What is this called? Its called Jesus Christ is NOT GOD by definition.
East
I cannot accept the idea of your having stated “our” (EO) position. You have stated A position that is acceptable within the EOC. I have provided links from others, including clergy, that take another position that is very similar to the position of the CC. Some go so far as to excoriate the thinking behind the position that you have adopted. It is widely acknowledged, mopreover, that your position represents a break with tradition as it tries erease history and leap back to the time of (some of) the fathers.
It is a Church dividing issue. Because the IC is a dogma in the Catholic Church, and we do not accept the IC for many reasons, but the biggest one is because of the Latin understanding of original sin. Yes, this particular issue did not cause the Great Schism. But it will prevent any hope for union if this is not resolved. It is not an issue that we can just brush aside and say it is a non-issue. It is.
Any individual can raise anything up as an obstacle. But that does not make it of significance. There are those in the EOC who see the IC as a perfectly Orthodox belief. Some don’t. You follow the modern, revolutionary theology of the Original Sin and see a barrier, others do not. If these were legitimately church dividing issues then they would be dividing the EOC. But they are not. Do the math.
There are those in the Catholic Church who thing ordaining women priests is okay, divorcees should be remarried, and contraceptives should be allowed. That doesn’t change the truth.
What perfects human nature is its union with the divine nature. Did Jesus exist as human separate from his divine nature?East
sin which literally means “missing the mark”, is used to refer to
the condition common to all humanity (Romanides, 2002).
West
This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect”
And according to BOTH of you the Almighty God also.
And I didn’t even search for the God died remark from you CTG
But this is where we are at on “ALL”: your threads.
Did God “miss the mark”
It seems Constantine that the legalistic view from Rome can be more balanced with the Orthodox understanding when peoples of both Churches will be able to be more opened to the teachings of both Churches. It seems God gave us these differences or actually allowed these differences so that we can learn from each other. I hope Catholics will someday take the adventure to understand more the Eastern way so they can see in our teachings something that will help edify them. And of course there is always something in the Catholic Church that could edify us as well. It is very interesting about the metaphor that Fr. Hopko used. Thank you for that. I had written a small chapter on Romans 5 which points only to God’s condemnation on sin. Paul had written this chapter but many have misinterpreted it because Paul as a great linguist tends to give us something that is there but it is not. It is a play on words. Some people argued that God is condemning sinners in this chapter. But this cannot be because in God there is a wealth of mercy in Him which can elevate man. So what is the problem. Paul is actually saying that men may commit sins but it is the sin which condemns him. What God is doing is condemning the sin. It is a play on words. God does condemn the sinner but He condemns the sin which condemns man. Therefore the solution needs a doctor. When you have an ailment and you go see your doctor he doesn’t condemn you but he condemns the ailment. This same analogy is seen in us. We have an ailment called sin. God who is our doctor helps us by condemning the ailment. That is what Jesus did on the Cross. He condemned the ailment. I had written this as part of my six part catechism series that I am writing for the young people. I thought I would share it with you since this forum had spoken a lot about Romans 5.
We don’t separate the Natures they suggest separation to indicate humanity/divinity with no confusion, which you have.
What dualism?
There is no concept of separation or of confusion in the true faith, which was expounded upon by the fathers of Chalcedon. The very Chalcedonian Formula states that the natures are united without confusion (ἀσυγχύτως) and without separation (ἀχωρίστως).
I think the biggest problem with Roman Catholic Scholasticism is they seem to have a tunnel vision on matters of the faith. They look at one aspect of the faith and elaborate on it, but they lose the overall vision of the faith. Then they dogmatize it. Later on they realize that there are some incompatibility with other aspects of the faith, so instead of going back to fix the problem at the source, they do patchwork job and try to rationalize the difference and in the long run create more issues. And the vicious cycle starts over again. You can clearly see it with how IC came about. There is Original Sin, and then they dogmatically declared Mary to be sinless from the very beginning of her existence. But how can she be sinless and have Original Sin? Thus, IC.
Yes it is true that the Catholic Church is more into philosophy and tends to try to understand principals from this viewpoint. However this may be it may be good that one Church is trying to ask questions because through my experience living in both Churches I have found the Eastern Church has many of the answers or if one can say closure to the many attempts of Rome trying to define the Faith. I find the truths in the Eastern Church are greatly determined from their experiences of God and the catechism in the Roman Catholic Church has often been determined through much of their “Scholasticism” as you pointed out. It will be to their advantage as well as ours when the Eastern teachings will be able to help edify their teachings. One way where the Eastern teaching will be able to modify or even edify Catholic doctrine is on the teaching on the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. This teaching and doctrine of Rome has no (name removed by moderator)ut from the East. I discuss this in my six book catechism series and I have come to the conclusion that the Eastern (name removed by moderator)ut will be necessary to bring closure to it.
My concern is that the East doesn’t want (name removed by moderator)ut from the West. That’s the problem I see from within Orthodoxy. I hope that is only a perception of mine.
Let me clear something up regarding this. It is not because of original sin that Mary was conceived without sin. It’s simply that she was sinless from the moment of her conception. My impression from Orthodox I have spoken to on the subject is that they do not disagree with the Immaculate Conception as a doctrine for the West, but that the West dogmatically declared that it is so. In other words, they do not decry it as a false teaching, but as one that can not be definitively declared as true.
I made a mistake on my wording when I had written in this post “God does condemn the sinner but He condemns the sin which condemns man.” It should have been “God does not condemn the sinner but He condemns the sin which condemns man.” I am sorry I did not catch this one when I was editing it. The point I was trying to say is we must separate the sin from the sinner. This is what God does and Paul is pointing to.
The Orthodox Church does not have the same judgment on Original Sin as does the West. I have read the Church Fathers on the East and the Eastern Church’s teachings and I have come to accept them as giving if you can say clearer understanding on the JUDGMENT on sin. I believe God had given this grace to Mary in order to prepare her to be a saint to work alongside His Son and not only because of the teaching on Original sin as proposed by the Catholic Church. Don’t get me wrong I believe we all conceive in sin but I don’t find it as serious as the Church Fathers of the West had given to it. I don’t think it mattered to God if He had given this grace to her at her conception or when she was 6 months old or when she was 7 or at the Annunciation. God could have cleansed her at any time. But what I propose is that He had given her this Fullness of the Holy Spirit all at once at her Conception. This was much like her Baptism. But it is different than ours because we only received partially the Holy Spirit at Baptism. We need a lot more Deposits. Mary however received everything at once. In this way I believe God still cleansed her not necessarily because of Original sin but it was also to make her into a saint to give to her this great head start. I don’t hold the view as many of my Catholic brothers and sisters have that Original sin has a larger judgment attached to it. It is to my understanding from the Church Fathers of the East I have this lighter view.
Do you take (name removed by moderator)ut from Lutherans and Anglicans?
Orthodox belief is that we are all conceived without any sins. Therefore in Orthodox theology all are immaculately conceived.
So there is a concept of original sin in Orthodoxy? And if I am understanding you correctly, the problem isn’t whether or not Mary was conceived without sin, but how important that is in the role of salvation?
Actually, yes. Lutherans and Catholics have come to a common understanding regarding Justification and Anglicans and Catholics have come to a common understanding regarding Mary.
So the objection isn’t that Mary is defined as being Immaculately conceived, but that her immaculate conception was a singular privilege from God.