Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[Tomdstone]

All canonical Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize each other.

Are you sure about that? For example, haven’t there been some Orthodox Churches which do not recognize the Macedonian Orthodox Church, while others did so, at least for a while?

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

How so, I don’t see the difference here but that the CC teaches at the moment of conception where the EO teaches at the Incarnation ?

Think of it this way, when you Baptize, as the Creed states for the remission/forgiveness of sins, thus communion. Thus with children, before the age of reason they committed no sin, we baptize them because they have a fallen nature subjected to a fractured state of grace post-fall

Jesus Christ redeemed all mankind at the Cross, Mary was redeemed by the Word of God, the conception/Incarnation really becomes non sequitur. 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. The Word of God, sin. has no access to His essence. This is how God brings mans fractured nature into communion with himself at the Cross. He defeats death first through one womans free will, then redeems all mankind. And He continues to deify us the very same way through the Sacraments not only Baptism, but also confession/communion.

The second point of the death and the assumption, Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. The death part, the CC doesn’t teach She did not die. However, the complications remain the same both EO/CC at this point.

As to the quote:

“What has not been assumed has not been healed;
it is what is united to his divinity that is saved. . .”
—Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistle 101

The Word of God assumed Mary is what you are saying and saved Her. I agree. I don’t see where this is at odds with what I am saying. If Mary was saved as either of us are, what difference does this make? God is saving you. me, and many others though His Grace.

The Church affirms Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Even if I took the Saints verse and applied it to the Assumption, its still true, no one is saved until they stand before the eternal throne of God. So we are talking supernatural imposed Grace with the sacrament’s as to saved and Mary’s supernatural birth of the Word of God.

Just to put saved in perspective. No one is saved until we stand before the throne of God. Christ redeemed mankind at the Cross from captivity, so saved defined again comes to mind.

Also if you are born, baptized and do not sin, you are saved. Because of Christs redemption. But everyone stands before the throne of God.

 

[Tomdstone]

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. Fr. John

I don’t see how this has any impact on my personal salvation.

 

[mardukm]

A BEAUTIFUL and AWESOME defense of the true teaching of the Catholic Church, brother Rony!!!

I would just like to add that at Vatican 1, we had the first draft of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ. As noted in another place, it was prepared and discussed, but was not voted on at V1 due to the Council being prematurely prorogated because of the Franco-Prussian War (though V2 completed V1). The Dogmatic Constitution asserted:
“The only-begotten Son of God who enlightens every man who comes into this world and who has never in any age failed to proffer his help,appeared visibly in the assumed form of our body so that carnal men of this earth might put on the new man…and form a mystical body whose head would be Christ Himself…And this is the magnificent beauty of the Church, whose head is Christ…from Whom the whole body takes its growth.”

Why non-Catholics think the idea that Jesus is the head of the Church somehow diminishes the headship of the Pope of Rome among the episcopate is beyond me. It seems, imo, to demonstrate a weak understanding of incarnational/sacramental theology to think that Christ, the Head, cannot work through the head servant of His household.

Abundant blessings.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[mardukm]

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.

You have to remember that the Eastern concept of “ancestral sin” is not identical to the Latin/Oriental concept of “original sin.” So your statement above does not even apply at all as a criticism of the IC.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

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 Bishop of Rome is not the head of the Church.
…

I know there’s more discussion I could have quoted rather than putting “…” but I just don’t think my brain could live through another trip around the race track with you two (or Mardukm as the case may be). :hypno:

What if we all just agree that some (not all, of course) Eastern Catholics are ultramontanists?

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

On Sardica and Carthage
Canon CXXVI of the Council of Carthage of 419 allows Priests and Deacons condemned by their Bishop to appeal their case to “neighboring”Bishops but forbids them to carry their appeal “across the sea, ” i.e. to Rome.

Granted, but it should be noted that the Church of Carthage generally was not aware of the Canons of the Council Sardica, which many other Churches had accepted.

Canon III of Sardica in 343 or 344 gave Pope Julius the authority to appoint “bishops of a neighboring province” to reconsider the case against a Bishop judged within his own province.

