Orthodoxy-1 Protestant and Catholic-0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sixtus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sixtus

Guest
t amazes me how catholics and protestants seem to hold on to some teachings which lack a certain credibility.

I am not saying both or either are wrong, just that Orthodoxy seems to have more plausible answers such as the origin of original sin and the reason why Christ had to die.

I also rather like the Orthodox image of ‘an empty tomb’ as well as ‘the cross’ which is the prefered imigary of Protestants and Catholics.
 
Oddly enough, I feel completely the opposite.

I believe Augustine was right.
 
Is there any evidence that the Eastern Churches had a problem with the Catholic understanding of Original Sin before the Great Schism?

I find it interesting that even at the reunion councils (Lyons II and Florence) it is papal authority, the Filioque, and Purgatory that are the points of contention, while Original Sin never seems to be an issue for the separated Eastern Churches.
 
It’s pointless to lump Catholicism in with the broad term of Protestantism, as if there were no differences between them on such vital issues as original sin and the reason(s) for the redemptive acts of Christ. So, that’s a non-starter right there.

Explanations by theologians, no matter whose they are, are not the same as the things themselves. Original sin is still original or the reason(s) God enacted the redemption is still what it is no matter whose ideas about them are right or wrong.

Unless a theological definition has been declared infallibly correct, it hardly matters who has the “better” argument as long as we understand and accept what needs to be understood and accepted. The truth is all that really matters here.

Theology ought to steer us towards the truth, not please our ears or our sensibilities.
 
Della said:
It’s pointless to lump Catholicism in with the broad term of Protestantism, as if there were no differences between them on such vital issues as original sin and the reason(s) for the redemptive acts of Christ. So, that’s a non-starter right there.

Explanations by theologians, no matter whose they are, are not the same as the things themselves. Original sin is still original or the reason(s) God enacted the redemption is still what it is no matter whose ideas about them are right or wrong.

Unless a theological definition has been declared infallibly correct, it hardly matters who has the “better” argument as long as we understand and accept what needs to be understood and accepted. The truth is all that really matters here.

Theology ought to steer us towards the truth, not please our ears or our sensibilities.
Click to expand...
This is true but to go to the root of the Eastern dissatisfaction with western hamartiology and soteriology generally is to encounter Augustine regardless of whether the interpretation is that of Aquinas or that of Luther.

Put as simply and as baldly as it can be put, the East rejects Augustine on grace, sin and salvation. Everything else comes from that.
 
I suggest this discussion be moved to either the Eastern Christianity forum or the appropriate Roman Catholic forum for an in-depth discussion.

Otherwise, there are already a few threads on the topic you all may wish to read for a primer. (The higher numbers are older threads, so you may wish to read them in reverse order.)
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6

This topic also crosses over into an interpretation of the sanctity of Mary.

1 - 2
 
Sixtus said:
t amazes me how catholics and protestants seem to hold on to some teachings which lack a certain credibility.

I am not saying both or either are wrong, just that Orthodoxy seems to have more plausible answers such as the origin of original sin and the reason why Christ had to die.

I also rather like the Orthodox image of ‘an empty tomb’ as well as ‘the cross’ which is the prefered imigary of Protestants and Catholics.
Click to expand...
I feel that looking at an empty tomb merely offers someone to wonder who was in it, or whether it has ever been used.

Whereas looking at a crucifix, not cross, reminds us of what Jesus went through for us.

I often look at the crucifix, the nails, the thorns, the blood, and imagine the pain. I truly thank Jesus for what He did for me.

It is silly to say I focus on His death more than His Resurrection. It is part of it all. He died and is risen.
 
I would like to attend an EO church if one were nearby - for a start they let priests marry!
 
jack_hawkins said:
I would like to attend an EO church if one were nearby - for a start they let priests marry!
Click to expand...
Actually, the men have to be already married before becoming a priest. They can only marry once and if the wife die, the priest must become a widower.

The Byzantine Rite Catholic Church also have married priest.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Actually, the men have to be already married before becoming a priest. They can only marry once and if the wife die, the priest must become a widower.

The Byzantine Rite Catholic Church also have married priest.
Click to expand...
And I believe all their bishops are celibate.
 
StMarina303ad said:
Just go to this website to find the nearest Orthodox Church to you - you may be pleasantly surprised to find one closer than you anticipated: scoba.us/directory.html
Click to expand...
He is in the United Kingdom, that link might not help.

I agree that the Cross is more important than the empty tomb. Had he not died, he would not have risen. Had he not died, we would not be able to be born again into everlasting life.
 
