OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 27, 2014, 07:26:30 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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Post schism doctrines of Rome  (Read 27465 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« on: December 01, 2008, 09:46:44 AM »

I have been taught as an Orthodox Christian, that the post schism "doctrines" of Rome such as papal infallibility/supremacy and immaculate conception---are heresies. After much study and reflection, I believe in my heart that Rome truly has fallen into heresy regarding these "doctrines".

Am I wrong about this? Is it being too harsh to use the word "heresy"?
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2008, 10:14:35 AM »

I have been taught as an Orthodox Christian, that the post schism "doctrines" of Rome such as papal infallibility/supremacy and immaculate conception---are heresies. After much study and reflection, I believe in my heart that Rome truly has fallen into heresy regarding these "doctrines".

Am I wrong about this? Is it being too harsh to use the word "heresy"?
No on both counts. To read why, click on the two tags "Papal Infallibility" and "Immaculate Conception" below. We've discussed both quite a bit.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2008, 11:46:01 AM »

I have been taught as an Orthodox Christian, that the post schism "doctrines" of Rome such as papal infallibility/supremacy and immaculate conception---are heresies. After much study and reflection, I believe in my heart that Rome truly has fallen into heresy regarding these "doctrines".

Am I wrong about this? Is it being too harsh to use the word "heresy"?
No on both counts. To read why, click on the two tags "Papal Infallibility" and "Immaculate Conception" below. We've discussed both quite a bit.
Thank you. I will review the tags. I was asked point blank on a Roman Catholic forum regarding the IC "doctrine".

When I said it was heretical, they suspended me.

The Latin apologists usually introduce a comment written by Bishop Kallistos Ware to support their case. I am wondering why he wrote this--he seems to be in the minority.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,533



« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2008, 12:28:58 PM »

I don't think that heresy is the wrong word. Which quote do they use by Met. Kallistos? Smiley
Logged

Joe: 'Is it creepy for a 35 year old guy to date a 19 year old girl?'
Desiree: 'Not if she's the one to push for the relationship, babe.'
Joe: 'But...'
Desiree: 'You'll shut up if you're smart.'
Joe: 'Ok.'
wynd
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 501


Transfiguration


« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2008, 12:40:49 PM »

This one:

Quote
The Orthodox Church calls Mary 'All-Holy;' it calls her 'immaculate' or 'spotless' (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God's special decree delivered from 'all stain of original sin?' The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter. In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,448



« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2008, 12:48:41 PM »

We Orthodox don't believe the Theotokos is Mediatrix.

I keep repeating this because of the fanatical push for the Vatican to make it dogma for the most bizarre reasons.  When and if they do, I don't want them turning around and saying "the Orthodox believed it until the Vatican made it so" as so often is said on the IC.

Yes, saying you must believe the IC upon penalty of eternal damnation is heresy.

We were just talking about the translations that must be corrected to read "intercessor" and not "mediatrix" when refering to the Holy Theotokos.  We should correct toute suite, lest we add to the silliness going on under the Vatican.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2008, 01:30:22 PM »

The doctrine of Immaculate Conception is not per se a heresy, in the sense that an Orthodox truly believes the Mother of God is truly "spotless" or "immaculate" as she never actually sinned. The true heresy in the formal definition of "Immaculate Conception" is that it's grounded on the concept of original sin, which is foreign to Orthodox doctrine, and even incompatible with the witness of the Church Fathers. Thus an Orthodox Christian can believe that the Theotokos actually never sinned, but NOT that she had no stain of original sin (which doesn't actually exist).
In case you don't understand the difference:
Original Sin means that every human inherits not only death (both spiritual and phisical) but also the guilt of Adam and Eve (thus even infants are guilty and sinners). For this the RC have so long struggled with this doctrine establishing that Mary didn't have this original sin since conception to preserve her holiness, or Pope Benedict XVI was obliged to justify the denial of Limbus (a place where non-baptised children were thought to go after death) saying that God must somehow intervene in their favour to rescue them...
Ancestral Sin is the name often given to our counterpart of the Original Sin doctrine, which is far less complicated in essence, since humans don't inherit Adam's guilt until they voluntarily sin for the first time. Sin is more a personal way to break the spiritual communion with God, and we can't be guilty of what others did. Nonetheless sin is a part of our world corrupted by the sin of our progenitors, and thus all are equally tempted. The only intervention of God in Mary's life was, according to some apocryphal traditions of the Church ("the Protoevangelium of saint James", although folkloristic and fantastic in nature, contains a good portrayal of this idea) that she was somehow sanctified and protected since her conception up to the Annunciation (for example, receiving only angelical food aand being dedicated by her blessed parents to the Lord as a temple virgin). And God provides no extra grace for non-baptised infants: since they never ratified the guilt of sin - having in truth no will to reject God but living somehow like angels with a natural predisposition to God -  they automatically die in the Lord.
I hope this could clear up your mind (I beg your pardon if my rusty English makes it difficult to understand)

