Salvation Theology of Catholic and Orthodox Christians

[chimo]

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?

It seems to me that there is room for discussion on this between the Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Catholics believe Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin and that is the definition. That definition doesn’t express how important original sin is, just that it is the case.

There is always room for discussion. That is why we have so many philosophers for. To help keep us on our toes or for some to help get us off of our toes! The Orthodox according to their evaluation on Original sin would not have thought of Mary receiving special privilege graces from God to preserve her from the “stain” of Original sin since the Orthodox do not accept that Original sin goes from one person to another as such the West has noted. The Easterners did not take this Western view as doctrine since their Church Fathers had a different view on Original sin than St. Augustine and St. Anselm had for the West. It is basically the East does not see the transfer of Original sin to pass over to other generations as the West sees it. We are responsible to our own sins the East would say. The only impact on Original sin that had consequences for us was the conditions that our first parents made because of their sin. This refers to conditional changes such as physical death came into the world as well as suffering. The East would not go to say we had inherited any guilt or even some sin passed on to us because of the sin of Adam and Eve. The Eastern Church was far less judgmental on this and does not believe that the Original sin was in any way deserving of any if you can say “wrath” of God.

There is no wrath at all in the Eastern Church’s understanding. The reason quite simply is that Adam and Eve like everyone of us had fallen at their lowest state of sanctity. The Eastern Fathers never had dreamed that Adam and Eve were saints as in the same manner for instance like the Mother of God. On the contrary these two people had grace given to them initially not to make them into saints but in order to make them into saints. The understanding is the grace given to Adam and Eve were not consistent for instance to what was given to the Angels. The Angels were given if you can say enough grace from their beginnings to make them into great saints. However the devil fell from such a great height of sanctity that the Lord Jesus uses these words of falling like lightening to give to the effect that this being had received great sanctity from the beginning.

The grace given to Adam and Eve was not as high as the Western Church fathers projected so the Eastern Church Fathers gave it a very low setting. They claim Adam and Eve while they enjoyed a great grace from the beginning it was actually conferred to them in a very low setting if I can use such words. The meaning of this low setting was that Adam and Eve can grow into greater heights. They can grow despite the fact they had sinned. God is still able to make people into saints despite the fact that sin had entered into the world. God will show us that He is able to do this with the countless number of saints in the OT, the NT Church and the Church that came after it.

The problem with Mary to Easterners is this. Since the Original sin as taught in the East does not have this heavier sentence as taught by the West than the Immaculate Conception of Mary must serve a higher purpose. This purpose has to do more with Mary of her role in Redemption than it does with her exempting herself from Original sin. Since God has made an incredible Saint in Mary to work alongside her Son than this grace given to her at her Conception may work to this advantage.

 

[dvdjs]

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.

But the authentic Catholic teaching is readily discerned. Who can say whether Moss or Romanides is right? Or Archbishop Kallistos or you?

The IC is a barrier precisely because of OS. You accuse the theology around this as modern, as if the IC itself is not a modern innovation concocted in the 1800s.

The concept was around from the earliest times. The dogmatic declaration was later. But I don’t make any accusation - I just quoted the accusations of an Orthodox writer.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But the authentic Catholic teaching is readily discerned. Who can say whether Moss or Romanides is right? Or Archbishop Kallistos or you?

Discernment, the Church Fathers. Not everything needs to be set in stone. Often, I’ve seen constantly defining and dogmatizing things get you more into trouble than the issues it fixes.

The concept was around from the earliest times. The dogmatic declaration was later. But I don’t make any accusation - I just quoted the accusations of an Orthodox writer.

No. A number of Church Fathers, those that the Catholic Church even call “Doctors of the Church”, taught that Mary committed minor sins in her life. How is that evidence that the IC was there in the early Church?

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Well, they came from you guys anyway. They’re more Roman Catholic than Roman Catholics are Orthodox.

So the objection isn’t that Mary is defined as being Immaculately conceived, but that her immaculate conception was a singular privilege from God.