Please explain how it is that Sardica all of a sudden gave the Pope an authority that he had been using even before this time.uzzled: We have testimony from St. Cyprian, for example, of bishops appealing to the bishop of Rome – in fact, St. Cyprian himself appealed to the bishop of Rome to discpline wayward bishops in Gaul and Spain.

Significantly, the canon does not give Pope Julius the authority to judge the case himself but only to appoint “arbiters.”

Granted, but it is also significant that the canon (together with Canons 4 and 5) recognizes that the Pope had the personal authority (NOTE: “personal” does not mean “unilateral”) to (1) judge whether the case even merited a re-hearing, (2) give the final decision based on the collegial arbitration, (3) send judges of his own choosing (not merely from the “neighboring province”) at his discretion.

Most commentators consider the canon a temporary measure to deal with the problems caused by the attacks of the Arians against St. Athanasius and his supporters because the canon does not give the Pope the authority to appoint the Bishops to settle the matter, but specifically names Pope Julius.

That theory does not fit all the facts. Canon III may indeed be referring to the specific circumstance of Pope St. Julius, but Canons 4 and 5 are definitely more general. In any case, the Canons were admitted to have validity by Trullo, which would make no sense if they were only intended to have a limited application during the Arian controversy.

In any case, the canon was from a local council not an Ecumenical Council. Whatever authority Canon III of Sardica, it was overridden by the 4th Ecumenical Council.

Forgive me for saying so, but that’s ridiculous,Father, since Trullo explicitly admitted the validity of the Canons of Sardica in its day.

Canon IX of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 established a procedure a “clergyman” can appeal a sentence passed against him to the Metropolitan. If he is still dissatisfied with the decision, he then can appeal his case to the Patriarch of Constantinople not the Pope in Rome.

Absolutely incorrect, Father. The Canons of Sardica are not cancelled thereby. The only thing that Chalcedon did was add an extra step in the appellate process. That does not deny the authority of Rome to be the court of FINAL appeal. In fact, we do find examples of bishops appealing to the bishop of Rome from the decisions of the bishop of Constantinople after this time, which demonstrably refutes your claim.

Although Pope St. Leo I protested Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon that gave Constantinople equal rank with Rome,

I already responded to a similar statement from you earlier in this thread (post #410), to which you did not respond. I am surprised you would attempt to claim the same thing again after it was already refuted-or if you feel it has not been refuted, please respond to my prior post on the matter.

he did not protest this canon. Thus, Rome at this point in history did not claim universal jurisdiction, but recognized the right of Constantinople to act as the final court of appeal for clergy.

Only for clergy in the East. There is not a single instance in the history of the Church when a Western bishop appealed to the bishop of Constantinople, but there are numerous instances where bishops from BOTH West AND East appealed to the bishop of Rome. Ironically, on your very assumption that Canon 28 gave Constantinople equal privileges as Old Rome, then Rome must already have had these privileges (to hear appeals from bishops AND priests). So even though there was no universal canon (Sardica was not universally recognized at this time, I think) about the right of bishops and priests to appeal to Rome, it must have been regarded simply as a NATURAL prerogative of the Roman See by most, an ancient Tradition or custom that did not require any canon to justify its existence.

ronyodish:

The Pope does not have to preside or send legates to a council. The Pope is head bishop of the universal body of bishops irregardless of whether he personally presides, or sends legates, to any one council, whether deemed ecumenical or not. All he needs to do as head bishop is to determine, along with his body of bishops in a collegial fashion, that the council is orthodox in her teachings. That determination can be made during the council, or after the council.

No where do the canons of the Ecumenical Councils grant the Pope the authority to overrule a general council.

Father, please reread brother Rony’s statement. How does your response even begin to address anything he stated? Please respond to this, because I am trying to understand the rationale behind some of your responses. Without any obvious rationale, it makes your statements unduly polemic and…well… troll-like (forgive me for saying).

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

The councils all assumed authority over all Bishops, including the Bishops of Rome.

There is no evidence in the history of the Church where a Council had authority OVER the bishop of Rome. The best you have offered are the invalid examples of the 5th Ecum (see the new thread on Vigilius) and the 6th Ecum (Honorius was not judged as a Pope because he was already dead and there was a new Pope at the time ).

