You may see it that way, but as I see it I am simply stating the Eastern Christian viewpoint, which is that there is no need for a theory of immaculate conception because there is no “stain of original sin” to protect the Theotokos from in the Eastern Christian tradition.
Church Fathers? I know of St. John Chrysostom’s comments; what other Fathers have made similar comments?
I would be interested in seeing the Patristic writings that you allude to. Are there writings that actually assert that absolute purity and sinlessness did not occur until some event, or were the writings more in the vein of noting the sanctification that occurred at that event? The latter seems far more likely, than the former, which would be weirdly rationalistic.
One cannot attend the Divine Liturgy and come away with the idea that this belief is optional, unless you feel that it is fine to pick and choose what you consider true and false among liturgical prayers. But that phronema is not Orthodox - it is American modernism.
Actually the church through its liturgy - in particular as it has developed since SJ Chrysostom - makes the point crystal clear. Those who choose to get squishy about this matter, puts themselves outside of the teaching of the church.
So please tell me where the church, in particular any Eastern church, dogmatizes necessary conditions for going to hell. Talk about legalistic! I would suggest that anyone who willfully chooses to disregard what the church teaches in its liturgy puts their soul in jeopardy.
The problem is that you are not conveying the mind of the Eastern church on Original Sin - where there is little consensus - just as surely as you have been the case on the sinlessness of Mary, on which there is an enormously string consensus.
I disagree. I believe it is you who betray a Western approach despite your Byzantine Church membership.
I don’t think that’s what he meant. I think he meant that every dogma was so declared because teaching otherwise dissolves the economy of salvation. Every major teaching, the divinity of the Son, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the hypostatic union, the teaching of two natures, the two energies and wills, the veneration of icons, and the Essence-Energies distinction, has soteriological importance. We condemn the heresies which contradict the above teachings because teaching them is the same as teaching that God did not save us. What soteriological justification is there for elevating the Immaculate Conception to be a necessary belief, like the hypostatic union?I was merely suggesting mutual respect. By the way isn’t it Jesus’ church? After all Jesus said, “I will build My church…”?
You mean binding on Catholics? Protestants and EO Christians are not bound to believe any catholic teaching; only if they should choose to join the CC.
And you are not expected to believe it. It’s not “binding” on you…
They don’t wish to impose anything on anyone outside the CC. Are you suggesting that the CC should renounce their ex cathedra teachings on Mary, in the name of ecumenicism?
“Pet theological theories” is not somewhat of an insult? If it is just that then God is not guiding the CC, making you right. Again, binding on only Catholics. My sister, who is a protestant would laugh at the mere suggestion, rightfully so.
My apologies.
Correct me if I am wrong: is the Melkite Greek Catholic Church in full communion with the Holy See as part of the worldwide Catholic Church?St. John Chrysostom speaks of the vanity of the Theotokos, a grave sin indeed, and St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Basil both speak about her doubting Christ and His mission. And I am sure that there are other Fathers who mention failings of the Theotokos, because - of course - in the first millennium there was no sense in which one can say that the Church Fathers believed - as a matter of divine faith - that the Virgin Theotokos must be sinless.
I am sure it is not impossible to do, but some of the texts are not in English (although St. Cyril’s is found in English in his Homilies on John’s Gospel).
That depends upon how you understand the texts of the divine liturgy, and clearly you and I do not understand them in the same way. You see I understand that liturgical texts are poetical, and that they often speak using hyperbole and prolepsis. Is the Theotokos sinless? Yes, she is now sinless, but whether or not she was sinless throughout her earthly life is an open question. The liturgical texts that speak of the sinlessness of the Virgin Theotokos are often proleptic in nature, just as the offertory prayers of the old Roman Rite were (i.e., they spoke of the bread and wine as already being the body and blood of Christ prior to the anaphora).
I disagree with you yet again. It is your understanding, or - to be more precise - it is your interpretation of the liturgy that has changed. I hold the Orthodox faith, while you seem content to accept a more or less Latinized viewpoint, which of course you are perfectly free to do.
The only dogmas of Orthodoxy concern the Trinity and the Incarnation, and to deny explicitly either of these two truths would bring about a man’s condemnation. That said, I do agree that only God can determine whether or not a man has truly rejected the truth in connection with those two dogmas, and so a man’s fate is left in God’s omniscient hands.
Every particular Church is Christ’s Church, but that does not mean that the Melkite Catholic Church is not also my Church, and by the use of the word my I mean that I am a canonical member of it.
Cool.
No, it is not an insult at all, it just means that the theories in question are bound in a particular manner to the Roman Church and its theological history, i.e., to the presuppositions that underlie its perception of the various mysteries of the faith.
Protestantism is not an Apostolic movement, after all it only came into existence 1500 years after the time of Christ. I hold that all the Apostolic Churches (Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholic) are guided by God. I refuse to limit God’s guidance to the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Churches taken in isolation.
Yes, the Roman Catholic Church is in full communion with the Melkite Catholic Church.My apologies.
You left out the word “Roman” in your post when speaking about Catholics (n.b., I added it to your post for you). What binds Roman Catholics may not bind Melkite Catholics or Ukrainian Catholics, to name just two sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches. I should also add that theological theories that are prominent in Roman Catholicism do not necessarily bind Eastern Orthodox Christians. As far as Protestants are concerned I have no opinion, since I do not see the various Protestant sects as true particular Churches.
So it’s the other way around…Roman Catholic Church is in full communion with the Melkite Catholic Church. I’ll check it out.
Is there something Western about what I have written here on Original Sin? On other CAF threads on the subject , I have quoted from many Orthodox writers (what is Western about that?). It is easy to conclude from these writings that your position is one that is consistent with some Orthodox sources, but contradicted by other Orthodox sources. If you want to speak accurately about the Eastern view, you really must convey the range of opinions.
It is a matter of perspective.So it’s the other way around…Roman Catholic Church is in full communion with the Melkite Catholic Church. I’ll check it out.
OK.
Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholic cannot all be guided by God, considering the fact that they have different doctrinal beliefs, to some degree.
I have not undertaken an extensive examination of what you have written on CAF over the course of your membership at this forum (nor do I really have the time to do so at the present moment), and so I was simply referencing the posts you have written recently in response to me.
Is that how the Patriarch and Holy Synod of the Melkite Catholic Church see it? Just curious…It is a matter of perspective.
As an Eastern Catholic I see the Roman Church as being in communion with the Patriarch and Holy Synod of the Melkite Catholic Church of which I am a member. Of course communion is in reality reciprocal, that is, it is never a one way street.
Yes. The Melkite Patriarch and Holy Synod see the Pope (and the Roman Church) as in communion with them, and they (i.e., the Melkite Patriarch and Holy Synod) even accept papal authority according to the limits established by the Holy Fathers of the Church in the first millennium.