Things that separate us?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reclaim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Reclaim

Guest
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)
  2. Artificial contraception (accepted by Orthodox)
  3. 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.”
 
  1. sin
Orthodox: people inherit only the consequence of original sin… while people my have an “inclination towards sin” they are not inherently broken.

Catholic: people inherit both the consequence and also the guilt of Adam’s sin… all people are broken.
 
  1. sin
Orthodox: people inherit only the consequence of original sin… while people my have an “inclination towards sin” they are not inherently broken.

Catholic: people inherit both the consequence and also the guilt of Adam’s sin… all people are broken.
The Catholic Church **does not teach **that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin.

Also, can you clarify what you mean by that “all people are broken”?
 
The issue of the Pope is, at least from our perspective, the key issue though - since if they accepted our view of that, then a logical consequence would be to accept the rest. However, from the other side (from a perspective in which our view of the Pope is viewed to be false) I suppose it could just appear to be one mistake among many.

I wonder if this may have something to do with why (at least according to the impressions I get) Catholics in general are more ready to accept reunion than Orthodox, since we see Churches that are very close to us on most of the biggest issues, and if they would just accept this one other big issue could agree with us everywhere important, whereas from an Orthodox perspective even overcoming that one big issue wouldn’t necessarily logically force us to change our minds on these other issues - so we appear further away from them from their perspective than they appear from us from ours. Pure speculation, of course.
  1. sin
Orthodox: people inherit only the consequence of original sin… while people my have an “inclination towards sin” they are not inherently broken.

Catholic: people inherit both the consequence and also the guilt of Adam’s sin… all people are broken.
The Catholic Church **does not teach **that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin.

Also, can you clarify what you mean by that “all people are broken”?
I believe “inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin” should be replaced by “we are not born in a state of grace, as a consequence of Adam’s sin.” We are not guilty of it in that we are not morally responsible for it (since we didn’t do it), but some people equate “in a state of grace” and “not in a state of grace” with “not guilty” and “guilty,” which may be the issue here. I suspect by broken, he means “we aren’t born in a state of friendship with God, and we have an in built tendency to defy Him.”

I hadn’t heard that the Orthodox diverged from us on the consequences of original sin, though, anywhere where I could read more?
 
I hadn’t heard that the Orthodox diverged from us on the consequences of original sin, though, anywhere where I could read more?
oca.org/questions/teaching/st.-augustine-original-sin or theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2009/06/original-sin/

VS

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297
 
The Catholic Church **does not teach **that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin.
is the catechism of the Catholic Church listed above not the official teaching? :confused:

Also - Catholic tradition until very recently held that unbaptized babes went to limbo because original sin prevented them from going to heaven. In what way is this not the standard teaching?

Broken is probably a Protestant term from my youth… sorry. But you know the meaning… and the teaching.
 
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)
  2. Artificial contraception (accepted by Orthodox)
  3. 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.”
  1. needs to be nuanced
  2. not all Orthodox
  3. Orthodox call the Theotokos “all holy”. The difference is that Orthodox have a different idea on original sin, and therefore the Immaculate Conception. Orthodox do call Our Lady immaculate.
 
is the catechism of the Catholic Church listed above not the official teaching? :confused:
Please read closely:

**405 ** Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of **a personal fault **in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice,…

We do not inherit guilt.

Regarding limbo, it has never been an official teaching of the Church.
Please read: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
 
  1. needs to be nuanced
  2. not all Orthodox
  3. Orthodox call the Theotokos “all holy”. The difference is that Orthodox have a different idea on original sin, and therefore the Immaculate Conception. Orthodox do call Our Lady immaculate.
Even with a different belief in original sin, it seems heretical to speak of Her as “just as sinful as the rest of us.”😦
 
Even with a different belief in original sin, it seems heretical to speak of Her as “just as sinful as the rest of us.”😦
I think that priest was very much mistaken. Or maybe misunderstood. I can’t begin to imagine a priest saying that.

There is a part of the Vespers office where we sing “Holy Mother of God, save us”.

I have more icons and statues of the Mother of God than any other icon, many more are made even.

Yes statues, I still have a lot of residual Catholicism, and if there were an Eastern Catholic church closer than 400 miles from me I would be there.
 
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.
 
Please read closely:

**405 ** Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of **a personal fault **in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice,…

We do not inherit guilt.