The historical example of a Pope who rejected a general council, is the rejection of Pope St. Leo I of the Council of Ephesus of 449. However, in order to have the decision to exonerate Eutyches of heresy overturned, St. Leo had to appeal to the emperor and the other Patriarchs to call another council to consider his objections to Ephesus 449. That was the Council of Chalcedon of 451, which instead of Ephesus 449 is recognized as an Ecumenical Council.

This demonstrates merely that the Pope of Rome WORKED WITH his brother bishops, not that a Council was above the Pope. What can you proffer to challenge the foregoing statement, Father?

As I have mentioned, but no one seems to notice. The Council of Chalcedon did not accept the Tome of Leo simply because it was written by a Pope. The council appointed a committee led by the Patriarch of Constantinople which studied the document, pronounced it orthodox and recommended its approval by the council. If the ancient Church had recognized the Pope to declare doctrine “ex cathedra” it would not have appointed a committee to study it to determine its orthodoxy.

Oh, we’ve noticed, but what you seem to have consistently avoided, Father, is the bare, historical fact that the Council afterwards STILL requested Pope St. Leo to confirm its Acts (as all other Ecum Councils - except the 1st - explicitly did). The actual facts demonstrate the Truth of the official High Petrine teaching of the CC - that the head and body work together as one - not the exaggerations of Absolutist Petrine advocates in the CC or SSPX who claim the head is above and apart from the College/Council, nor the excesses of the Low Petrine advocates who claim that the College/Council is above and apart from its head.

mardukm;11405514:

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 do not have my copy of Eusebius here with me at home. The final decision on the matter of the date of Pascha was made by the 1st Ecumenical Council not the Bishop of Rome. That should show that it was not the Pope’s decision to make.

The original issue was not what you explain here, but rather your denial that it was Pope St. Victor who called the Churches to universal action.

In any case, I would take exception - again - at the obvious “Low Petrine” tenor of your response. You make it seem as if the bishop of Rome is not involved at all on a matter of universal importance. I (and my fellow High Petrine advocates) would have accepted a statement like “That should show that it was not the Pope’s decision ALONE to make.” But your statements seem intent on depriving the Church universal (i.e., the Lord’s household) of its head bishop (i.e., the head servant), which (imo) is thoroughly unbiblical, unpatristic and not orthodox. If that is not your intent, please forgive the assumption.

Frjohnmorris:

mardukm:

I don’t understand the intent of this statement. Do you think the decisions of the Church universal are always made by papal decree, or (more to the point) that they are always made unilaterally

by the Pope? If the latter is the intent of your statement, can you show any instance in the history of the Church universal wherein a Pope made a unilateral decree or decision for the entire Church, so as to justify such a notion? Please respond to this with an example or two.
I RESPOND: The 1st Vatican Council gave the Pope this authority in 1870. The papal decrees dogmatizing the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the Assumption of Mary are examples of the Pope making a declaration of Catholic dogma. The decision on birth control is another.

I asked for examples where a Pope made a universal decree unilaterally (i.e., not in response to an appeal from his brother bishops, and without the agreement of any other bishops). I (and perhaps others, as well) are still waiting for examples.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Frjohnmorris:

mardukm:

And this demonstrates the High Petrine view that the Pope can be corrected by his brother bishops, nothing more. More to the point, what makes you think such a circumstance somehow challenges the High Petrine Catholic teaching on papal primacy?

I RESPOND; Once again, I refer you to Vatican I which declares that the Pope is answerable to no higher authority.

That is a false impression, Father. Rather, V1 merely stated that one cannot appeal to an Ecum Council as if to a higher authority. This is a very important clause that is often neglected by both Absolutist Petrine advocates and detractors of the papacy. This statement merely reflects the Traditional teaching of the CC that an Ecum Council is not above the Pope. This statement in no way excludes appealing to an Ecum Council wherein the Pope with his brother bishops re-judge the matter, and wherein the Pope may even be convinced or corrected by his brother bishops to change his mind.

The canons established a conciliar system which required all Patriarchs to follow the decisions of the Holy Synod.

