What is the view of Eastern orthodox and eastern catholics on the latin rosary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miguel25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, ACROD is under the Patriarch of Constantinople. I haven’t heard of being baptized again, I did hear some grumbling about concessions to Rome, but I must admit, I let the Canonical Bishops deal with those matters. Then there is all this stuff with the KP and the like. I’m just struggling with being more authentic in my own practices. 🙂
 
I haven’t heard of being baptized again
Regarding being baptized again: Fr. Alexis Toth was not baptized, Chrismation, nor ordained when he came into the Orthodox Church, and now he is a Saint. Some baptize, some chrismate, some just ask for a profession of faith, while others require a specific repudiation of the Pope. Confusing, to say the least. :roll_eyes:
 
Some baptize, some chrismate, some just ask for a profession of faith, while others require a specific repudiation of the Pope.
If for some reason I ever went Eastern Orthodox, I would absolutely refuse to renounce my baptism, Chrismation, or the Papacy. Only a profession of faith would be acceptable to me.

I reverted to Roman Catholicism one week before being received into Russian Orthodoxy via re baptism, after nearly a year as an EO catechumen.

I realized renouncing my baptism was incredibly disrespectful to all my family and ancestors, and couldn’t bring myself to believing they were all unbaptized infidels/heretics.

There were other reasons I ended up rejecting Eastern Orthodoxy as well.

Now I consider myself to be an Orthodox Catholic Christian in full communion with the Holy See of Rome - not bad considering St. John Chyrosostom, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Nicholas of Myra, St. Spyridon, and almost every other Doctor of the East in the first millenium were also Orthodox in full Communion with Rome.
 
Last edited:
With all due respect, original sin is not something you overcome. You may overcome the effects of original sin, but not original sin itself, which is inherently different from actual sin.

Jesus was without original sin, but He was still tempted, but did not fall to sin, just to get an idea.
 
She doesn’t believe in original sin, she’s Orthodox.

She believes in ancestral sin. There’s a difference.
 
What is the difference? I didn’t know there is one and I read some lists of discussion and differences between Catholic and Orthodox but I don’t recall ever saying anything about a different interpretation of the original/ancestral sin between Rome and East.But maybe I wasn’t attentive enough.

Could you explain to me the difference please?
God bless
 
Because I didn’t know there is a difference between the two.
I am thinking if there is a difference then why is it a problem for the Orthodox to accept the Immaculate Conception of Virgin Mary? Because Catholic say she had no original sin (no reference to ancestral sin) and then Orthodox say she had ancestral sin but she overcame it and this is one of her merits.There is no conflict. Yet there is a conflict. Maybe the theologians already agreed there is no difference between original and ancestral sin and that is why it is still conflict over this?
 
Yes, I had not heard of ancestral sin prior to this.

Original sin is that which is inherited by all, in which we are spiritually dead prior to Baptism. It is the sin inherited from Adam, and it causes (though is not just) concupiscience. It is different from actual sin (which are sins we commit).
I hope this makes clear why Mary had no original sin.

What is ancestral sin?
 
I used the term original sin in this sense of the original sin as you said it.
Ancestral sin in orthodoxy.

The term Original Sin (or first sin) is used among all Christian churches to define the doctrine surrounding Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, in which Adam is identified as the man whom through death came into the world. How this is interpreted is believed by many Orthodox to be a fundamental difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Churches. In contrast, modern Roman Catholic theologians would claim that the basic anthropology is actually almost identical, and that the difference is only in the explanation of what happened in the Fall. In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man’s “inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors” and that this is removed through baptism. St. Gregory Palamas taught that man’s image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam’s disobedience.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin
I didn’t know this, that there is a difference between Catholic and Orthodox here too. I admit I don’t understand the orthodox concept at all here, so I can’t say I believe this since I don’t understand it. Yes human beings prefer sin by nature after the fall, but original sin is about the actual sin of Adam before the Fall so I am lost here.
I meant original sin. The ancestral sin discussion is something I 've only discovered.
 
