Orthodox Vs. Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matariel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Matariel said:
I see. To tell you the truth, I think I believe the Traducian view. But I really don’t know. I guess I should accept the Creationist view, since it seems to be favoured by both of the apostolic Churches.
Click to expand...
The majority hold to the Creationist view, but it isn’t a dogma. It is also Fathers preferred it and so do the Apostolic churches. I know Tertullian followed a Traducian belief, but many were so against it as to call it a heresy. Either way, it hasn’t officially been deemed as such…
I totally agree that the two views are not exclusive of each other. Also… why do you say they (the consequences of Adamic nature) are not impurities in spiritual character? If not, then what are they? Noetic (Is this the right word?)?
Click to expand...
Well, I just spent like 20 minutes typing a response to this and I messed up, so it’s gone. I’ll try it again.

I believe the body is from our parents while the soul is from GOD. GOD breathes life into the soul and infuses it into the body at conception. Together, the body and soul make up the whole person. The soul is good, being created by GOD. Likewise, the body is good, but subject to the conditions of sin. Being as one unit, the body and soul are tarnished by Adam’s sin. I cannot stress the idea that the soul is not evil–it is from GOD. I see it as sickened by a lack of communion with GOD and influenced by the fleshly desires. The soul needs the Grace of GOD to restore itself, to lift the tarnish. It is good, but not working to its full potential. If one lives a life of sin, it will darken just like a silver necklace tarnishes more if it isn’t cleaned. I don’t think this is heresy, but if it is, I’ll recant it…😉

Now, getting to concupiscence. Concupiscence is not sin. The Reformers generally taught that it is, but if that is unfound in the early Chuch or the Fathers. It is not evil, but it is an inclination or tendency to follow worldly or sinful things. The action itself or meditating on something evil is sinful. It is more of a temptation or desire to turn to sin rather than being sin.

Further, I think some of the consequences of Original Sin impair the spiritual life, but I don’t believe them to be impurities in terms of sinful. Impure in a secondary sense, yes. We are certainly not in the pre-Fall state of Adam and Eve, so yes, we are impure.
Actually, you’d be surprised how their order-of-service is. They have a very primitive liturgy, but it is still basically a rudimentary form of the Catholic Mass (at least their Communion services).
Click to expand...
But to tell you the truth, I wish she wouldn’t. If you look at Holy Orthodoxy or Holy Catholicism and realize that these are authentic Christian faith and practice (or to some people, at least one of them) and then compare them to the Amish Faith, it’s so far different that you’d wonder if they’re the same religion.
Click to expand...
I hope GOD leads her to all-Truth.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Alexius said:
Well, I just spent like 20 minutes typing a response to this and I messed up, so it’s gone. I’ll try it again.
Click to expand...
Oops. Sorry. :doh2:
I believe the body is from our parents while the soul is from GOD. GOD breathes life into the soul and infuses it into the body at conception. Together, the body and soul make up the whole person. The soul is good, being created by GOD. Likewise, the body is good, but subject to the conditions of sin. Being as one unit, the body and soul are tarnished by Adam’s sin. I cannot stress the idea that the soul is not evil–it is from GOD. I see it as sickened by a lack of communion with GOD and influenced by the fleshly desires. The soul needs the Grace of GOD to restore itself, to lift the tarnish. It is good, but not working to its full potential. If one lives a life of sin, it will darken just like a silver necklace tarnishes more if it isn’t cleaned. I don’t think this is heresy, but if it is, I’ll recant it…😉
Click to expand...
Now, getting to concupiscence. Concupiscence is not sin. The Reformers generally taught that it is, but if that is unfound in the early Chuch or the Fathers. It is not evil, but it is an inclination or tendency to follow worldly or sinful things. The action itself or meditating on something evil is sinful. It is more of a temptation or desire to turn to sin rather than being sin.
Click to expand...
Further, I think some of the consequences of Original Sin impair the spiritual life, but I don’t believe them to be impurities in terms of sinful. Impure in a secondary sense, yes. We are certainly not in the pre-Fall state of Adam and Eve, so yes, we are impure.
Click to expand...
Wow, this is really interesting, Alexius. Thanks a lot. These were just the questions I was wondering about when I started this thread. A lot to think about…
I hope GOD leads her to all-Truth.
Click to expand...
I hope so too. She’s a stubborn one, alright. But she occasionally goes to Mass with me, and she expressed interest in going up to a Greek Orthodox Church in Baltimore sometime. 🤷