Of course, because a Patriarch, as head of the Synod, and with his brother bishops formulate and promulgate the canons, is necessarily bound by the laws he (in communion with his brother bishops) enacts. I do not understand how you can conclude from this that a Synod is above its head bishop.

The last sentence in the Apostolic Canon “but neither let him who is first do anything without the consent of all” shows that each of the regional Primates had to administer their province according to the will of the synod of Bishops of the province.

And the first part of the apostolic canon, which you have again neglected, shows that the other bishops must also do things “according to will” of their head. So it is a mutual dynamic of cooperation, definitely not as you have made it out.

Thus the declaration of papal authority of Vatican I was in direct contradiction of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils of the ancient undivided Church.

Disagreed. V1 faithfully preserves the canons of the Ecum Councils. It is the Absolutist Petrine advocates (with their exaggerations of the role of the head bishop, in diminution of the role of his brother bishops) and the Low Petrine advocates (with their exaggerations of the role of the bishops, in diminution of the role of their head bishop) that contradicts the canons of the ancient, undivided Church.

mardukm:

The canon could mean the “bishops of all nations” just as easily as it could mean “the bishops of each nation.” Consider the following points:
If we compare the Apostolic Canon to the Antiochene Canon of 341A.D., you will find a very important difference – namely, while the Apostolic Canon uses a genitive (the bishops of

every nation), the Antiochene Canon uses a locative (the bishops in every province). The Antiochene Canon is clearly restricting the geographic scope of the Canon – but the Apostolic Canon does not immediately connote such a restriction.
I RESPOND: You are playing with words. There is no practical difference in meaning between the two phrases. It tells the Bishops of recognize the authority of the Bishop of the Metropolis of the province as their primate. Thus the title Metropolitan.

Be that as it may, can you offer any explanation for the actual difference in wording? The primordial Apostolic Canon 34 is more general and (if you will) ambiguous in its application. Catholic and Orthodox HIgh Petrine advocates understand that AC 34 is the rule of faith for ALL levels of the hierarchy. There is no logical nor historical rationale to restrict the meaning of AC 34 to the national, regional, or metropolitan levels, given the obvious and indisputable fact that Ecumenical Councils requested the bishops of Rome for confirmation. So the applicability of AC 34 on a universal level was recognized by the very custom of the Ecum Councils.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

The evidence we have for the interpretation of this canon is the actual practice of the ancient Church which was organized into reginal primacies. Each local Church administered its own affairs, elected its own Bishops and made all major decisions through councils of the Bishops of the province presided over by their Primate. Thus, from the historical evidence about how the canon was applied shows that it does not establish universal papal authority.

If you wish to contest the explicit Tradition of the Ecum Councils (each one recognized their head, and did nothing without his consent), that is certainly your prerogative. But High Petrine advocates will maintain our adherence to apostolic Tradition.

Frjohnmorris:

mardukm:

If we look at Scripture, we see Jesus setting up this hierarchical structure - a group of servants with a head servant for His household, the Church universal.

How can you be so sure the apostolic canon is not directly referring to this institution from our Lord Jesus Christ? St. John Chrysostom (reflecting his own primordial Syriac Tradition, before the Traditions of the Church of Antioch in the Byzantine empire were eventually replaced by the newer Constantinopolitan Traditions) explicitly identified the head servant as St. Peter and his successors, which is the understanding that the Catholic Church has faithfully retained through the ages.
I RESPOND: Yes St. John Chrysostom and everyone else in the ancient Church recognized the primacy of honor held by Rome, but that does not mean that they recognized the universal jurisdiction of Rome, because Rome exercised no such authority during the pre-schism era.

Rome had universal appellate authority on matters of both discipline and doctrine, and confirmed the Ecumenical Councils. He did not, however, have a unilateral prerogative to interfere in the affairs of local orthodox bishops in their sees, nor a unilateral prerogative to decide universal matters. But he was, according to the ancient Apostolic Tradition laid out in AC 34, involved in every matter of great importance in the Church universal. This was (in Catholic canonical jargon) his ordinary and proper right as head bishop of the Church universal (again, per AC 34). That’s the HIgh Petrine Tradition of the Catholic Church. St. John Chrysostom recognized this by his appeals to the bishop of Rome.