In Christ,   Alex
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 01:30:59 PM by AlexanderOfBergamo » Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2008, 02:22:06 PM »

The doctrine of Immaculate Conception is not per se a heresy, in the sense that an Orthodox truly believes the Mother of God is truly "spotless" or "immaculate" as she never actually sinned.
Do you think that Metropolitan Kallistos is referring to this? We know that Our Lady through virtue and theosis remained sinless throughout her life. But it seems that His Grace is referring to the doctrine as the Latins have defined it.

The true heresy in the formal definition of "Immaculate Conception" is that it's grounded on the concept of original sin, which is foreign to Orthodox doctrine, and even incompatible with the witness of the Church Fathers.

Yes.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 02:22:52 PM by Mickey » Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2008, 03:04:30 PM »

Hi Mickey,
To be sincere, I don't know much about Metropolitan Kallistos' approach to the question, as I'm far more concerned with Italian Orthodoxy and have no knowledge of this personality who seems to be kept in high esteem by many on this forum.
As far as I know, there are at least two possibilities. Metropolitan Kallistos may express the general opinion of the Orthodox Church which I just referred to here. In this case, RC sources may misinterpret his words, or even be misled by their misconception that in a certain way there'd be no real difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism apart the latter to be more advanced (as they often show to believe). The other possibility is that Metropolitan Kallistos could be in error because of "latinophile" tendencies (sorry for this neologism). After all, even Orthodoxy was sometimes misled by the Latins at certain times in history (look at the results of the Synod of Jerusalem, who was to "approve" RC doctrines such as transubstantiation against the Orthodox concept of metabolé). After all, even Metropolitan Kallistos is a man, and as such could err (and no Orthodox leader, even the Patriarch of Constantinople, can by his own authority define what's Orthodox without approval by the Oecumenical Councils or the consensum patrum).
In Christ,  Alex
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 03:06:54 PM by AlexanderOfBergamo » Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2008, 03:54:21 PM »

Hi Mickey,
To be sincere, I don't know much about Metropolitan Kallistos' approach to the question, as I'm far more concerned with Italian Orthodoxy and have no knowledge of this personality who seems to be kept in high esteem by many on this forum.
As far as I know, there are at least two possibilities. Metropolitan Kallistos may express the general opinion of the Orthodox Church which I just referred to here. In this case, RC sources may misinterpret his words, or even be misled by their misconception that in a certain way there'd be no real difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism apart the latter to be more advanced (as they often show to believe). The other possibility is that Metropolitan Kallistos could be in error because of "latinophile" tendencies (sorry for this neologism). After all, even Orthodoxy was sometimes misled by the Latins at certain times in history (look at the results of the Synod of Jerusalem, who was to "approve" RC doctrines such as transubstantiation against the Orthodox concept of metabolé). After all, even Metropolitan Kallistos is a man, and as such could err (and no Orthodox leader, even the Patriarch of Constantinople, can by his own authority define what's Orthodox without approval by the Oecumenical Councils or the consensum patrum).
In Christ,  Alex
I am in agreement with everything you have said here.

