OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 20, 2014, 10:38:09 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Council of Carthage and mortal & original sin  (Read 4729 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« on: January 12, 2011, 04:02:07 PM »

Catholics teach mortal sin is serious sin that cuts one off from God's grace, and if left unrepented lands one in hell for all eternity.

Catholics used to teach that original sin is the sin carried on from Adam that every baby is born with that causes it to go to hell unless it is baptized. 

Do Oriental Orthodox share this?

K

Both of these doctrines came about later in the history of the Western church, and have no part in Byzantine Orthodoxy. Since the schism with the Oriental Orthodox occurred even before that point, I imagine that they will share, at least to a large degree, the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, I leave the definitive answer to an actual Oriental Orthodox Christian. Grin

Well that's odd... The Council of Carthage in 418 that was attached to the sixth ecumenical council as confirmation seems to say otherwise.
Quote
Canon CX.  (Greek cxii. bis)
That infants are baptized for the remission of sins.

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it.  For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.cxi.html

Note the Council of Carthage 418 was during the Undivided Church, i.e. Prior to Oriental Orthodox separation, and 600 years prior to EO/RC separation.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 04:17:23 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2011, 05:15:13 PM »

Catholics teach mortal sin is serious sin that cuts one off from God's grace, and if left unrepented lands one in hell for all eternity.

Catholics used to teach that original sin is the sin carried on from Adam that every baby is born with that causes it to go to hell unless it is baptized. 

Do Oriental Orthodox share this?

K

Both of these doctrines came about later in the history of the Western church, and have no part in Byzantine Orthodoxy. Since the schism with the Oriental Orthodox occurred even before that point, I imagine that they will share, at least to a large degree, the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, I leave the definitive answer to an actual Oriental Orthodox Christian. Grin

Well that's odd... The Council of Carthage in 418 that was attached to the sixth ecumenical council as confirmation seems to say otherwise.
Quote
Canon CX.  (Greek cxii. bis)
That infants are baptized for the remission of sins.

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it.  For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.cxi.html

Note the Council of Carthage 418 was during the Undivided Church, i.e. Prior to Oriental Orthodox separation, and 600 years prior to EO/RC separation.

The Orthodox Church holds a belief in what has come to be called "ancestral sin." That is, due to the sin of Adam, we are born into a fallen world and therefore need redemption, even if we commit no personal sins, we still live fallen lives and will die. Christ came to "trample death by death" and ransom us from that fate.

Though St. Augustine, and some others, wrote on "original sin" as it is known in the Roman church today, it was never considered Orthodox. His teachings on such things have always been held as incorrect in the East, where we uphold the compromise between St. Augustine and Pelagius as taught by St. John Cassian...who was also from the west.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2011, 05:20:34 PM »

Catholics teach mortal sin is serious sin that cuts one off from God's grace, and if left unrepented lands one in hell for all eternity.

Catholics used to teach that original sin is the sin carried on from Adam that every baby is born with that causes it to go to hell unless it is baptized. 

Do Oriental Orthodox share this?

K

Both of these doctrines came about later in the history of the Western church, and have no part in Byzantine Orthodoxy. Since the schism with the Oriental Orthodox occurred even before that point, I imagine that they will share, at least to a large degree, the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, I leave the definitive answer to an actual Oriental Orthodox Christian. Grin

Well that's odd... The Council of Carthage in 418 that was attached to the sixth ecumenical council as confirmation seems to say otherwise.
Quote
Canon CX.  (Greek cxii. bis)
That infants are baptized for the remission of sins.

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it.  For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.cxi.html

Note the Council of Carthage 418 was during the Undivided Church, i.e. Prior to Oriental Orthodox separation, and 600 years prior to EO/RC separation.

The Orthodox Church holds a belief in what has come to be called "ancestral sin." That is, due to the sin of Adam, we are born into a fallen world and therefore need redemption, even if we commit no personal sins, we still live fallen lives and will die. Christ came to "trample death by death" and ransom us from that fate.

Though St. Augustine, and some others, wrote on "original sin" as it is known in the Roman church today, it was never considered Orthodox. His teachings on such things have always been held as incorrect in the East, where we uphold the compromise between St. Augustine and Pelagius as taught by St. John Cassian...who was also from the west.

I am well aware of ancestral sin theology. However, you're ignoring the canon, that isn't minor in any sense, and clearly states there is a sinfulness state we are born into to be cleansed. This I what I meant by "guilt", not the modern use "guilty", but we share the consequences and need to be purified.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2011, 05:34:32 PM »

Catholics teach mortal sin is serious sin that cuts one off from God's grace, and if left unrepented lands one in hell for all eternity.

Catholics used to teach that original sin is the sin carried on from Adam that every baby is born with that causes it to go to hell unless it is baptized. 

Do Oriental Orthodox share this?

K

Both of these doctrines came about later in the history of the Western church, and have no part in Byzantine Orthodoxy. Since the schism with the Oriental Orthodox occurred even before that point, I imagine that they will share, at least to a large degree, the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, I leave the definitive answer to an actual Oriental Orthodox Christian. Grin

Well that's odd... The Council of Carthage in 418 that was attached to the sixth ecumenical council as confirmation seems to say otherwise.
Quote
Canon CX.  (Greek cxii. bis)
That infants are baptized for the remission of sins.

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it.  For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.cxi.html

Note the Council of Carthage 418 was during the Undivided Church, i.e. Prior to Oriental Orthodox separation, and 600 years prior to EO/RC separation.

The Orthodox Church holds a belief in what has come to be called "ancestral sin." That is, due to the sin of Adam, we are born into a fallen world and therefore need redemption, even if we commit no personal sins, we still live fallen lives and will die. Christ came to "trample death by death" and ransom us from that fate.

Though St. Augustine, and some others, wrote on "original sin" as it is known in the Roman church today, it was never considered Orthodox. His teachings on such things have always been held as incorrect in the East, where we uphold the compromise between St. Augustine and Pelagius as taught by St. John Cassian...who was also from the west.

I am well aware of ancestral sin theology. However, you're ignoring the canon, that isn't minor in any sense, and clearly states there is a sinfulness state we are born into to be cleansed. This I what I meant by "guilt", not the modern use "guilty", but we share the consequences and need to be purified.

We require baptism because we are born into death, not because we are born with sin on our souls. You may even say we are born with "sinfulness", as the word commonly used for sin in Greek, harmartia, simply means to "miss the mark."

All of creation is currently "missing the mark" of its full glory, and needs redemption. Christ redeems us from that, but it does not imply that we are each personally guilty of that, as it is not a sin committed by us, simply a condition into which we are born.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2011, 05:41:07 PM »

Catholics teach mortal sin is serious sin that cuts one off from God's grace, and if left unrepented lands one in hell for all eternity.

Catholics used to teach that original sin is the sin carried on from Adam that every baby is born with that causes it to go to hell unless it is baptized. 

Do Oriental Orthodox share this?

K

Both of these doctrines came about later in the history of the Western church, and have no part in Byzantine Orthodoxy. Since the schism with the Oriental Orthodox occurred even before that point, I imagine that they will share, at least to a large degree, the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, I leave the definitive answer to an actual Oriental Orthodox Christian. Grin

Well that's odd... The Council of Carthage in 418 that was attached to the sixth ecumenical council as confirmation seems to say otherwise.
Quote
Canon CX.  (Greek cxii. bis)
That infants are baptized for the remission of sins.