Every major decision was not made by Rome, but was made by an Ecumenical Council.

Again, there is the notion of cutting off the head from the body. The statement above is Incorrect. Rather, every major decision was made by Rome with the other Churches, whose bishops together formed the Ecumenical Council.

I do not agree with your interpretation of the Scriptrues. Our Lord said very little about the organization of the Church after His Ascension.

He said enough before His Ascension.

However, we do have example of the Apostolic Council in Acts 15 where the most important decision of the Apostolic age was made by a council. St. Peter did not issue anything even resembling a Papal Bull to resolve the controversy.

“God made choice among you, that by MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe…and [God] made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.” Sounds pretty bullish to me. And, let’s not forget, that even outside the context of a formal Council, he was the first to proclaim this dogma of the Church back in Acts 10-11.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

God gave him a vision but he took the matter to a council of the Apostles for a decision.

Father, I have never in all my years, both when I was in the COC, and in the CC, ever heard anyone dare to claim that St. Peter’s teaching in Acts 10-11 needed the Council of Acts 15 to establish its validity. Father, forgive me for saying so, but you are going way too far on the Low Petrine end. St. Peter did not need the Council either for the Truth (i.e., irreformibility) of his decree, nor for the authority of his decree. This decree was from God Himself. Even the Catholic Church, preserved in its orthodoxy by the Holy Spirit, distinguishes between “papal” infallibility and the charisms of inspiration and revelation that was uniquely given to the Apostles and the Apostles alone. That you would try to impose the Low Petrine excesses on Scripture itself is hard for me to believe, Father.

Sts. Paul and Barnabas also spoke during the discussions not just St. Peter.

And all the bishops, not just the Pope, are the judges in an Ecumenical Council, according to the official High Petrine teaching of the CC. So I don’t understand the relevance of this statement? Please explain.

I also see St. James as the local Bishop rendering the decision. A local Bishop always has seniority presbia in his own diocese. We still hold to this principle. If I serve in another parish, the Pastor always presides even if I have higher rank than he does. Thus the Biblical pattern of decision making is conciliar which we Eastern Orthodox continue to follow, not papal absolutism.

I’ve never read nor heard of a single instance in the history of the Church wherein the Pope of Rome presided over a local Synod/council. I’m afraid this is very poor rhetoric to try to refute the boogeyman of “papal absolutism.”

Frjohnmorris:

mardukm:

That’s a very strange reading, Father. The Canon does not

establish" anything.
I RESPOND: You are right. I did not choose my words well. Obviously Rome, Alexandria and Antioch go back to the Apostles. As far as the authority of Rome is concerned. The ancient epitome of the canon reads, “as the Roman bishop over those subject to him.”

I don’t understand why you would take as an authority texts whose dating probably does not go back further than the turn of the 1st/2nd millenium. Why should we trust these epitomes when even the Greek scholiasts of the middle ages complained that some of them did not properly reflect the actual Canon they were supposed to epitomize.

The ancient Latin translation of the text is even more specific, “It is of ancient custom that the bishop of the city of Rome should have a primacy (principatrum) that he should govern with care the suburban places and all his own province.”

Why do you trust the text of a single Latin Father, over the reading proferred by bishop Paschianus at the 4th Ecum and accepted by the Council as part of its Acts (i.e., reflecting its orthodoxy), which prefaces the text with “Rome has the primacy…” Please explain.

This translation and the epitome show as well as the canon specifically give authority to Alexandria and Antioch over the areas already under their authority shows that the idea of universal papal jurisdiction was the farthest thing from the mind of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. Rome had a primacy of honor, but not of jurisdiction, for this canon specifically restricts his actual authority to the areas already under his jurisdiction and affirms the jurisdiction of Alexandria and Antioch over the areas under their jurisdiction.

Sorry, Father, but your dependence on the not-too-ancient epitome and the corruption of a certain Latin Father do not do justice to the actual text of the Nicene Council. Again, you seem to have a very Absolutist Petrine concept of “universal jurisdiction.” If you are objecting the Absolutist Petrine understanding of “universal jurisdiction,” I applaud you. But such objections do not make a dent on the High Petrine teaching of the Catholic Church.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

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.