Dear brother Sixtus,
Sixtus said:
such as the origin of original sin
Click to expand...
Please explain. This is the first time I’ve ever heard this claim.
and the reason why Christ had to die.
Click to expand...
Christ died to set humankind right with God. What more is there?
I also rather like the Orthodox image of ‘an empty tomb’ as well as ‘the cross’ which is the prefered imigary of Protestants and Catholics.
Click to expand...
“WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED” exclaims St. Paul.

I believe you may be exaggerating the differences.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Genesis315 said:
Is there any evidence that the Eastern Churches had a problem with the Catholic understanding of Original Sin before the Great Schism?

I find it interesting that even at the reunion councils (Lyons II and Florence) it is papal authority, the Filioque, and Purgatory that are the points of contention, while Original Sin never seems to be an issue for the separated Eastern Churches.
Click to expand...
It didn’t become an issue until later. But you can look at many Byzantine saints like St. Maximos the Confessor who had a different view of Original Sin than the west. The difference is partly for soteriological reasons. Christ assumed everything of ours and redeamed it. This includes a fallen nature which is subject to the passions and to death and corruption. The difference between us and Christ is that He did not have any sins of the will. From this you can see the difference between the eastern and western perspectives on Original Sin.
I agree that the Cross is more important than the empty tomb. Had he not died, he would not have risen. Had he not died, we would not be able to be born again into everlasting life.
Click to expand...
The death of Christ is utterly meaningless without the ressurrection. As Paul said, if Christ is not ressurrected then you are still in your sins. So, I disagree with your assertion that the cross is more important than the empty tomb.
 
Dear brother Jimmy,

Glad to hear from you again!👍
jimmy said:
It didn’t become an issue until later. But you can look at many Byzantine saints like St. Maximos the Confessor who had a different view of Original Sin than the west. The difference is partly for soteriological reasons. Christ assumed everything of ours and redeamed it. This includes a fallen nature which is subject to the passions and to death and corruption. The difference between us and Christ is that He did not have any sins of the will. From this you can see the difference between the eastern and western perspectives on Original Sin.
Click to expand...
From my understanding of Latin theology, I don’t see the difference with what you have presented. You have been in contact with the Latins longer than me, so I will defer to your explanation, but please do offer an explanation.
The death of Christ is utterly meaningless without the ressurrection. As Paul said, if Christ is not ressurrected then you are still in your sins. So, I disagree with your assertion that the cross is more important than the empty tomb.
Click to expand...
I propose that as far as catechetical instruction for the initiated, the empty tomb might be more important. However, as far as preaching to the UNinitiated, the cross is more important. “WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED.”

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Jimmy,

Glad to hear from you again!👍

From my understanding of Latin theology, I don’t see the difference with what you have presented. You have been in contact with the Latins longer than me, so I will defer to your explanation, but please do offer an explanation.
Click to expand...
It is good to see you too mardukm,

The difference is that Latins say that Christ did not inherit original sin but only its effects(death and corruption of the body). What Christ took was the human nature as it was before the fall, so He is a new Adam. This can be seen in the definition of the IC. Mary does not inherit Original Sin but she still is subject to death. The EO, like St. Maximos believe that Christ inheritted everything that is part of human nature which includes all the effects of the sin of Adam including subjection to the passions. He took this upon Himself and He redeemed the whole man. The difference between these two views goes to what Original Sin is. Can Christ recieve the nature of man as it is handed down from Adam and remain without sin? The Latin and the Byzantine approaches come to different conclusions.
I propose that as far as catechetical instruction for the initiated, the empty tomb might be more important. However, as far as preaching to the UNinitiated, the cross is more important. “WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED.”

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
There probably isn’t much of a difference here between east and west. The empty tomb does not dismiss the cross, it is the result of it. But without this result the cross is meaningless. I don’t think that Paul means to seperate the cross from the ressurrection. I think that Paul’s point is that God became man and died on the cross. God died. This is a stumbling block to the Jews and stupidity to the Greeks. Paul’s view is summed up in Phil.2;1-12. Christ although He was God humbled Himself and became man and emptied Himself even to the point of death on the cross. It is the self emptying of Christ which is greatest at the cross.
 
This thread was dormant for over a year and a half before it was replied to by StMarina303ad today, so I don’t think any of the original participants in this thread are aware of its resurrection, or possibly no longer participating on this forum.

😃

John
 
No kidding.

I opened it yesterday only to find that I had replied in the first round.

I did not even remember…🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top