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it.  For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.cxi.html

Note the Council of Carthage 418 was during the Undivided Church, i.e. Prior to Oriental Orthodox separation, and 600 years prior to EO/RC separation.

The Orthodox Church holds a belief in what has come to be called "ancestral sin." That is, due to the sin of Adam, we are born into a fallen world and therefore need redemption, even if we commit no personal sins, we still live fallen lives and will die. Christ came to "trample death by death" and ransom us from that fate.

Though St. Augustine, and some others, wrote on "original sin" as it is known in the Roman church today, it was never considered Orthodox. His teachings on such things have always been held as incorrect in the East, where we uphold the compromise between St. Augustine and Pelagius as taught by St. John Cassian...who was also from the west.

I am well aware of ancestral sin theology. However, you're ignoring the canon, that isn't minor in any sense, and clearly states there is a sinfulness state we are born into to be cleansed. This I what I meant by "guilt", not the modern use "guilty", but we share the consequences and need to be purified.

We require baptism because we are born into death, not because we are born with sin on our souls. You may even say we are born with "sinfulness", as the word commonly used for sin in Greek, harmartia, simply means to "miss the mark."

All of creation is currently "missing the mark" of its full glory, and needs redemption. Christ redeems us from that, but it does not imply that we are each personally guilty of that, as it is not a sin committed by us, simply a condition into which we are born.

You didn't even read my post did you? And I assure you, the Orthodox 101 lesson is not needed.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2011, 05:45:01 PM »

I read your post. Maybe I missed your nuances. Or maybe you nuance poorly. Either we're in agreement or not. If so, great. If not, I no longer feel like debating the issue anyway.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2011, 05:59:49 PM »

I'm interested to see someone address the council of Carthage decision that Azure posted...  Huh
Logged
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 494



« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2011, 06:45:21 PM »

I'm interested to see someone address the council of Carthage decision that Azure posted...  Huh
In that case this is the wrong forum folder for that discussion. Council of Carthage is not considered as an Ecumenical Council by the OO. And the 6th council which Azure claims has ratified so to speak the Council of Carthage also is not considered an Ecumenical Council by the OO. So we the Oriental Orthodox cannot address Council of Carthage. I would suggest the moderator move the discussion about Council of Carthage to the 'Faith' forum or the Orthodox - Catholic forum. In this forum we can still discuss the original thread about the OO understanding of original sin and mortal sin.

Mathew G M
Logged

NULL
Ambrose of Milan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 46



« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2011, 06:57:45 PM »

Carthage comment:

I do not know Greek so I am left to wonder, is this a shortcoming of transliteration? Can the wording used be taken to mean "original iniquity?" That would conform to psalm 50's "For behold I was shapen in iniquity: and in sin did my mother conceive me." I have to think that the first part (for behold...) is referring to the the child and the second, (and in sin...) refers to the mother. Our inherent iniquity coming from Adam's first transgression.

Also, what did the bishops mean by "remission of sins?" Were they referring to the pardoning of offense or the removal of disease? Are there separate words for these concepts in Greek?
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2011, 07:00:44 PM »

I'm interested to see someone address the council of Carthage decision that Azure posted...  Huh
In that case this is the wrong forum folder for that discussion. Council of Carthage is not considered as an Ecumenical Council by the OO. And the 6th council which Azure claims has ratified so to speak the Council of Carthage also is not considered an Ecumenical Council by the OO. So we the Oriental Orthodox cannot address Council of Carthage. I would suggest the moderator move the discussion about Council of Carthage to the 'Faith' forum or the Orthodox - Catholic forum. In this forum we can still discuss the original thread about the OO understanding of original sin and mortal sin.

Mathew G M

I have requested this.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2011, 07:26:35 PM »

Carthage comment:

I do not know Greek so I am left to wonder, is this a shortcoming of transliteration? Can the wording used be taken to mean "original iniquity?" That would conform to psalm 50's "For behold I was shapen in iniquity: and in sin did my mother conceive me." I have to think that the first part (for behold...) is referring to the the child and the second, (and in sin...) refers to the mother. Our inherent iniquity coming from Adam's first transgression.

Also, what did the bishops mean by "remission of sins?" Were they referring to the pardoning of offense or the removal of disease? Are there separate words for these concepts in Greek?

I couldn't find the original greek online, but this might help from the translator.

Quote
For some of this I am indebted to my friends, who have most kindly given me every assistance in their power, but even here no translation has been made from the Greek without careful reference being had to the traditional understanding, as handed down in the Latin versions, and wherever the Latin and Greek texts differ on material points the difference has been noted.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ii.html

Both the Greek and the Latin texts that were used in the Roman Church were used for the translation.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2011, 09:45:00 AM »

As is no doubt already known by all contributors to this thread, the Carthage canon in question is discussed in The Rudder (Canon 121):

Quote
121. It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever denies the little ones newly born from the wombs of their mothers when they are being baptized, or asserts that they are baptized for the remission of sins, but that they have inherited no original sin from Adam obliging them to be purified in the bath of renaissance (whence it follows that in these persons the form of baptism for the remission of sins is not true, but is to be regarded as factitious), let him be anathema; for no other meaning ought to be attached to what the Apostle has said, viz., "Sin entered the world through one human being" (Rom. 5:12), and thus it passed over into all human beings; wherefore all of them have sinned, than that which the catholic Church diffused and spread abroad every-where has ever understood those words to mean. For it is on account of this Canon of the faith that even the little ones too, who are as yet incapable of committing if any sin of their own to render them guilty of any offense, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what sin they inherited from the primordial birth may be purified in them through the process of renaissance.

Interpretation.

This view too was a product of the heretical insanity of the Pelagians: this refers to their saying that newly begotten infants are not baptized for the remission of sins, as the Orthodox Church believes and maintains, but, instead, if anyone say that they are baptized for the remission of sins, yet the infants themselves have not incurred any taint from the original (or primordial) sin of Adam, such as to require to be removed by means of baptism (since, as we have said, those men believed that this original sin is not begotten with the human being, simply because this was not any offense of nature, but a mischoice of the free and independent will). So the Council in the present Canon anathematizes the heretics who say this: First, because the form of the baptism for the remission of sins which is given to infants is not true according to them, but false and factitious, since, according to them, those infants have no sins to be pardoned. Secondly, because the Apostle in what he says makes it plain that sin entered the world through a single human being, namely, Adam, and that death entered through sin, and thus death passed into all human beings, since all of them have sinned just like Adam. This passage, I say, cannot be taken to mean anything else than what the catholic Church of the Orthodox has understood and believed it to mean, to wit, that even the newborn infants, notwithstanding the fact that they have not sinned by reason of any exercise of their own free and independent will, have nevertheless entailed upon themselves the original sin from Adam; wherefore they need to be purified through baptism necessarily from that sin: hence they are truly, and not fictitiously, being baptized for the remission of sins.

Perhaps we might attempt to exegete this commentary. 
 