Yes. Because that introduces a lot of complications to our understanding of soteriology with regards to the rest of humanity.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Well, they came from you guys anyway. They’re more Roman Catholic than Roman Catholics are Orthodox.

You’re a fascinating guy Constantine. You seem to have a difficult time grasping the similarities between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I’m willing to admit hat there are differences that are more than minor, but there are also similarities that are more than minor. Some of those similarities are more pronounced than the similarities you would find in Lutheranism and Anglicanism. Certainly it depends on what aspect of the Faith one is referring.

 

[dvdjs]

Discernment, the Church Fathers. Not everything needs to be set in stone. Often, I’ve seen constantly defining and dogmatizing things get you more into trouble than the issues it fixes.

No. A number of Church Fathers, those that the Catholic Church even call “Doctors of the Church”, taught that Mary committed minor sins in her life. How is that evidence that the IC was there in the early Church?

 

[dvdjs]

Discernment, the Church Fathers.

So … you or your clergy?

No. A number of Church Fathers, those that the Catholic Church even call “Doctors of the Church”, taught that Mary committed minor sins in her life. How is that evidence that the IC was there in the early Church?

Because this was a minority opinion then which now has not traction apart from fringe Orthodox. Here is a remark on the subject posted at OC,net by Fr. Ambrose , a mentor to many here.

I have had four parishes in my life, three Russian and one Serbian. I would be astounded if any parishioner had ever said that the Mother of God is not sinless. As I have mentioned in other threads, the minority opinion of two 4th century … Church Fathers is completely unknown to the ordinary Orthodox except to internet cleverclogs…

It was a minority opinion which the Church never adopted into her Tradition. In fact we could lay out a stronger patristic case for universal salvation (apokatastasis) than for the sinfulness of the Mother of God.

Fr Ambrose

THAT is Orthodox.

 

[Cavaradossi]

But the authentic Catholic teaching is readily discerned. Who can say whether Moss or Romanides is right? Or Archbishop Kallistos or you?

Having many friends who are students of theology at a Roman Catholic university, I can tell you that this is patently false. That is because they, in their own words, have a sense of tradition which looks beyond whatever the Vatican happens to teach today. I could in fact play the same game with you that you are playing with Constantine. Tell me, which school of thinking interprets Thomas Aquinas correctly? Is it the neo-scholastics or the ressourcement (ridiculed by Garrigou-Lagrange as “Nouvelle Théologie”)? And even when one happens to discern what general movement might be correct, how is one then to discern who is correct when people within one school of though disagree? When Rahner, von Balthasar, and de Lubac all disagree on a certain point, how is one to discern which one has taught the truth? Your line of questioning is rather unfair, is it not?

 

[GaryTaylor]

What dualism?

See, the bigger problem is that Original Sin teaches that human nature by itself is perfect but tainted, and the goal of salvation is not only to remove this taint, but to ensure it is never tainted again. Patristic teaching, again going back to On the Incarnation, teaches that human nature by itself is corruptible without God. Rather we were created perfect because we had the union with the Holy Spirit at creation (by “we” I mean all of humanity, which of course at the time exists only in Adam and Eve). Their sin caused the loss of this union with God, and thus we were subjected to our true corruptible nature. But God’s intention for us from the beginning was for us not to be corruptible, and the only way to do that is to become human and share in our nature so that we may share in His nature.

Even St. Athanasius explains in his work this thing you accuse me of being wrong. He says:

Just as the sun is not defiled by the contact of its rays with earthly objects, but rather enlightens and purifies them, so He Who made the sun is not defiled by being made known in a body, but rather the body is cleansed and quickened by His indwelling, "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.

To be able to make a distinction between the divine and the material is not a dualisitc approach. It is to understand the inner workings of the hypostatic union. Now, if we are to claim that from the incarnation and onwards that the divinity of Christ can exist separately from the humanity of Christ, that is wrong. But that does not mean that we cannot analyze them separately for the purpose of understanding how they work together. It affirms the true faith that even thought two natures exist in one person, they are without confusion, that is we can clearly see a distinction.