Regarding limbo, it has never been an official teaching of the Church.
Please read: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
Do you even read your links before posting them?

"1.2. The Greek Fathers
  1. Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam’s sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act.[11] Hence, not many Greek Fathers explicitly deal with the problem of the salvation of unbaptised children. They do, however, discuss the status or situation - but not the place - of these infants after their death. In this regard, the main problem they face is the tension between God’s universal salvific will and the teaching of the Gospel about the necessity of Baptism. Pseudo-Athanasios says clearly that an unbaptised person cannot enter the Kingdom of God. He also asserts that unbaptised children will not enter the Kingdom, but neither will they be lost, for they have not sinned.[12] Anastasius of Sinai expresses this even more clearly: for him, unbaptised children do not go to Gehenna. But he is not able to say more; he does not express an opinion about where they do go, but leaves their destiny to God’s judgment.[13]"
 
Do you even read your links before posting them?

"1.2. The Greek Fathers
  1. Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam’s sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act.[11] Hence, not many Greek Fathers explicitly deal with the problem of the salvation of unbaptised children. They do, however, discuss the status or situation - but not the place - of these infants after their death. In this regard, the main problem they face is the tension between God’s universal salvific will and the teaching of the Gospel about the necessity of Baptism. Pseudo-Athanasios says clearly that an unbaptised person cannot enter the Kingdom of God. He also asserts that unbaptised children will not enter the Kingdom, but neither will they be lost, for they have not sinned.[12] Anastasius of Sinai expresses this even more clearly: for him, unbaptised children do not go to Gehenna. But he is not able to say more; he does not express an opinion about where they do go, but leaves their destiny to God’s judgment.[13]"
I am referring to official teaching. An “idea” is not a teaching. Please read carefully and in context.
 
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)
  2. Artificial contraception (accepted by Orthodox)
  3. 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.”
You have asked some interesting questions. I believe what really separates us is this lack of finding out who each other are. There is no separation when we come to understand each other. The marriage question is not what you think it is. Orthodox do not give out divorces. If someone remarries it is always done within a penitential rite. The Catholic Church gets around this by giving out annulments. It is sad that some marriages do break down. However each Church does recognizes weaknesses within their own way of handling marriages that can no longer exist. The Orthodox by and large do not accept artificial contraception. They do not classify it within the same degree of judgment as does the Church of Rome but they do not encourage it. Within the Orthodox Church I would say it is tolerated if the conditions of having a family becomes a first priority. Once the family size is decided than the couple may go ahead to decide for no more children. I would say the Orthodox do not classify artificial contraception as a mortal sin. The Orthodox Church in terms of judgment on certain sins do not classify them as mortal as does the Church of Rome. This judgment of the Greek Orthodox priest on Mary is only his personal opinion and does not carry any judgment whatsoever by the Eastern Orthodox Church. I personally believe in the sinlessness of Mary but remember that any teachings on Mary within the Orthodox Church is a matter of personal belief since the Orthodox Church has not given any dogmatic teachings on the sinlessness of Mary.

The Orthodox Church does not dogmatize Mary as does the Catholic Church. If you ask me should they, I would say yes, it is time to put on writing a more distinct formal teaching. Perhaps this will come in time once more Orthodox will come together to pronounce it. It is my personal opinion that doctrines on Mary however important they are do not necessarily do anything for the faith centered on the Lord Jesus. Mary was chosen by God to be the Mother of God. It makes sense that God must have given to Mary a grace that would enable her to remain sinless all of her life so that she would resemble much her Son. Yet while her Son was sinless by His own nature the Mother of God must have been given an incredible grace from God to help her remain sinless because she is by nature not the same as her Son. This grace given to her must have to come at the moment of her conception.

The Church of Rome calls it the Immaculate Conception and while I do accept that Mary received a grace at her conception I believed the teaching from Rome could be modified to make it more simpler. It would be easier to say that Mary received from the first moment of her existence all of the Holy Spirit one can receive in this life or in the life to come. I believe if Rome includes the Holy Spirit more within this teaching it will be more accepted within the Orthodox Church. Mary was filled completely with the Holy Spirit right from her conception. This is vastly different than any of us because we only receive a partial deposits of the Holy Spirit initially at Baptism and Confirmation. We still need a way lot more which most of it can be received at the Mass and the Divine Liturgy. Every time we receive the Lord Jesus at the Mass and the Divine Liturgy we receive more of the Holy Spirit so that we see the level of sanctity increasing. Not so with Mary. She had it all, the Fullness of the Holy Spirit all given to her at her conception.