Who knows? Mayhap she’ll end up Orthodox. 😉
 
Matariel said:
:confused:

I try my best…
Click to expand...
I think Isa was trying to say that the Isaiah 22:22 (?) passage has had Papal Supremacy read into it (that it isn’t there), hence the square peg (Papal Supremacy) into the round hole (Isaiah 22). It was not any type of attack. If you follow the link he provided, you’ll see that a discussion is already going on. I won’t comment on whether or not this passage reflects Petrine authority since I know little about it and it is already in discussion…
 
The Filioque has been eloquently discussed in the Eastern Catholic forum. You can find those discussions by using the ‘Search’ option at the top of the screen (it’s under the "Pillar of Fire; Pillar of Truth ad). I could not put it any better because I don’t have much knowledge of it.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is generally not shared by Orthodox and Catholics. From an Orthodox view, there is no dogma specifying when Mary was cleansed of Original Sin. Many believe it was at the Annunciation. Others believe it was at Conception (IC) or at birth. Still others believe she was purified multiple times. Generally what is maintained is that she was purified of [hereditary] sin, meaning she was filled with grace at some point before the Conception of Christ. She was not; however, free from other maladies such as physical death, ability and freedom to choose her own path (free will), tendency to sin (most believe she overcame this), and other Adamic consequences.

On the Catholic side, it is held that Mary was free from all “stain” of Original Sin. Now some hold this to mean that she was restored to the same state as Eve (pre-Fall). In other words, no concupiscence and therefore no passions. She was not subject to physical death either. I don’t think this is condemned; however, I personally reject it. I do believe in the Immaculate Conception. I believe that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without Original Sin. I believe that the Blessed Virgin received an abundance of Grace for her task. This Grace became the life breath of her soul, so much so that concupiscence had no power over her. I do believe she had concupiscence, but it was virtually powerless. She certainly could have sinned. I also believe she had a physical death as everyone else because of her common nature. The reason I believe these things is because the Catholic Church teaches that concupiscence is not evil, and therefore not attached to Original Sin. Original Sin is the deprivation of sanctifying grace and the Blessed Virgin had this in a unique way. This is the “stain” of Original Sin. As to her body, it was subject to the same ailments as every human being (with exception to labor pains, but that is another subject). Again, this last part is merely my opinion and I make mistakes. I do not believe I am in heresy, though.

Hope this helps…🙂

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Alexius,

I agree that the Filioque has been eloquently discussed in the “Eastern Catholicism” forum; however, there’s no rule saying it can’t also be discussed here.

Unfortunately though, even if we do discuss it on the “Non-Catholic Religions” forum, it still tends to be only Catholics and Orthodox participating, no Protestants. (I don’t think it’s too hard to guess the reason for that: Protestants accept the insertion of the filioque into the Creed, but they reject the authority of the Pope – thus implicitly rejecting his ability to authorize changes to the Creed. How can those two things be reconciled? I don’t think I’ve ever met a Protestant with a good answer to that question.)
 
Alexius said:
I think Isa was trying to say that the Isaiah 22:22 (?) passage has had Papal Supremacy read into it (that it isn’t there), hence the square peg (Papal Supremacy) into the round hole (Isaiah 22). It was not any type of attack. If you follow the link he provided, you’ll see that a discussion is already going on. I won’t comment on whether or not this passage reflects Petrine authority since I know little about it and it is already in discussion…
Click to expand...
Correct on all points. Thanks for clarifying for me.
 