It seems to me ancestral sin is directly about the concupiscience.
Original sin in the west is not something that is overcome, except in the form of Baptism which brings us to life. It is not an inclination to sin, that is a by product of the original sin itself.

Certainly, Jesus was tempted, so we can only think Mary similarly had temptations. But, this can be without original sin.
 
So in terms of the Fall, Original Sin and things like Limbo: I read somewhere, once ( I think it was in, The Orthodox Church New Edition - Kastillos Ware though I can’t find it now.), that this was due to a bad translation that equated sin to guilt. While we inherit Adam’s sin, we do NOT inherit his guilt.

What I CAN provide is this excerpt from the Orthodox Church:
Most Orthodox theologians reject the idea of ‘original guilt,’ put forward by Augustine and still accepted (albeit in a mitigated form) by the Roman Catholic Church. Men (Orthodox usually teach) automatically inherit Adam’s corruption and mortality, but not his guilt: they are only guilty in so far as by their own free choice they imitate Adam. Many western Christians believe that whatever a man does in his fallen and unredeemed state, since it is tainted by original guilt, cannot possibly be pleasing to God: ‘Works before Justification,’ says the thirteenth of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, ‘…are not pleasant to God … but have the nature of sin.’ Orthodox would hesitate to say this. And Orthodox have never held (as Augustine and many others in the west have done) that unbaptized babies, because tainted with original guilt, are consigned by the just God to the everlasting games of Hell (Thomas Aquinas, in his discussion of the fall, on the whole, followed Augustine, and in particular retained the idea of original guilt; but as regards unbaptized babies, he maintained that they go not to Hell but to Limbo — a view now generally accepted by Roman theologians. So far as I can discover, Orthodox writers do not make use of the idea of Limbo. It should be noted that an Augustinian view of the fall is found from time to time in Orthodox theological literature, but this is usually the result of western influence. The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila is, as one might expect, strongly Augustinian; on the other hand, the Confession of Dositheus is free from Augustinianism). The Orthodox picture of fallen humanity is far less somber than the Augustinian or Calvinist view.
 
I would say that this is a good overall view of original sin vs ancestral sin. Only thing I will add is that there is a good article by Nathaniel McCallum that suggests the difference between the two is inconsequential (especially since in his studies, if Augustine’s translation is the root of the issue, then the Council of Carthage suggests otherwise). Furthermore, Augustine’s belief in the inheritance of Adam’s guilt is definitely not directly part of Catholic teaching (see CCC 405 and their argument about Trent and “reatus”).

To be honest, it’s probably the larger theological attitudes of Catholic theologians in the medieval ages (limbo, infants with original sin unable to enter heaven, etc) that even with all those other things, the Orthodox may still have assumptions that Catholics believe in Original Guilt.

In my opinion I think the fine nitty gritty details of ancestral sin and original sin are a compatible on paper, but in reality, Orthodox/Catholics still seem to draw different conclusions from them, which raises the question if they are only hair-splitting differences. So not sure what to think.
 
@Kmon23 Is it possible that the guilt percieved on original sin, is not at all related to Augustine, but to a parent’s well-intentioned, yet misguided attempts at teaching the children to be aware of their sins? Kind of like a, ‘Your face will freeze that way’. Though I think that the Augustine translation is probably a bit at fault.
 
The Rosary is a nice Western private devotion. Eastern Christians have their own private devotion. Private devotions are private devotions. Not sure were the confusion is. Maybe in the word “private”?.

Fr. Sebastian Carnazzo
steliasmelkite.org
Los Gatos, CA
 
Besides the use of imagination, the Rosary is a great devotion. Western Orthodox in particular use it, and also st. seraphim of Sarov had a modified version I believe.
 
Thank you this is very interesting. I now understand more as of why this is a discussion.
In Psalm 50/51 it is said
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.
Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts, and in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom.

Here it refers to Eve’s sin.
 
I attended a Byzantine Church Ruthinian, that prayed the rosary in full before Divine Liturgy. Done every Sunday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top