If Rome will modify its teaching to include the Holy Spirit, the teaching of the Immaculate Conception will become more accepted in the East.
 
You have asked some interesting questions. I believe what really separates us is this lack of finding out who each other are. There is no separation when we come to understand each other. The marriage question is not what you think it is. Orthodox do not give out divorces. If someone remarries it is always done within a penitential rite. The Catholic Church gets around this by giving out annulments. It is sad that some marriages do break down. However each Church does recognizes weaknesses within their own way of handling marriages that can no longer exist. The Orthodox by and large do not accept artificial contraception. They do not classify it within the same degree of judgment as does the Church of Rome but they do not encourage it. Within the Orthodox Church I would say it is tolerated if the conditions of having a family becomes a first priority. Once the family size is decided than the couple may go ahead to decide for no more children. I would say the Orthodox do not classify artificial contraception as a mortal sin. The Orthodox Church in terms of judgment on certain sins do not classify them as mortal as does the Church of Rome. This judgment of the Greek Orthodox priest on Mary is only his personal opinion and does not carry any judgment whatsoever by the Eastern Orthodox Church. I personally believe in the sinlessness of Mary but remember that any teachings on Mary within the Orthodox Church is a matter of personal belief since the Orthodox Church has not given any dogmatic teachings on the sinlessness of Mary.

The Orthodox Church does not dogmatize Mary as does the Catholic Church. If you ask me should they, I would say yes, it is time to put on writing a more distinct formal teaching. Perhaps this will come in time once more Orthodox will come together to pronounce it. It is my personal opinion that doctrines on Mary however important they are do not necessarily do anything for the faith centered on the Lord Jesus. Mary was chosen by God to be the Mother of God. It makes sense that God must have given to Mary a grace that would enable her to remain sinless all of her life so that she would resemble much her Son. Yet while her Son was sinless by His own nature the Mother of God must have been given an incredible grace from God to help her remain sinless because she is by nature not the same as her Son. This grace given to her must have to come at the moment of her conception.

The Church of Rome calls it the Immaculate Conception and while I do accept that Mary received a grace at her conception I believed the teaching from Rome could be modified to make it more simpler. It would be easier to say that Mary received from the first moment of her existence all of the Holy Spirit one can receive in this life or in the life to come. I believe if Rome includes the Holy Spirit more within this teaching it will be more accepted within the Orthodox Church. Mary was filled completely with the Holy Spirit right from her conception. This is vastly different than any of us because we only receive a partial deposits of the Holy Spirit initially at Baptism and Confirmation. We still need a way lot more which most of it can be received at the Mass and the Divine Liturgy. Every time we receive the Lord Jesus at the Mass and the Divine Liturgy we receive more of the Holy Spirit so that we see the level of sanctity increasing. Not so with Mary. She had it all, the Fullness of the Holy Spirit all given to her at her conception.

If Rome will modify its teaching to include the Holy Spirit, the teaching of the Immaculate Conception will become more accepted in the East.
Chimo - I believe this comes down to a matter of how one interprets the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Many Latin theologians / saints have taught that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit (perfectly united to the Holy Spirit) from the first moment of her conception. It is by virtue of this perfect union with the Holy Spirit that she was “preserved” from original sin. There is no need to spell this out dogmatically. It is a logical conclusion imo.
 
The Catholic Church **does not teach **that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin.

Also, can you clarify what you mean by that “all people are broken”?
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?
 
Chimo - I believe this comes down to a matter of how one interprets the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Many Latin theologians / saints have taught that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit (perfectly united to the Holy Spirit) from the first moment of her conception. It is by virtue of this perfect union with the Holy Spirit that she was “preserved” from original sin. There is no need to spell this out dogmatically. It is a logical conclusion imo.
Yes it doesn’t really matter how precise you have to be. Maybe the Church of Rome can have her description while the Eastern Orthodox can have her description. It doesn’t bother me if Roman Catholics have a teaching that preserves Mary from original sin as set in their version or if Mary was completely “espoused” with the Holy Spirit which for me means she was baptised completely with the Fullness of the Holy Spirit. Either description is perfectly valid.
 
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?
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.
 
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.
This^

Best answer I have ever read

Hmmmmm. Could we say that Pride goeth before a Schism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top