Logged

Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,934



« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2011, 10:19:13 AM »

I'm interested to see someone address the council of Carthage decision that Azure posted...  Huh

Why it needs to be addressed? I don't see anything awfully special in it.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 10:21:17 AM by Alpo » Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2011, 10:36:14 AM »

As is no doubt already known by all contributors to this thread, the Carthage canon in question is discussed in The Rudder (Canon 121):

Quote
121. It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever denies the little ones newly born from the wombs of their mothers when they are being baptized, or asserts that they are baptized for the remission of sins, but that they have inherited no original sin from Adam obliging them to be purified in the bath of renaissance (whence it follows that in these persons the form of baptism for the remission of sins is not true, but is to be regarded as factitious), let him be anathema; for no other meaning ought to be attached to what the Apostle has said, viz., "Sin entered the world through one human being" (Rom. 5:12), and thus it passed over into all human beings; wherefore all of them have sinned, than that which the catholic Church diffused and spread abroad every-where has ever understood those words to mean. For it is on account of this Canon of the faith that even the little ones too, who are as yet incapable of committing if any sin of their own to render them guilty of any offense, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what sin they inherited from the primordial birth may be purified in them through the process of renaissance.

Interpretation.

This view too was a product of the heretical insanity of the Pelagians: this refers to their saying that newly begotten infants are not baptized for the remission of sins, as the Orthodox Church believes and maintains, but, instead, if anyone say that they are baptized for the remission of sins, yet the infants themselves have not incurred any taint from the original (or primordial) sin of Adam, such as to require to be removed by means of baptism (since, as we have said, those men believed that this original sin is not begotten with the human being, simply because this was not any offense of nature, but a mischoice of the free and independent will). So the Council in the present Canon anathematizes the heretics who say this: First, because the form of the baptism for the remission of sins which is given to infants is not true according to them, but false and factitious, since, according to them, those infants have no sins to be pardoned. Secondly, because the Apostle in what he says makes it plain that sin entered the world through a single human being, namely, Adam, and that death entered through sin, and thus death passed into all human beings, since all of them have sinned just like Adam. This passage, I say, cannot be taken to mean anything else than what the catholic Church of the Orthodox has understood and believed it to mean, to wit, that even the newborn infants, notwithstanding the fact that they have not sinned by reason of any exercise of their own free and independent will, have nevertheless entailed upon themselves the original sin from Adam; wherefore they need to be purified through baptism necessarily from that sin: hence they are truly, and not fictitiously, being baptized for the remission of sins.
Perhaps we might attempt to exegete this commentary. 

I have a hard time finding the common Orthodox position stated to me of infants having no sin and baptized merely for Church entry.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2011, 11:46:26 AM »

I recall addressing this on another thread some time ago, but which one I don't recall.  In any case, in summation, Orthodoxy understands original sin (the ancestral sin) just as the canon states it, that it needs removed, not expiated.   It does not say that baptism pays for original sin nor that it is for the forgiveness of that sin, as it is not a personal sin and therefore does not need forgiven.   It does say remitted--i.e. removed, as with the remission of cancer.   The original/ancestral sin is a cancer upon mankind that needs removed.   

Catholics teach mortal sin is serious sin that cuts one off from God's grace, and if left unrepented lands one in hell for all eternity.
Catholics used to teach that original sin is the sin carried on from Adam that every baby is born with that causes it to go to hell unless it is baptized.  Do Oriental Orthodox share this? K
Both of these doctrines came about later in the history of the Western church, and have no part in Byzantine Orthodoxy. Since the schism with the Oriental Orthodox occurred even before that point, I imagine that they will share, at least to a large degree, the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, I leave the definitive answer to an actual Oriental Orthodox Christian. Grin

Well that's odd... The Council of Carthage in 418 that was attached to the sixth ecumenical council as confirmation seems to say otherwise.
Quote
Canon CX.  (Greek cxii. bis)
That infants are baptized for the remission of sins.
Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it.  For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.cxi.html

Note the Council of Carthage 418 was during the Undivided Church, i.e. Prior to Oriental Orthodox separation, and 600 years prior to EO/RC separation.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2011, 12:13:53 PM »

As is no doubt already known by all contributors to this thread, the Carthage canon in question is discussed in The Rudder (Canon 121):

Quote
121. It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever denies the little ones newly born from the wombs of their mothers when they are being baptized, or asserts that they are baptized for the remission of sins, but that they have inherited no original sin from Adam obliging them to be purified in the bath of renaissance (whence it follows that in these persons the form of baptism for the remission of sins is not true, but is to be regarded as factitious), let him be anathema; for no other meaning ought to be attached to what the Apostle has said, viz., "Sin entered the world through one human being" (Rom. 5:12), and thus it passed over into all human beings; wherefore all of them have sinned, than that which the catholic Church diffused and spread abroad every-where has ever understood those words to mean. For it is on account of this Canon of the faith that even the little ones too, who are as yet incapable of committing if any sin of their own to render them guilty of any offense, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what sin they inherited from the primordial birth may be purified in them through the process of renaissance.

Interpretation.

This view too was a product of the heretical insanity of the Pelagians: this refers to their saying that newly begotten infants are not baptized for the remission of sins, as the Orthodox Church believes and maintains, but, instead, if anyone say that they are baptized for the remission of sins, yet the infants themselves have not incurred any taint from the original (or primordial) sin of Adam, such as to require to be removed by means of baptism (since, as we have said, those men believed that this original sin is not begotten with the human being, simply because this was not any offense of nature, but a mischoice of the free and independent will). So the Council in the present Canon anathematizes the heretics who say this: First, because the form of the baptism for the remission of sins which is given to infants is not true according to them, but false and factitious, since, according to them, those infants have no sins to be pardoned. Secondly, because the Apostle in what he says makes it plain that sin entered the world through a single human being, namely, Adam, and that death entered through sin, and thus death passed into all human beings, since all of them have sinned just like Adam. This passage, I say, cannot be taken to mean anything else than what the catholic Church of the Orthodox has understood and believed it to mean, to wit, that even the newborn infants, notwithstanding the fact that they have not sinned by reason of any exercise of their own free and independent will, have nevertheless entailed upon themselves the original sin from Adam; wherefore they need to be purified through baptism necessarily from that sin: hence they are truly, and not fictitiously, being baptized for the remission of sins.
Perhaps we might attempt to exegete this commentary. 

I have a hard time finding the common Orthodox position stated to me of infants having no sin and baptized merely for Church entry.

I understand it in the context that we are born with a fallen nature. You can call it original sin, ancestral sin, the ancestral curse, or whatever else you want to call it but in terms of the Church being a hospital, we are born sick and need to be brought into the hospital for healing. We are born subject to sin and death, which is not God's intention, which in itself "misses the mark" set by God. Children are not born "guilty" of anything needing "forgiveness", but they are born subject to sin and death and outside of the Church, which is God's family. It is through baptism that we are united to Christ and the Church. The wages of sin is death, and it is through baptism that we die with Christ and are raised up with Him, so along with freedom from the original sin that we are born into we also receive forgiveness of past offences. But if baptism was nothing more than "forgiveness" for what you were "guilty" for, then the disciples of John the Baptist would not have needed to be re-baptized.

I'm not saying what happens to unbaptized children who die before they can be baptized and have committed no personal sins, they are in God's hands and we can pray for them and need to trust Him to do what is right.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2011, 12:32:11 PM »

I recall addressing this on another thread some time ago, but which one I don't recall.  In any case, in summation, Orthodoxy understands original sin (the ancestral sin) just as the canon states it, that it needs removed, not expiated.   It does not say that baptism pays for original sin nor that it is for the forgiveness of that sin, as it is not a personal sin and therefore does not need forgiven.   It does say remitted--i.e. removed, as with the remission of cancer.   The original/ancestral sin is a cancer upon mankind that needs removed.  