Dormition is not, however, a mere euphemism but expresses the reality of immortality through the vanquishing of death. “Death” has little emphasis in the liturgical texts, rather the emphasis is on the victory over death - even to the point of speaking of the “deathless dormition” - and the assumption.

 

[GaryTaylor]

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

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.

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.

Then reconciliation

1469 This sacrament reconciles us with the Church. Sin damages or even breaks fraternal communion. The sacrament of Penance repairs or restores it. In this sense it does not simply heal the one restored to ecclesial communion, but has also a revitalizing effect on the life of the Church which suffered from the sin of one of her members. Re-established or strengthened in the communion of saints, the sinner is made stronger by the exchange of spiritual goods among all the living members of the Body of Christ, whether still on pilgrimage or already in the heavenly homeland:
It must be recalled that . . . this reconciliation with God leads, as it were, to other reconciliations, which repair the other breaches caused by sin. The forgiven penitent is reconciled with himself in his inmost being, where he regains his innermost truth. He is reconciled with his brethren whom he has in some way offended and wounded. He is reconciled with the Church. He is reconciled with all creation.

So we begin to see the differences of Adam and Eve the only humans alive which we all share in the fall, and the inclination to sin on an individual basis, thus the ultimate goal of not only individual communion, communion within a Church, and more important the interrelated communion of all the Church’s. The battle of good and evil, thus Christs established and on-going development of the communion of Saints and those on earth seeking His communion. So the collective effort of good in a supernatural communion, leaves the physical presence of evil of the world dwindling. Obviously the execution and consistency of fundamentals we are having difficulties with.

 

[dvdjs]

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.

You should take this up with the learned Metropolitan. However, the point he makes pertains to the understanding of the text throughout Orthodox history. Translations in contemporary English bibles are irrelevant to that point.

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.

I am not sure that you are explaining what you mean by “inherited guilt” or what you think the CC means when this phrase comes up, or … . It has been pointed out to you before that while in English translations the “guilt” is used. that Latin uses “reatus” rather than “culpa”. It would be nice to understand the nuance, and to avoid drawing inferences about the legalism implied. It is cliche to talk about the legalistic West and the therapeutic East. Not only do both believe in the healing, but both also believe in judgement and hell.

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.

This is perfectly compatible with Catholic teaching. Although the CC like many EOs would go further and understand that through the the Image of God, while not entirely lost, is tarnished, and we suffer some separation from God that is healed through Baptism.

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 theologians 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 betwee, n 1575 and 1581

Your interest in Lutherans and Calvinists is understandable, but they are not Catholic, obviously; I don’t see how that contributes to the discussion. Whatever Patriarch Jeremias wrote to them cannot be taken as relevant to a discussion of Catholic theology. I have made the point that the view that you espouse on Orthodox teaching on original sin, while championed in many quarters, in not the only one. I have quoted Orthodox clergy who take a broader view. The Moss article that I linked to provides more documentation. I suppose that these Orthodox, like Met. Hilarion, may also be wrong. But that is the fault of the EOC.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t understand it either, its an off track teaching, we are only guilty in so far as we by our own free will imitate Adam and Eves counterproductive choice, namely disobeying God.

 

[Richca]

Hi Gary,
Inherited guilt is not an off track teaching because the Council of Trent explicitly states, as Fr John rightly points out, that the guilt of original sin is forgiven in baptism: “if anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, or says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema.”
This teaching of the Council of Trent was made against the reformers, i.e., Martin Luther and company. Though the reformers believed that original sin is a true sin in some manner in every human being as the Catholic Church does, they asserted that in baptism God forgives the penalty or debt of punishment consequent on original sin but not the guilt or the sin itself. The guilt or sin of original sin remains in the person and God simply overlooks it or does not impute it. The Council of Trent taught on the contrary that nothing of that which has the true and proper nature of sin remains in the baptized person whatever. The reformers identified original sin with concupiscence which remains in a baptized person. The Council of Trent asserted that the concupiscence that remains after baptism is not sin itself but a consequence of original sin that God allows to remain after baptism for us to wrestle with and gain merit by not consenting to its inordinate movements. Concupiscence is from sin and inclines to sin but is not sin itself.