Peter_J said:
Alexius,

I agree that the Filioque has been eloquently discussed in the “Eastern Catholicism” forum; however, there’s no rule saying it can’t also be discussed here.
Click to expand...
Sorry :o Of course it can be discussed here–I wasn’t trying to say that it couldn’t be, just that there were some very good threads on it in the EC sub-forum.
 
Alexius said:
Sorry :o Of course it can be discussed here–I wasn’t trying to say that it couldn’t be, just that there were some very good threads on it in the EC sub-forum.
Click to expand...
Oh I know. I just wanted to make it explicit.

:cool:
 
Alexius said:
The Filioque has been eloquently discussed in the Eastern Catholic forum. You can find those discussions by using the ‘Search’ option at the top of the screen (it’s under the "Pillar of Fire; Pillar of Truth ad). I could not put it any better because I don’t have much knowledge of it.
Click to expand...
Me neither. I have to look into it.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is generally not shared by Orthodox and Catholics. From an Orthodox view, there is no dogma specifying when Mary was cleansed of Original Sin. Many believe it was at the Annunciation. Others believe it was at Conception (IC) or at birth. Still others believe she was purified multiple times. Generally what is maintained is that she was purified of [hereditary] sin, meaning she was filled with grace at some point before the Conception of Christ. She was not; however, free from other maladies such as physical death, ability and freedom to choose her own path (free will), tendency to sin (most believe she overcame this), and other Adamic consequences.
Click to expand...
Hm. So if she were pure from hereditary, Ancestral Sin, then, afterwards at least, wouldn’t she also be free from personal sin? Just wondering.
On the Catholic side, it is held that Mary was free from all “stain” of Original Sin. Now some hold this to mean that she was restored to the same state as Eve (pre-Fall). In other words, no concupiscence and therefore no passions. She was not subject to physical death either. I don’t think this is condemned; however, I personally reject it. I do believe in the Immaculate Conception. I believe that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without Original Sin. I believe that the Blessed Virgin received an abundance of Grace for her task. This Grace became the life breath of her soul, so much so that concupiscence had no power over her. I do believe she had concupiscence, but it was virtually powerless. She certainly could have sinned. I also believe she had a physical death as everyone else because of her common nature. The reason I believe these things is because the Catholic Church teaches that concupiscence is not evil, and therefore not attached to Original Sin. Original Sin is the deprivation of sanctifying grace and the Blessed Virgin had this in a unique way. This is the “stain” of Original Sin. As to her body, it was subject to the same ailments as every human being (with exception to labor pains, but that is another subject). Again, this last part is merely my opinion and I make mistakes. I do not believe I am in heresy, though.
Click to expand...
Hope this helps…🙂
Click to expand...
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
Click to expand...
Wow, this is really good. I totally agree.
 
Matariel said:
Hm. So if she were pure from hereditary, Ancestral Sin, then, afterwards at least, wouldn’t she also be free from personal sin? Just wondering.
Click to expand...
In a sense, yes. Really her freedom from personal sin raises many questions such as how she remained without sin. Most Orthodox hold that this was done by Mary’s will in cooperation with the Holy Spirit. Basically, she chose not to sin. This is in opposition to the thought of some Catholics who believe that Mary was either prevented from sinning or had no leaning toward sin.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Alexius said:
In a sense, yes. Really her freedom from personal sin raises many questions such as how she remained without sin. Most Orthodox hold that this was done by Mary’s will in cooperation with the Holy Spirit. Basically, she chose not to sin. This is in opposition to the thought of some Catholics who believe that Mary was either prevented from sinning or had no leaning toward sin.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
Click to expand...
Oh, I see… I guess we’ll never know until the afterlife, since it is not completely defined. We’re free to decide for ourselves.

This is a bit random, but are there any Lutherans who believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary’s Actual Sinlessness? (Perhaps Triune will show up…)

I actually know a guy (my godbrother, technically) who goes to Calvary Chapel and he believes the Immaculate Conception. :eek:

Isn’t that strange?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top