In that case, I think you and the RCs are in agreement. They make it clear the "guilt" is not personal, but a shared consequence.

Also, "remission of sins" is a common term for the removal or forgiveness of sin in the Latin Church. The forgiveness then is not personal, but our state of "rejecting of God" in our generation.

I understand it in the context that we are born with a fallen nature. You can call it original sin, ancestral sin, the ancestral curse, or whatever else you want to call it but in terms of the Church being a hospital, we are born sick and need to be brought into the hospital for healing. We are born subject to sin and death, which is not God's intention, which in itself "misses the mark" set by God. Children are not born "guilty" of anything needing "forgiveness", but they are born subject to sin and death and outside of the Church, which is God's family. It is through baptism that we are united to Christ and the Church. The wages of sin is death, and it is through baptism that we die with Christ and are raised up with Him, so along with freedom from the original sin that we are born into we also receive forgiveness of past offences.

This state of "missing the mark" is the "sin" we are born into and share "guilt". The canon specifically addresses this, in that infants have no personal sins, but are still is in need of forgiveness.

But if baptism was nothing more than "forgiveness" for what you were "guilty" for, then the disciples of John the Baptist would not have needed to be re-baptized.

I'm not saying what happens to unbaptized children who die before they can be baptized and have committed no personal sins, they are in God's hands and we can pray for them and need to trust Him to do what is right.

It isn't the only reason. This Council was specifically to say the opposite, that is baptism wasn't only for Church entry, as Pelagius claimed. Also, the next canon:
Quote
Canon CXI.  (Greek cxiij.)

That the grace of God not only gives remission of sins, but also affords aid that we sin no more.
Likewise it seemed good, that whoever should say that the grace of God, by which a man is justified through Jesus Christ our Lord, avails only for the remission of past sins, and not for assistance against committing sins in the future, let him be anathema.

That is, baptism does three things, (1) we enter the Church, (2) we are forgiven all sins, and (3) we are given strength to persevere against future sin through the strength of God's grace.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 12:37:38 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2011, 12:52:59 PM »

The Confession of Dositheus seems to reflect a position similar to Canon 121 of the Council of Carthage:

Quote
We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord says, “Whoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no way enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord showed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Savior would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptized is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptized. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptized, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who says expressly, “And they are guaranteed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine says that it is an Apostolic tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church gives to babes the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnishes them with a particular heart.”

I do not read this as an affirmation of "original guilt" (as popularly construed).  The use of the word "regeneration" suggests, rather, that what is needed is rebirth in the Holy Spirit.  Remission of sins in this context would therefore be a figurative way to speak of that spiritual healing and transformation that all human beings need in order to share in the divine life of the Holy Trinity.  Infants may not need to be forgiven of personal sins, but even "innocent" infants need to be incorporated into Christ and be born anew in the Holy Spirit.  At least that is how I read these texts. 
Logged

WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2011, 01:16:40 PM »

As is no doubt already known by all contributors to this thread, the Carthage canon in question is discussed in The Rudder (Canon 121):

Quote
121. It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever denies the little ones newly born from the wombs of their mothers when they are being baptized, or asserts that they are baptized for the remission of sins, but that they have inherited no original sin from Adam obliging them to be purified in the bath of renaissance (whence it follows that in these persons the form of baptism for the remission of sins is not true, but is to be regarded as factitious), let him be anathema; for no other meaning ought to be attached to what the Apostle has said, viz., "Sin entered the world through one human being" (Rom. 5:12), and thus it passed over into all human beings; wherefore all of them have sinned, than that which the catholic Church diffused and spread abroad every-where has ever understood those words to mean. For it is on account of this Canon of the faith that even the little ones too, who are as yet incapable of committing if any sin of their own to render them guilty of any offense, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what sin they inherited from the primordial birth may be purified in them through the process of renaissance.

Interpretation.

This view too was a product of the heretical insanity of the Pelagians: this refers to their saying that newly begotten infants are not baptized for the remission of sins, as the Orthodox Church believes and maintains, but, instead, if anyone say that they are baptized for the remission of sins, yet the infants themselves have not incurred any taint from the original (or primordial) sin of Adam, such as to require to be removed by means of baptism (since, as we have said, those men believed that this original sin is not begotten with the human being, simply because this was not any offense of nature, but a mischoice of the free and independent will). So the Council in the present Canon anathematizes the heretics who say this: First, because the form of the baptism for the remission of sins which is given to infants is not true according to them, but false and factitious, since, according to them, those infants have no sins to be pardoned. Secondly, because the Apostle in what he says makes it plain that sin entered the world through a single human being, namely, Adam, and that death entered through sin, and thus death passed into all human beings, since all of them have sinned just like Adam. This passage, I say, cannot be taken to mean anything else than what the catholic Church of the Orthodox has understood and believed it to mean, to wit, that even the newborn infants, notwithstanding the fact that they have not sinned by reason of any exercise of their own free and independent will, have nevertheless entailed upon themselves the original sin from Adam; wherefore they need to be purified through baptism necessarily from that sin: hence they are truly, and not fictitiously, being baptized for the remission of sins.
Perhaps we might attempt to exegete this commentary. 

I have a hard time finding the common Orthodox position stated to me of infants having no sin and baptized merely for Church entry.

I understand it in the context that we are born with a fallen nature. You can call it original sin, ancestral sin, the ancestral curse, or whatever else you want to call it but in terms of the Church being a hospital, we are born sick and need to be brought into the hospital for healing. We are born subject to sin and death, which is not God's intention, which in itself "misses the mark" set by God. Children are not born "guilty" of anything needing "forgiveness", but they are born subject to sin and death and outside of the Church, which is God's family. It is through baptism that we are united to Christ and the Church. The wages of sin is death, and it is through baptism that we die with Christ and are raised up with Him, so along with freedom from the original sin that we are born into we also receive forgiveness of past offences. But if baptism was nothing more than "forgiveness" for what you were "guilty" for, then the disciples of John the Baptist would not have needed to be re-baptized.

I'm not saying what happens to unbaptized children who die before they can be baptized and have committed no personal sins, they are in God's hands and we can pray for them and need to trust Him to do what is right.
*bangs head against desk*

We believe the same thing. There is no conflict. We're not Calvinists.

