Things that separate us?

[Seraphim73]

I can’t begin to imagine a priest saying that.

Yeah me either. It is of course not dogmatic but I don’t personally know any Orthodox who believes Mary personally sinned. You always have to remember priests are people too. They can be wrong just like the rest of us. I’ve heard some Catholic priests on youtube say some wacky stuff but I know that’s just their personal opinion and not indicative of Catholic teaching.

 

[Seraphim73]

I have long pondered the things that separate Catholics from the Orthodox, and I think it is bigger than the filioque or papal primacy. I would love to hear thoughts and ideas on how these issues might be resolved.

1. Permanence of marriage (Orthodox believe in divorce and remarriage)

Was never an issue during the first thousand years of the Church. It even wasn’t an issue at Florence. Not sure why it has to be an issue now.

1. Artificial contraception (accepted by Orthodox)

But not abortifacients. Again this is one of the things about Catholicism that drives me nuts. It seems you live in a semantical wonderland. It’s ok to use NFP with the expressed intent of being able to have sex without getting pregnant. That’s fine and dandy. But if someone uses a condom with the expressed intent of not getting pregnant that’s a sin. Either way both Churches authorize birth control so again this shouldn’t be an issue.

1. Sinlessness of Mary (I don’t know how widespread this is, but I went to a Festival at a Greek Orthodox Church where the priest told the mostly Catholic audience during his talk that “we believe that Mary is just as sinful as the rest of us.”

I’ve never heard a single Orthodox in my entire life make a statement like that. In fact I don’t know any who think Mary sinned personally. That being said we don’t dogmatize every tiny aspect of the faith. In fact the only dogmas concerning Mary have to do with the nature of Christ. We don’t preach Mary. She is a family matter for us.

 

[Peter_J]

I am sure that the OP is aware that this the Eastern Catholicism board. Eastern Catholics are not separated from the Roman Catholic Church. Just wanted to clarify as there has been confusion over this in the past.

I would say all theological differences are secondary, at best, to the true thing that disunites all Christians: pride.

Exactly. Especially those with TPTBCS – Too Proud To Be Catholic Syndrome!

Just kidding. But seriously I think you’re right; each side has pride and it colors our dealings with the other side(s).

 

[howirenic]

Exactly. Especially those with TPTBCS – Too Proud To Be Catholic Syndrome!

Just kidding. But seriously I think you’re right; each side has pride and it colors our dealings with the other side(s).

Hey man, I’m an Orthodox Jewish convert. I didn’t have the Protestant baggage; I just wanted to still be able to say I was “Orthodox” to my relatives so they wouldn’t suspect anything…

 

[AureaElizabeth]

But not abortifacients. Again this is one of the things about Catholicism that drives me nuts. It seems you live in a semantical wonderland. It’s ok to use NFP with the expressed intent of being able to have sex without getting pregnant. That’s fine and dandy. But if someone uses a condom with the expressed intent of not getting pregnant that’s a sin. Either way both Churches authorize birth control so again this shouldn’t be an issue.

If you believe this, please read this Q&A from Chastity.com (Catholic Answers to questions about Chastity):

"Why is Natural Family Planning (NFP) accepted by the Church while contraception is condemned? They both do the same thing–prevent pregnancy.
Because you don’t judge the morality of actions by their effects or consequences. You judge their morality by what they essentially are. Using contraceptives such as condoms or diaphrams may accomplish the same end result as NFP, but the ways they go about it are very different.

First, NFP isn’t contraception. In contraception an action is taken which prevents conception. In NFP, no such action occurs. Instead, sexual relations are avoided when conception is likely to occur.

Second, contraception attacks the good of procreation. It acts directly against procreation because some action is taken to thwart that good. Contraception treats procreation as an evil–as something to be acted against. NFP treats procreation as a good, but not one which necessarily needs to be pursued right now.

Third, contraception violates the natural link between the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act. This link, as Humanae Vitae teaches, is established by God and may not be broken by man on his own initiative (Humanae Vitae, no. 12). NFP doesn’t alter the marital act in any way."

chastity.com/question/why-is-natural-family-planning-nfp-accepted-by-the-church-while-contraception-is-condemned-

Also, when two married people participate in the marital act, they are giving their whole selves to each other completely. If they use contraception, they are saying to each other, “you can have all of me except for this part.” NFP does not withhold anything from the other partner.