Since all men are implicated in Adam’s sin as the Catholic Church understands the teaching of St Paul (just as all are implicated in Christ’s justice), all mankind are also implicated in that which follows Adam’s sin, i.e, guilt and punishment. Thus the psalmist sings “Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:7). And Isaiah “We had all gone astray like sheep, all following our own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.” (53:6). And St Paul “and we were by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3).
The reverse side of original sin is of course the redemption wrought by Jesus Christ, Where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more.

Richca

 

[frjohnmorris]

Even if I took the Saints verse and applied it to the Assumption, its still true, no one is saved until they stand before the eternal throne of God. So we are talking supernatural imposed Grace with the sacrament’s as to saved and Mary’s supernatural birth of the Word of God.

Just to put saved in perspective. No one is saved until we stand before the throne of God. Christ redeemed mankind at the Cross from captivity, so saved defined again comes to mind.

Also if you are born, baptized and do not sin, you are saved. Because of Christs redemption. But everyone stands before the throne of God.

No one denies that. But, there are two judgments, the particular and the general. When we die we face the particular judgement and our souls go to Heaven of Hell to wait for the Second Coming of Christ when our souls will be reunited with our risen bodies and we will face the general judgement, after which there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth transformed by the grace of God. However, like her divine son Our Lady, the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven body and soul before the general judgment.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hi Gary,
Inherited guilt is not an off track teaching because the Council of Trent explicitly states, as Fr John rightly points out, that the guilt of original sin is forgiven in baptism: “if anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, or says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema.”
This teaching of the Council of Trent was made against the reformers, i.e., Martin Luther and company. Though the reformers believed that original sin is a true sin in some manner in every human being as the Catholic Church does, they asserted that in baptism God forgives the penalty or debt of punishment consequent on original sin but not the guilt or the sin itself. The guilt or sin of original sin remains in the person and God simply overlooks it or does not impute it. The Council of Trent taught on the contrary that nothing of that which has the true and proper nature of sin remains in the baptized person whatever. The reformers identified original sin with concupiscence which remains in a baptized person. The Council of Trent asserted that the concupiscence that remains after baptism is not sin itself but a consequence of original sin that God allows to remain after baptism for us to wrestle with and gain merit by not consenting to its inordinate movements. Concupiscence is from sin and inclines to sin but is not sin itself.

Since all men are implicated in Adam’s sin as the Catholic Church understands the teaching of St Paul (just as all are implicated in Christ’s justice), all mankind are also implicated in that which follows Adam’s sin, i.e, guilt and punishment. Thus the psalmist sings “Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:7). And Isaiah “We had all gone astray like sheep, all following our own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.” (53:6). And St Paul “and we were by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3).
The reverse side of original sin is of course the redemption wrought by Jesus Christ, Where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more.

Richca

Hi

I’m not seeing where your saying anything different; “The Council of Trent taught on the contrary that nothing of that which has the true and proper nature of sin remains in the baptized person whatever.”

Except the inclination to sin already posted, or as I posted from the CCC which references Trent and the Council of Orange.

We are only guilty in so far as we by our own free will imitate Adam and Eves counterproductive choice, namely disobeying God. CCC above: The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.

The point as I understand it as suggested is we have some sort of inherited guilt ?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Or here for example as I suggested earlier.

Thus the psalmist sings “Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:7). And Isaiah “We had all gone astray like sheep, all following our own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.” (53:6). And St Paul “and we were by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3).

I’m not sure how we are defining this guilt other than what has been suggested. Bible, Council or otherwise than what’s already posted. I take the Bible to indicate we’re guilty in absentee since we were not there the day Adam and Eve transgressed and we are Adam and Eve as above. I guess some would view that as an injustice?

Perhaps where communion was severed they felt this way, as St Paul states: “among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”

I tend to see this as explained, as God given Grace with the same offer in love as Adam and Eve…communion with God.