Quote
The Baptism of infants

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.[50] The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.[51]

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.[52]

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.[53]

Quote
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

As I understand the Orthodox doctrine of original sin, there isn't really a conflict between us.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,358


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2011, 01:28:36 PM »

Perhaps EOs just don't believe what they used to believe about original sin and baptism.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2011, 01:37:15 PM »

I recall addressing this on another thread some time ago, but which one I don't recall.  In any case, in summation, Orthodoxy understands original sin (the ancestral sin) just as the canon states it, that it needs removed, not expiated.   It does not say that baptism pays for original sin nor that it is for the forgiveness of that sin, as it is not a personal sin and therefore does not need forgiven.   It does say remitted--i.e. removed, as with the remission of cancer.   The original/ancestral sin is a cancer upon mankind that needs removed.  
In that case, I think you and the RCs are in agreement. They make it clear the "guilt" is not personal, but a shared consequence.
Also, "remission of sins" is a common term for the removal or forgiveness of sin in the Latin Church. The forgiveness then is not personal, but our state of "rejecting of God" in our generation.
Unfortunately, agreement is not the case.  Carthage mentions nothing of forgiveness of guilt but rather remission of spiritual cancer.   The Orthodox Church, in full concord with Carthage, holds that baptism is for the remission of original (ancestral) sin but not for the forgiveness of guilt.  I am aware that the Latin tradition confuses forgiveness with remission.   Not so in Orthodoxy.   Offenses may be forgiven but the illness of sin still needs remitted even with forgiveness.   A wife can forgive her husband for drinking too much and getting liver cancer, but the cancer still needs remitted even though there was forgiveness.   A husband can forgive his wife for cheating on him and getting an STD but the STD still needs remitted.   But with the original/ancestral sin, since no human being has inherited the guilt of Adam, but only the illness, only remission is required--the corruption of Adam inherited by us ancestrally.     
Logged
LakaYaRabb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 209



WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2011, 02:25:08 PM »

We are all born into this sinful world. Sin has touched our nature and left it corrupted, fractured. This fracturing/separation from God has to do with human nature. The falleness that touches man nature is the 'condition' that all human beings are born into. This whole situation is described as man puting on the 'garments of skin' and the passions. This is called way ancestral sin affects man. Generally, we speak of ancestral sin as death.

Holy Baptism, along with Holy Chrismation, (and all Holy Mysteries) removes/remits ancestral (original) sin. It reconnects that fracture in our nature and places us on the way to Christ. We put off the old man (spiritual death, sin, corruption) and put on Christ. As has been mentioned, it is the first healing we receive from God, through the Sacramental ministry of the Church.  

Holy Baptism (and the Holy Mysteries received alongside it) work make us Grace-filled members of Christ's True Church.
Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2011, 03:24:01 PM »

I recall addressing this on another thread some time ago, but which one I don't recall.  In any case, in summation, Orthodoxy understands original sin (the ancestral sin) just as the canon states it, that it needs removed, not expiated.   It does not say that baptism pays for original sin nor that it is for the forgiveness of that sin, as it is not a personal sin and therefore does not need forgiven.   It does say remitted--i.e. removed, as with the remission of cancer.   The original/ancestral sin is a cancer upon mankind that needs removed.  
In that case, I think you and the RCs are in agreement. They make it clear the "guilt" is not personal, but a shared consequence.
Also, "remission of sins" is a common term for the removal or forgiveness of sin in the Latin Church. The forgiveness then is not personal, but our state of "rejecting of God" in our generation.
Unfortunately, agreement is not the case.  Carthage mentions nothing of forgiveness of guilt but rather remission of spiritual cancer.   The Orthodox Church, in full concord with Carthage, holds that baptism is for the remission of original (ancestral) sin but not for the forgiveness of guilt.  I am aware that the Latin tradition confuses forgiveness with remission.   Not so in Orthodoxy.   Offenses may be forgiven but the illness of sin still needs remitted even with forgiveness.   A wife can forgive her husband for drinking too much and getting liver cancer, but the cancer still needs remitted even though there was forgiveness.   A husband can forgive his wife for cheating on him and getting an STD but the STD still needs remitted.   But with the original/ancestral sin, since no human being has inherited the guilt of Adam, but only the illness, only remission is required--the corruption of Adam inherited by us ancestrally.     
If you keep thinking like that, you might end up believing in Purgatory.

Careful.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,148


Hello for now, my friend


« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2011, 03:26:46 PM »

If you keep thinking like that, you might end up believing in Purgatory.

Careful.

Many Orthodox have believed in purgatory, they usually just don't call it that. St. Mark of Ephesus, famed refuter of the evil latin innovations, for instance; or Pat. Dositheus, said to have penned what some call one of the most important documents in Orthodox Church history. Wink
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin

Hey, so I'm in a pop-alt-punk-folk-prog band called "Affable Dregs" and we have a new album coming out, titled "Vicious Turnips Always Taste Most Delicious." We'd really appreciate your support!
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2011, 03:29:27 PM »

I recall addressing this on another thread some time ago, but which one I don't recall.  In any case, in summation, Orthodoxy understands original sin (the ancestral sin) just as the canon states it, that it needs removed, not expiated.   It does not say that baptism pays for original sin nor that it is for the forgiveness of that sin, as it is not a personal sin and therefore does not need forgiven.   It does say remitted--i.e. removed, as with the remission of cancer.   The original/ancestral sin is a cancer upon mankind that needs removed.  
In that case, I think you and the RCs are in agreement. They make it clear the "guilt" is not personal, but a shared consequence.
Also, "remission of sins" is a common term for the removal or forgiveness of sin in the Latin Church. The forgiveness then is not personal, but our state of "rejecting of God" in our generation.
Unfortunately, agreement is not the case.  Carthage mentions nothing of forgiveness of guilt but rather remission of spiritual cancer.   The Orthodox Church, in full concord with Carthage, holds that baptism is for the remission of original (ancestral) sin but not for the forgiveness of guilt.  I am aware that the Latin tradition confuses forgiveness with remission.   Not so in Orthodoxy.   Offenses may be forgiven but the illness of sin still needs remitted even with forgiveness.   A wife can forgive her husband for drinking too much and getting liver cancer, but the cancer still needs remitted even though there was forgiveness.   A husband can forgive his wife for cheating on him and getting an STD but the STD still needs remitted.   But with the original/ancestral sin, since no human being has inherited the guilt of Adam, but only the illness, only remission is required--the corruption of Adam inherited by us ancestrally.     
If you keep thinking like that, you might end up believing in Purgatory.
Careful.
  Huh  Did you not read what I wrote?
Logged
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2011, 03:42:23 PM »

We are all born into this sinful world. Sin has touched our nature and left it corrupted, fractured. This fracturing/separation from God has to do with human nature. The falleness that touches man nature is the 'condition' that all human beings are born into. This whole situation is described as man puting on the 'garments of skin' and the passions. This is called way ancestral sin affects man. Generally, we speak of ancestral sin as death. Holy Baptism, along with Holy Chrismation, (and all Holy Mysteries) removes/remits ancestral (original) sin. It reconnects that fracture in our nature and places us on the way to Christ. We put off the old man (spiritual death, sin, corruption) and put on Christ. As has been mentioned, it is the first healing we receive from God, through the Sacramental ministry of the Church.  

And this is precisely the teaching of the Catholic Church, as expressed in its Catechism.

Unfortunately, agreement is not the case.  Carthage mentions nothing of forgiveness of guilt but rather remission of spiritual cancer.   The Orthodox Church, in full concord with Carthage, holds that baptism is for the remission of original (ancestral) sin but not for the forgiveness of guilt.  I am aware that the Latin tradition confuses forgiveness with remission.   Not so in Orthodoxy.   Offenses may be forgiven but the illness of sin still needs remitted even with forgiveness.   A wife can forgive her husband for drinking too much and getting liver cancer, but the cancer still needs remitted even though there was forgiveness.   A husband can forgive his wife for cheating on him and getting an STD but the STD still needs remitted.   But with the original/ancestral sin, since no human being has inherited the guilt of Adam, but only the illness, only remission is required--the corruption of Adam inherited by us ancestrally. 