Then you have a double standard. Athanasius and Augustine both speak of “SIN” that is to be taken as the original sin for there is no other This is where Romanides suggests Augustine presented a dualism which he claims did not exist according to Athanasius. Yet here you agree this dualism does exist. Romanides has attacked the traditional concepts of sin and expiation from sin at three points: the doctrine of original sin, the doctrine of the Sacrifice for sin on the Cross, and the doctrine of Holy Baptism.

“The Council of Orange (529) also condemned the Romanidean thesis: “If anyone asserts that Adam’s transgression injured him alone and not his descendants, or declares that certainly death of the body only, which is the punishment of sin, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man into the whole human race, he will do an injustice to God, contradicting the Apostle who says: ‘As through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, so also death passed into all men, in whom all have sinned’” (canon 2).”

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/399/romanides-original-sin/

 

[dvdjs]

Having many friends who are students of theology at a Roman Catholic university, I can tell you that this is patently false. That is because they, in their own words, have a sense of tradition which looks beyond whatever the Vatican happens to teach today. I could in fact play the same game with you that you are playing with Constantine. Tell me, which school of thinking interprets Thomas Aquinas correctly? Is it the neo-scholastics or the ressourcement (ridiculed by Garrigou-Lagrange as “Nouvelle Théologie”)? And even when one happens to discern what general movement might be correct, how is one then to discern who is correct when people within one school of though disagree? When Rahner, von Balthasar, and de Lubac all disagree on a certain point, how is one to discern which one has taught the truth? Your line of questioning is rather unfair, is it not?

There is vitality of theological thinking in the Catholic church, and within the EOC. But issues like the correct interpretation of Thomas Aquinas is are academic, not a matters of church teaching in the sense that we were discussing. But whatever one or another theologian thinks about female clergy, gay marriage, contraception etc., we have a voice that can and does speak with finality on these matters. Or exercises restraint and authoritatively allows for diversity of thinking. Lacking this voice, but what authority does an individual make a private judgment on what is or is not acceptable thinking?

 

[Cavaradossi]

There is vitality of theological thinking in the Catholic church, and within the EOC. But issues like the correct interpretation of Thomas Aquinas is are academic, not a matters of church teaching in the sense that we were discussing. But whatever one or another theologian thinks about female clergy, gay marriage, contraception etc., we have a voice that can and does speak with finality on these matters. Or exercises restraint and authoritatively allows for diversity of thinking. Lacking this voice, but what authority does an individual make a private judgment on what is or is not acceptable thinking?

We have a voice too, the entire voice of the tradition, which has always condemned homosexuality, which has allowed for female lower clergy, but not female priests, and which has condemned contraceptive measures of all kind, including methods to discern the fertility of the women. But you are getting into issues with Constantine (issues of soteriology, nature and grace, original sin, etc.) which are also academic in nature. To say that Orthodoxy has not one voice as far as these topics are concerned is rather unfair because not only does Roman Catholicism not have one voice as far as these topics are concerned, but within the past century, the Vatican has even vacillated between multiple schools of thinking.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You’re a fascinating guy Constantine. You seem to have a difficult time grasping the similarities between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I’m willing to admit hat there are differences that are more than minor, but there are also similarities that are more than minor. Some of those similarities are more pronounced than the similarities you would find in Lutheranism and Anglicanism. Certainly it depends on what aspect of the Faith one is referring.

There are similarities with our respective faiths with the LDS, SDA, even the Gnostics.

What I am saying is that Anglicans and Lutherans are Western Christian faiths, and they came from Catholicism. All the basics of your theology are from the same root. Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity have two completely different roots. That is what the discussion of this thread is, the basic soteriology of East and West are very distinct. Catholic soteriology is either the same or very close to those Protestant faiths that came from her.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So … you or your clergy?

All of us. This concept of laity just sitting on the sidelines like chicks in a nest waiting for their mother clergy to regurgitate and feed them is a purely Western scholastic concept. The laity certainly plays a large part in the overall life of the Church, including discerning the truths of Scripture.

Because this was a minority opinion then which now has not traction apart from fringe Orthodox. Here is a remark on the subject posted at OC,net by Fr. Ambrose , a mentor to many here.

