point that St. Cyprian of Carthage made when he wrote that the “Episcopate is One.” You give the Pope too much authority by claiming that he has a veto over the decisions of an Ecumenical Council. The Pope only held a primacy of honor as first among equals in the ancient Church. Like all other Bishops, the Bishop of Rome was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council. You create a false dichotomy by giving the Pope authority over an Ecumenical Council. It is the Ecumenical Councils that had authority over the Pope. Thus it is an Ecumenical Council that determined what was orthodox, not the Pope. The Pope must obey the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.

Fr. John

 

[ronyodish]

The Bishop of Rome is not the head of the Church. Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.

Fr. Morris,

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. Vatican II taught this in Lumen Gentium (par. 7):

=====================
The Head of this Body is Christ. He is the image of the invisible God and in Him all things came into being. He is before all creatures and in Him all things hold together. He is the head of the Body which is the Church.​

The Pope of Rome is the head bishop of the body of bishops. In the tradition of the Church of the East, the Apostle Peter is called the Resha daShleehe, meaning, the Head of the Apostles. The Pope of Rome, as successor of Peter, is the head of the successors of the Apostles.

An Ecumenical Council is a general council recognized by the Church, not just the Pope as an Ecumenical Council.

The Ecumenical Council is recognized by the Pope and the rest of the bishops of the Church, collectively, as a united head-body dynamic, called the Teaching Office. The rest of the Church, as sheep, are called to follow in the footsteps of the shepherds, and in full unity and communion with their shepherds, must accept and recognize what their bishops have recognized, that the Councils teach and confirm the orthodox faith.

The recognition of the other Patriarchs was just as necessary as was the recognition of the Pope.

I agree, and this is the collegiality of the Teaching Office of the Catholic Church, since the Patriarchs are the body upon which the head Patriarch rests in a bond of peace and full communion.

In a very real sense all Bishops are successors to St. Peter, not just the Bishop of Rome.

But there can be no Peter for the local Church if there is not already a Peter for the universal Church. The fact that there are Peters for the local Churches presupposes a universal model upon which they are based.

As Mar Abdisho teaches: “And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the church.”

That is a point that St. Cyprian of Carthage made when he wrote that the “Episcopate is One.”

Which is exactly the model of the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church, since the Pope of Rome, as the head Episkopos, is one, united, and in the fullness of peace and communion, with his body in the Episcopate. Unlike Eastern Orthodoxy, which has severed the unity of the head-body Episcopate when they rejected the fullness of communion with the Pope of Rome.

You give the Pope too much authority by claiming that he has a veto over the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.

If the body is orthodox, there is nothing to veto. If the decisions are correct, there is nothing else to correct. The head confirms what is already taught as truth by the body. The head’s authority is to confirm his body of brethren, but the body of brethren are guided by the Holy Spirit, so there should not be any opposition in the united head-body dynamic.

The Pope only held a primacy of honor as first among equals in the ancient Church.

Not just a Primacy of honor, but a Primacy of service to all the brethren, a Primacy of confirmation of all the brethren, a Primacy of headship to the body of all the brethren. He is equal to them as a bishop among them, but unequal to them in his headship to their body, for Christ set only one universal head to the universal body of the Apostles.

Like all other Bishops, the Bishop of Rome was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.

Subject… as a head is subject to a body… fine… but likewise, the body is subject to the head. In the Ecumenical Council, in the gathering of all Bishops, neither the head has the authority to do away with his body, nor does the body have the authority to do away with their head. This brings us back to my basic point, that an Ecumenical Council does not exist if the fullness of communion between the head and body is not a foundational principal.

You create a false dichotomy by giving the Pope authority over an Ecumenical Council. It is the Ecumenical Councils that had authority over the Pope. Thus it is an Ecumenical Council that determined what was orthodox, not the Pope. The Pope must obey the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.

And Since the Ecumenical Council is a head-body dynamic, then your objection is inapplicable, because neither the head has authority to do away with his body, nor does the body have authority to do away with the head. Therefore, your setting up of opposition between the head and the body is indeed the false dichotomy here.

God bless,

Rony