Contemporary Catholic theologians rarely employ "guilt" when speaking of original sin, precisely because of the misunderstandings that can ensue.  The Catholic Church agrees with you, Father, and with the Orthodox Church that infants are free of all personal sin--there is no guilt to be remitted.  There is, however, an inherited disorder that needs to be healed through regeneration in the Holy Spirit.  In the words of the Catholic Catechism:

Quote
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, 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.

I do not see a significant difference between what you have written and what the Catechism says. Do you?


Fr Kimel
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,358


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #26 on: January 13, 2011, 03:54:49 PM »

I recall addressing this on another thread some time ago, but which one I don't recall.  In any case, in summation, Orthodoxy understands original sin (the ancestral sin) just as the canon states it, that it needs removed, not expiated.   It does not say that baptism pays for original sin nor that it is for the forgiveness of that sin, as it is not a personal sin and therefore does not need forgiven.   It does say remitted--i.e. removed, as with the remission of cancer.   The original/ancestral sin is a cancer upon mankind that needs removed.  
In that case, I think you and the RCs are in agreement. They make it clear the "guilt" is not personal, but a shared consequence.
Also, "remission of sins" is a common term for the removal or forgiveness of sin in the Latin Church. The forgiveness then is not personal, but our state of "rejecting of God" in our generation.
Unfortunately, agreement is not the case.  Carthage mentions nothing of forgiveness of guilt but rather remission of spiritual cancer.   The Orthodox Church, in full concord with Carthage, holds that baptism is for the remission of original (ancestral) sin but not for the forgiveness of guilt.  I am aware that the Latin tradition confuses forgiveness with remission.   Not so in Orthodoxy.   Offenses may be forgiven but the illness of sin still needs remitted even with forgiveness.   A wife can forgive her husband for drinking too much and getting liver cancer, but the cancer still needs remitted even though there was forgiveness.   A husband can forgive his wife for cheating on him and getting an STD but the STD still needs remitted.   But with the original/ancestral sin, since no human being has inherited the guilt of Adam, but only the illness, only remission is required--the corruption of Adam inherited by us ancestrally.     
If you keep thinking like that, you might end up believing in Purgatory.

Careful.
They used to.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 13, 2011, 04:43:09 PM »

Which of the canons of the local Council of Carthage were specifically issued in order to "for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils"?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 04:47:27 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2011, 04:45:56 PM »

Which of the canons of the local Council of Carthage were specifically issued in order to "promulgate the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils"?

I don't understand?

The canons of the local council were attached to the sixth EC, though, if that's what you mean.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2011, 04:49:04 PM »

Which of the canons of the local Council of Carthage were specifically issued in order to "promulgate the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils"?

I don't understand?

The canons of the local council were attached to the sixth EC, though, if that's what you mean.
No they were not; instead, Canon I of Nicaea II simply approved local canons issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.  So I am asking which of the canons of the Council of Carthage in 419 specifically promulgates (at the local level) the decrees issued at the first two ecumenical councils?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 04:49:30 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 13, 2011, 05:01:06 PM »

Which of the canons of the local Council of Carthage were specifically issued in order to "promulgate the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils"?

I don't understand?

The canons of the local council were attached to the sixth EC, though, if that's what you mean.
No they were not; instead, Canon I of Nicaea II simply approved local canons issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.  So I am asking which of the canons of the Council of Carthage in 419 specifically promulgates (at the local level) the decrees issued at the first two ecumenical councils?

Yes, they were. The Council of Trullo (the Quinisext Council) is a continuation of the sixth EC, which was accepted by the Greeks and mostly accepted by the West.

From Trullo, the second canon refers to the Carthage Synod of 418:
Quote
Canon II.
It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders.  And in these canons we are bidden to receive the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles [written] by Clement.  But formerly through the agency of those who erred from the faith certain adulterous matter was introduced, clean contrary to piety, for the polluting of the Church, which obscures the elegance and beauty of the divine decrees in their present form.  We therefore reject these Constitutions so as the better to make sure of the edification and security of the most Christian flock; by no means admitting the offspring of heretical error, and cleaving to the pure and perfect doctrine of the Apostles.  But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the 318 holy God-bearing Fathers assembled at Nice, and those at Ancyra, further those at Neocæsarea and likewise those at Gangra, and besides, those at Antioch in Syria:  those too at Laodicea in Phrygia:  and likewise the 150 who assembled in this heaven-protected royal city:  and the 200 who assembled the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and the 630 holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon.  In like manner those of Sardica, and those of Carthage:  those also who again assembled in this heaven-protected royal city under its bishop Nectarius and Theophilus Archbishop of Alexandria. Likewise too the Canons [i.e. the decretal letters] of Dionysius, formerly Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria; and of Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria and Martyr; of Gregory the Wonder-worker, Bishop of Neocæsarea; of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa; of Gregory Theologus; of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Theophilus, Archbishop of the same great city of Alexandria; of Cyril, Archbishop of the same Alexandria; of Gennadius, Patriarch of this heaven-protected royal city.  Moreover the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the custom delivered down to them.  And that no one be allowed to transgress or disregard the aforesaid canons, or to receive others beside them, supposititiously set forth by certain who have attempted to make a traffic of the truth.  But should any one be convicted of innovating upon, or attempting to overturn, any of the afore-mentioned canons, he shall be subject to receive the penalty which that canon imposes, and to be cured by it of his transgression.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 05:02:25 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 13, 2011, 05:03:51 PM »

Which of the canons of the local Council of Carthage were specifically issued in order to "promulgate the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils"?

I don't understand?

The canons of the local council were attached to the sixth EC, though, if that's what you mean.
No they were not; instead, Canon I of Nicaea II simply approved local canons issued in order to promulgate the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.  So I am asking which of the canons of the Council of Carthage in 419 specifically promulgates (at the local level) the decrees issued at the first two ecumenical councils?

Yes, they were. The Council of Trullo (the Quinisext Council) is a continuation of the sixth EC, which was accepted by the Greeks and mostly accepted by the West.

From Trullo, the second canon refers to the Carthage Synod of 418:
Quote
Canon II.
It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders.  And in these canons we are bidden to receive the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles [written] by Clement.  But formerly through the agency of those who erred from the faith certain adulterous matter was introduced, clean contrary to piety, for the polluting of the Church, which obscures the elegance and beauty of the divine decrees in their present form.  We therefore reject these Constitutions so as the better to make sure of the edification and security of the most Christian flock; by no means admitting the offspring of heretical error, and cleaving to the pure and perfect doctrine of the Apostles.  But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the 318 holy God-bearing Fathers assembled at Nice, and those at Ancyra, further those at Neocæsarea and likewise those at Gangra, and besides, those at Antioch in Syria:  those too at Laodicea in Phrygia:  and likewise the 150 who assembled in this heaven-protected royal city:  and the 200 who assembled the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and the 630 holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon.  In like manner those of Sardica, and those of Carthage:  those also who again assembled in this heaven-protected royal city under its bishop Nectarius and Theophilus Archbishop of Alexandria. Likewise too the Canons [i.e. the decretal letters] of Dionysius, formerly Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria; and of Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria and Martyr; of Gregory the Wonder-worker, Bishop of Neocæsarea; of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa; of Gregory Theologus; of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Theophilus, Archbishop of the same great city of Alexandria; of Cyril, Archbishop of the same Alexandria; of Gennadius, Patriarch of this heaven-protected royal city.  Moreover the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the custom delivered down to them.  And that no one be allowed to transgress or disregard the aforesaid canons, or to receive others beside them, supposititiously set forth by certain who have attempted to make a traffic of the truth.  But should any one be convicted of innovating upon, or attempting to overturn, any of the afore-mentioned canons, he shall be subject to receive the penalty which that canon imposes, and to be cured by it of his transgression.