THAT is Orthodox.

A Catholic hunting down quotes around the internet that supports his position and claims that to be the true Orthodox teaching is not truly Orthodox. While a great majority of Orthodox do believe and agree (I myself belong to that group) that the Theotokos never sinned in her life, it is not a doctrine that must absolutely be believed in the Orthodox Church. Anyone, from the Church Fathers to people today, who may have the opinion that she committed a minor sin or two, are free to think that way as long as it is not against the overall Orthodox belief on the role of the Theotokos in the entire Orthodox faith.

THAT IS ORTHODOX.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Anyone, from the Church Fathers to people today, who may have the opinion that she committed a minor sin or two, are free to think that way as long as it is not against the overall Orthodox belief on the role of the Theotokos in the entire Orthodox faith.

THAT IS ORTHODOX.

Well that’s an accomplishment for today. We are down to two-three sins after the Incarnation. Course that would have been between the Queen of Heaven and the Incarnation of God, but hey its Wednesday

 

[dvdjs]

We have a voice too, the entire voice of the tradition, which has always condemned homosexuality, which has allowed for female lower clergy, but not female priests, and which has condemned contraceptive measures of all kind, including methods to discern the fertility of the women. But you are getting into issues with Constantine (issues of soteriology, nature and grace, original sin, etc.) which are also academic in nature. To say that Orthodoxy has not one voice as far as these topics are concerned is rather unfair because not only does Roman Catholicism not have one voice as far as these topics are concerned, but within the past century, the Vatican has even vacillated between multiple schools of thinking.

I don’t disagree totally, but still, there is a difference. A Catholic could consult the CCC, from the Vatican, to sort out basic, decided matters of dogmatic moral theology. To suggest that there has been vacillation is a bit much; I would say that teachings are nuanced particularly in areas taht do no lend themselves to simple, black and white thinking. On the other hand, when I post items from catechisms written by Orthodox clergy, they are handily dismissed by Orthodox if they hold a different view - even by people who are neonates in Orthodoxy. I am never surprised by people of any religious background just getting it wrong - and thankfully the Gospel of the last judgement does not give any suggestions of a theology exam. But the idea that the teachings are arbitrary - subject to private judgment, and to wholesale overturn - is a bit shocking.

 

[dvdjs]

All of us. This concept of laity just sitting on the sidelines like chicks in a nest waiting for their mother clergy to regurgitate and feed them is a purely Western scholastic concept. The laity certainly plays a large part in the overall life of the Church, including discerning the truths of Scripture.

It is important to learn before teaching. That is not scholastic thinking, just common sense. So there is some time that is best spent on the sidelines. But spending some time there does not mean that there is no other role to play.

A Catholic hunting down quotes around the internet that supports his position and claims that to be the true Orthodox teaching is not truly Orthodox. While a great majority of Orthodox do believe and agree (I myself belong to that group) that the Theotokos never sinned in her life, it is not a doctrine that must absolutely be believed in the Orthodox Church. Anyone, from the Church Fathers to people today, who may have the opinion that she committed a minor sin or two, are free to think that way as long as it is not against the overall Orthodox belief on the role of the Theotokos in the entire Orthodox faith.

I have been an EC for nearly 60 years. In over 40 of them, I have enjoyed very close association with a number of EO friends and family, for nearly 20 of them, I have been a regular at a EO mission in my town which is distant from any EC parish or mission. So, while I agree that there are many whose awareness of Eastern Christianity is pretty much identical with what they can chase down on the internet, it is not fair to imply that I am among them. And if we disagree about what is Orthodox - and we surely do - mine sense is informed by all of the experience that I outlined above.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is important to learn before teaching. That is not scholastic thinking, just common sense. So there is some time that is best spent on the sidelines. But spending some time there does not mean that there is no other role to play.

At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Mat 11:25

 

[dvdjs]

At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Mat 11:25

Swing and a miss. Children often show by example things that elude others who are scattered in the conceit of their hearts. But I am unfamilar with any Orthodox church that has such children preaching in words spoken or written.