 

[Jack007]

I think you are mistaken. The “guilt of concupiscence” is basically, being born in a fallen world with fallen inclination. Adam’s guilt is actual and personal, and we have not inherited it, except for the state which we have been born into and our inclination.

You are right.

This^

Best answer I have ever read

Hmmmmm. Could we say that Pride goeth before a Schism?

That word is banned here, right?
i dont think pride goes before that thing, if so we would be a single church.

 

[Jack007]

I seriously think we should ask orthodox leaders to read from this forums during ecumenical dialogue. It has convincing apologetics!

 

[Cavaradossi]

I believe the Catholic Church does teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin just as we inherit original sin itself, for guilt follows upon sin and all mankind are implicated in Adam’s sin (CCC#402) as all mankind sinned in Adam (Romans 5:12). Though original sin is not a sin we personally committed and so the CCC says it is a contracted sin, all of us are nevertheless, implicated in it. The guilt we inherit from original sin is a contracted guilt just as the original sin itself we inherit is a contracted sin.
In the Catechism of the Council of Trent concerning the effects of baptism, it quotes St Augustine who says “the guilt of concupiscence is pardoned in Baptism, but its infirmity remains.”
Furthermore, infants are baptized in the Catholic Church for the forgiveness of sins as the Council of Trent declared. In the case of infants, they are forgiven original sin only as they have no personal sins. Now, how can one be baptized for the forgiveness of sins or just original sin unless one is guilty in some way of sin?

The dogmatist, Fr. Hardon, also taught something similar, namely that the absence of sanctifying grace in man is not merely a lack but a true deprivation, which is both morally privative and voluntary (properly so in Adam, but denominatively in all men) and which is therefore truly sinful and truly sin. This teaching has become unfashionable lately, but when one looks at the arguments between the Reformationists and the Counter-reformationists, I think it is somewhat clear that their disagreement was primarily over the issue of whether original sin was a form of imputed sinfulness (a preferred doctrine of many Reformationists) or a form of real sin inherent to all men.

 

[Peter_J]

I seriously think we should ask orthodox leaders to read from this forums during ecumenical dialogue. It has convincing apologetics!

I like to ask posters on this forum to read the documents from the ecumenical dialogues. (Which is not to say that there aren’t many on the forum who see it your way. )

 

[Jack007]

I like to ask posters on this forum to read the documents from the ecumenical dialogues. (Which is not to say that there aren’t many on the forum who see it your way. )

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2009/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090515_incontro-ecumenico_en.html

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/january/documents/papa-francesco_20140111_membri-chiese-ortodosse.html

 

[Jack007]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=907178
immaculate conception

 

[Vico]

I believe the Catholic Church does teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin just as we inherit original sin itself, for guilt follows upon sin and all mankind are implicated in Adam’s sin (CCC#402) as all mankind sinned in Adam (Romans 5:12). Though original sin is not a sin we personally committed and so the CCC says it is a contracted sin, all of us are nevertheless, implicated in it. The guilt we inherit from original sin is a contracted guilt just as the original sin itself we inherit is a contracted sin.
In the Catechism of the Council of Trent concerning the effects of baptism, it quotes St Augustine who says “the guilt of concupiscence is pardoned in Baptism, but its infirmity remains.”
Furthermore, infants are baptized in the Catholic Church for the forgiveness of sins as the Council of Trent declared. In the case of infants, they are forgiven original sin only as they have no personal sins. Now, how can one be baptized for the forgiveness of sins or just original sin unless one is guilty in some way of sin?

A difficulty comes from the translation of the work reatus to guilt. It is not the same as culpa. Reatus refers to a state that accrues as a consequence of a culpa.

Latin “reatus” means liable to or indicted or a penal sentence.
Latin “culpa” means an actual act of wrongdoing.

The phrase “reatum originalis peccati remitti” of the Council of Trent is often translated to the *guilt *of original sin. Sometimes it it translated as stain of original sin.