Trullo is not an ecumenical synod, but gathered after the close of the sixth council; so my question remains, which of the canons issued at Carthage promulgates the decrees of the ecumenical councils?

Also, since the canons tell us we must obey the Holy Fathers, and the vast majority of Eastern Fathers teach that no one is born sinful, which are we to follow (St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, St. Theophylact, et al., none of whom accept the idea that sin is natural or that guilt can be inherited through generation), the canons of a local council or the consensus of the Fathers?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 05:09:45 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 13, 2011, 05:15:02 PM »

Moreover the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the custom delivered down to them.  And that no one be allowed to transgress or disregard the aforesaid canons, or to receive others beside them, supposititiously set forth by certain who have attempted to make a traffic of the truth.  But should any one be convicted of innovating upon, or attempting to overturn, any of the afore-mentioned canons, he shall be subject to receive the penalty which that canon imposes, and to be cured by it of his transgression.
St. Cyprian was martyred more than one hundred and fifty years before the Council of Carthage of 419, and St. Cyprian - at the council he held - condemned several ideas put forth by Pope St. Stephen on the baptism of heretics.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 13, 2011, 05:15:21 PM »


Trullo is not an ecumenical synod, but gathered after the close of the sixth council; so my question remains, which of the canons issued at Carthage promulgates the decrees of the ecumenical councils?

Also, since the canons tell us we must obey the Holy Fathers, and the vast majority of Eastern Fathers teach that no one is born sinful, which are we to follow, the canons of a local council or the consensus of the Fathers?

7th EC
Extracts from the Acts.
Session IV.
Quote
Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch said:  There are certain affected with the sickness of ignorance who are scandalized by these canons [viz. of the Trullan Synod] and say, And do you really think they were adopted at the Sixth Synod?  Now let all such know that the holy great Sixth Synod was assembled at Constantinople concerning those who said that there was but one energy and will in Christ.  These anathematized the heretics, and having expounded the orthodox faith, they went to their homes in the fourteenth year of Constantine.  But after four or five years the same fathers came together under Justinian, the son of Constantine, and set forth the before-mentioned canons.  And let no one doubt concerning them.  For they who subscribed under Constantine were the same as they who under Justinian signed the present chart, as can manifestly be established from the unchangeable similarity of their own handwriting.  For it was right that they who had appeared at an ecumenical synod should also set forth ecclesiastical canons.  They said that we should be led as (by the hand) by the venerable images to the recollection of the incarnation of Christ and of his saving death, and if by them we are led to the realization of the incarnation of Christ our God, what sort of an opinion shall we have of them who break down the venerable images?

Pope Hadrian I in the letter to Terasius of Constantinople
Quote
"All the Holy Six Synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a lamb being pointed to by the precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images."

In reference to Trullan canon LXXXII

One hundred years later Pope John VIII says that "all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and decrees of Rome." Reiterating the acceptance of the Trullo canons. That's for the Latins, the Orthodox regard the Trullo Ecumenical as a continuation of the Sixth Council.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2011, 05:17:21 PM »


Trullo is not an ecumenical synod, but gathered after the close of the sixth council; so my question remains, which of the canons issued at Carthage promulgates the decrees of the ecumenical councils?

Also, since the canons tell us we must obey the Holy Fathers, and the vast majority of Eastern Fathers teach that no one is born sinful, which are we to follow, the canons of a local council or the consensus of the Fathers?

7th EC
Extracts from the Acts.
Session IV.
Quote
Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch said:  There are certain affected with the sickness of ignorance who are scandalized by these canons [viz. of the Trullan Synod] and say, And do you really think they were adopted at the Sixth Synod?  Now let all such know that the holy great Sixth Synod was assembled at Constantinople concerning those who said that there was but one energy and will in Christ.  These anathematized the heretics, and having expounded the orthodox faith, they went to their homes in the fourteenth year of Constantine.  But after four or five years the same fathers came together under Justinian, the son of Constantine, and set forth the before-mentioned canons.  And let no one doubt concerning them.  For they who subscribed under Constantine were the same as they who under Justinian signed the present chart, as can manifestly be established from the unchangeable similarity of their own handwriting.  For it was right that they who had appeared at an ecumenical synod should also set forth ecclesiastical canons.  They said that we should be led as (by the hand) by the venerable images to the recollection of the incarnation of Christ and of his saving death, and if by them we are led to the realization of the incarnation of Christ our God, what sort of an opinion shall we have of them who break down the venerable images?

Pope Hadrian I in the letter to Terasius of Constantinople
Quote
"All the Holy Six Synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a lamb being pointed to by the precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images."

In reference to Trullan canon LXXXII

One hundred years later Pope John VIII says that "all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and decrees of Rome." Reiterating the acceptance of the Trullo canons. That's for the Latins, the Orthodox regard the Trullo Ecumenical as a continuation of the Sixth Council.
By the way, the Roman Church itself rejects the canons of Trullo, and has never incorporated them into its own canon law.

Pope John VIII approved the second Photian council, but later Roman Catholics rejected that approval.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 05:18:06 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2011, 05:23:51 PM »


Trullo is not an ecumenical synod, but gathered after the close of the sixth council; so my question remains, which of the canons issued at Carthage promulgates the decrees of the ecumenical councils?

Also, since the canons tell us we must obey the Holy Fathers, and the vast majority of Eastern Fathers teach that no one is born sinful, which are we to follow, the canons of a local council or the consensus of the Fathers?

7th EC
Extracts from the Acts.
Session IV.
Quote
Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch said:  There are certain affected with the sickness of ignorance who are scandalized by these canons [viz. of the Trullan Synod] and say, And do you really think they were adopted at the Sixth Synod?  Now let all such know that the holy great Sixth Synod was assembled at Constantinople concerning those who said that there was but one energy and will in Christ.  These anathematized the heretics, and having expounded the orthodox faith, they went to their homes in the fourteenth year of Constantine.  But after four or five years the same fathers came together under Justinian, the son of Constantine, and set forth the before-mentioned canons.  And let no one doubt concerning them.  For they who subscribed under Constantine were the same as they who under Justinian signed the present chart, as can manifestly be established from the unchangeable similarity of their own handwriting.  For it was right that they who had appeared at an ecumenical synod should also set forth ecclesiastical canons.  They said that we should be led as (by the hand) by the venerable images to the recollection of the incarnation of Christ and of his saving death, and if by them we are led to the realization of the incarnation of Christ our God, what sort of an opinion shall we have of them who break down the venerable images?

Pope Hadrian I in the letter to Terasius of Constantinople
Quote
"All the Holy Six Synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a lamb being pointed to by the precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images."

In reference to Trullan canon LXXXII

One hundred years later Pope John VIII says that "all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and decrees of Rome." Reiterating the acceptance of the Trullo canons. That's for the Latins, the Orthodox regard the Trullo Ecumenical as a continuation of the Sixth Council.
By the way, the Roman Church itself rejects the canons of Trullo, and has never incorporated them into its own canon law.

Pope John VIII approved the second Photian council, but later Roman Catholics rejected that approval.

The Roman Church rejects the disciplines from Trullo not the apostolic canons. Several canons from the Council in Trullo are included in Gratian's Decretum. The Decretum was a highly influential source of canon law.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2011, 05:25:11 PM »

Have you cited anything?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2011, 05:27:14 PM »

Have you cited anything?
I have read your citations, but you have not shown why the council of Carthage held in 419 should be accepted as a whole, and you seem to have confused that council with a council held by Cyprian in the mid-third century.  Have you been reading my questions?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 05:27:49 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2011, 05:28:22 PM »

The Roman Church rejects the disciplines from Trullo not the apostolic canons. Several canons from the Council in Trullo are included in Gratian's Decretum. The Decretum was a highly influential source of canon law.

So acceptance of the canons has only ever been partial, however, the canons were accepted. And Carthage 418, affirming the faith of St. Augustine, is in full conformance of faith with the Roman Church.

Which do you claim?

-The Orthodox don't accept the Council? In that case, the Orthodox fully accept Trullo.

-The Roman Catholics don't accept the Council? In that case, many of the canons were accepted from Trullo, which is moot anyways, considering the nature of Carthage 418.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2011, 05:29:10 PM »


Trullo is not an ecumenical synod, but gathered after the close of the sixth council; so my question remains, which of the canons issued at Carthage promulgates the decrees of the ecumenical councils?

Also, since the canons tell us we must obey the Holy Fathers, and the vast majority of Eastern Fathers teach that no one is born sinful, which are we to follow, the canons of a local council or the consensus of the Fathers?

7th EC
Extracts from the Acts.
Session IV.
Quote
Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch said:  There are certain affected with the sickness of ignorance who are scandalized by these canons [viz. of the Trullan Synod] and say, And do you really think they were adopted at the Sixth Synod?  Now let all such know that the holy great Sixth Synod was assembled at Constantinople concerning those who said that there was but one energy and will in Christ.  These anathematized the heretics, and having expounded the orthodox faith, they went to their homes in the fourteenth year of Constantine.  But after four or five years the same fathers came together under Justinian, the son of Constantine, and set forth the before-mentioned canons.  And let no one doubt concerning them.  For they who subscribed under Constantine were the same as they who under Justinian signed the present chart, as can manifestly be established from the unchangeable similarity of their own handwriting.  For it was right that they who had appeared at an ecumenical synod should also set forth ecclesiastical canons.  They said that we should be led as (by the hand) by the venerable images to the recollection of the incarnation of Christ and of his saving death, and if by them we are led to the realization of the incarnation of Christ our God, what sort of an opinion shall we have of them who break down the venerable images?

Pope Hadrian I in the letter to Terasius of Constantinople
Quote
"All the Holy Six Synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a lamb being pointed to by the precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images."

In reference to Trullan canon LXXXII

One hundred years later Pope John VIII says that "all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and decrees of Rome." Reiterating the acceptance of the Trullo canons. That's for the Latins, the Orthodox regard the Trullo Ecumenical as a continuation of the Sixth Council.
By the way, the Roman Church itself rejects the canons of Trullo, and has never incorporated them into its own canon law.

Pope John VIII approved the second Photian council, but later Roman Catholics rejected that approval.

The Roman Church rejects the disciplines from Trullo not the apostolic canons. Several canons from the Council in Trullo are included in Gratian's Decretum. The Decretum was a highly influential source of canon law.
I still see no clear response to my questions, since most of what John VIII approved was later rejected.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #40 on: January 13, 2011, 05:29:49 PM »

The Roman Church rejects the disciplines from Trullo not the apostolic canons. Several canons from the Council in Trullo are included in Gratian's Decretum. The Decretum was a highly influential source of canon law.

So acceptance of the canons has only ever been partial, however, the canons were accepted. And Carthage 418, affirming the faith of St. Augustine, is in full conformance of faith with the Roman Church.

Which do you claim?

-The Orthodox don't accept the Council? In that case, the Orthodox fully accept Trullo.

-The Roman Catholics don't accept the Council? In that case, many of the canons were accepted from Trullo, which is moot anyways, considering the nature of Carthage 418.
I have not "claimed" anything.  I have asked you questions, which you have not addressed.

In reference to Trullo, I have never seen a solid response that affirms precisely what is accepted and what is not, but I do know that Roman Catholics reject the idea that Trullo is ecumenical.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 05:31:01 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 13, 2011, 05:31:30 PM »

Have you cited anything?
I have read your citations, but you have not shown why the council of Carthage held in 419 should be accepted as a whole, and you seem to have confused that council with a council held by Cyprian in the mid-third century.  Have you been reading my questions?

Quote
Introductory Note.
I have placed the canons of Sardica and those of Carthage and those of the Council held at Constantinople under Nectarius and Theophilus, and that of the Council of Carthage under St. Cyprian, immediately after the Council in Trullo, because in the second canon of that synod they are for the first time mentioned by name as being accepted by the Universal Church.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.ii.html
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 13, 2011, 05:33:16 PM »

The Roman Church rejects the disciplines from Trullo not the apostolic canons. Several canons from the Council in Trullo are included in Gratian's Decretum. The Decretum was a highly influential source of canon law.

So acceptance of the canons has only ever been partial, however, the canons were accepted. And Carthage 418, affirming the faith of St. Augustine, is in full conformance of faith with the Roman Church.
I am asking you to give evidence that shows conclusively that the Council of Carthage in 419 was accepted as a whole (and so far you have given a canon from Trullo that approves a council held more than a century and a half before the one I am asking about), and that when it contradicts the Eastern Fathers it is to be accepted above their teaching.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2011, 05:34:00 PM »

The Roman Church rejects the disciplines from Trullo not the apostolic canons. Several canons from the Council in Trullo are included in Gratian's Decretum. The Decretum was a highly influential source of canon law.

So acceptance of the canons has only ever been partial, however, the canons were accepted. And Carthage 418, affirming the faith of St. Augustine, is in full conformance of faith with the Roman Church.

Which do you claim?

-The Orthodox don't accept the Council? In that case, the Orthodox fully accept Trullo.

-The Roman Catholics don't accept the Council? In that case, many of the canons were accepted from Trullo, which is moot anyways, considering the nature of Carthage 418.
I have not "claimed" anything.  I have asked you questions, which you have not addressed.

In reference to Trullo, I have never seen a solid response that affirms precisely what is accepted and what is not, but I do know that Roman Catholics reject the idea that Trullo is ecumenical.

Which question is not addressed? You've ignored the evidence I give for my claim. Which your questions hinge on.

As I've previously shown, the RC acceptance of Trullo as ecumenical (full or part), or even at all is in the end a moot point.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2011, 05:34:27 PM »

uote]Introductory Note.
I have placed the canons of Sardica and those of Carthage and those of the Council held at Constantinople under Nectarius and Theophilus, and that of the Council of Carthage under St. Cyprian, immediately after the Council in Trullo, because in the second canon of that synod they are for the first time mentioned by name as being accepted by the Universal Church.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.ii.html
Cyprian was long dead before the council in 419.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 05:34:43 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.216 seconds with 72 queries.