Not to go off topic, but what do you mean by "Italian Orthodoxy". I am curious because I am one-half Sicilian and was raised Roman Catholic---but I have embraced the Slavic tradition of Holy Orthodoxy.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 03:55:19 PM by Mickey » Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2008, 04:05:24 PM »

Original Sin means that every human inherits not only death (both spiritual and phisical) but also the guilt of Adam and Eve (thus even infants are guilty and sinners). For this the RC have so long struggled with this doctrine establishing that Mary didn't have this original sin since conception to preserve her holiness, or Pope Benedict XVI was obliged to justify the denial of Limbus (a place where non-baptised children were thought to go after death) saying that God must somehow intervene in their favour to rescue them...
Ancestral Sin is the name often given to our counterpart of the Original Sin doctrine, which is far less complicated in essence, since humans don't inherit Adam's guilt until they voluntarily sin for the first time. Sin is more a personal way to break the spiritual communion with God, and we can't be guilty of what others did. Nonetheless sin is a part of our world corrupted by the sin of our progenitors, and thus all are equally tempted. The only intervention of God in Mary's life was, according to some apocryphal traditions of the Church ("the Protoevangelium of saint James", although folkloristic and fantastic in nature, contains a good portrayal of this idea) that she was somehow sanctified and protected since her conception up to the Annunciation (for example, receiving only angelical food aand being dedicated by her blessed parents to the Lord as a temple virgin). And God provides no extra grace for non-baptised infants: since they never ratified the guilt of sin - having in truth no will to reject God but living somehow like angels with a natural predisposition to God -  they automatically die in the Lord.
I hope this could clear up your mind (I beg your pardon if my rusty English makes it difficult to understand)
Btw, Alex:

This is an exellent description of the difference between the Latin Church and Holy Orthodoxy as it relates to original sin. Your English is impeccable!

That sinner,
Mickey
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2008, 04:29:04 PM »

Quote
Not to go off topic, but what do you mean by "Italian Orthodoxy".
I'm Italian and live in Italy. Unfortunately I was born RC (even if that could be an advantage in topics like this). At this time I'm studying the situation of the Orthodox Churches in Italy to "choose" which jurisdiction better fits my idea of worship. But I think I'm joining a Russian or Ukrainian parish (as I'm studying Russian that would be easier to understand for me) BTW, yesterday I attended my second Divine Liturgy... and am still so in love with Russian Orthodoxy that all doubts have disappeared!!!
Quote
Your English is impeccable!
Thanks, this is the greatest compliment possible for a 24 years old Italian student as I am...

See you! God bless you!
In Christ,    Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,404


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 01, 2008, 05:16:22 PM »

Original Sin means that every human inherits not only death (both spiritual and phisical) but also the guilt of Adam and Eve (thus even infants are guilty and sinners)....

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church clarifies this issue, by stating that no human is "guilty" of committing the sin Adam and Eve committed, even though every human suffers from the effects of such original sin. (See sections 404-405.) I've been told by pre-Vatican II Catholics, that they were taught that each person was actually guilty of committing original sin. Whether the current Catechism represents some sort of change in Catholic teaching or not, is up for debate.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,533



« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2008, 05:21:18 PM »

Quote
I don't think that heresy is the wrong word.

After further reflection, I take this back. While I am uncomfortable with the words of Met. Kallistos, I nonetheless shouldn't state a position on whether "heresy" is the right word or not.
Logged

Joe: 'Is it creepy for a 35 year old guy to date a 19 year old girl?'
Desiree: 'Not if she's the one to push for the relationship, babe.'
Joe: 'But...'
Desiree: 'You'll shut up if you're smart.'
Joe: 'Ok.'
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #14 on: December 01, 2008, 05:44:21 PM »

...

I don't think you were wrong to label it heresy, although Orthodox, for PC language, tend to avoid the word lately. Underlying logic of IC, with inherited guilt, thankfully recently retracted, is horrible. We can only feel sorrow for generations that were bearing non-existing guilt from birth. Thank God, Orthodoxy is the Freedom.

BTW, on rare occasions where I've read that board I was always delighted for having such a brother like you. You were magnificent there.

Unfortunately I was born RC (even if that could be an advantage in topics like this).


There is nothing unfortunate about that. Converts from RCC and various Protestants brought many positive things, since they are better informed about subtle and not-so-subtle differences between Orthodoxy and others.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
VirSpeluncaeOrthodoxae
Da Orthodox Caveman! aka "Cavey"
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch...for now
Posts: 102



« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2008, 05:55:21 PM »

Guys I couldn't have said it better myself.
Logged

Medieval, backwards, rigid, narrow-minded Traditionalist, Western Rite lover and proud of it! Make my day.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2008, 12:44:00 AM »

...

I don't think you were wrong to label it heresy, although Orthodox, for PC language, tend to avoid the word lately. Underlying logic of IC, with inherited guilt, thankfully recently retracted, is horrible. We can only feel sorrow for generations that were bearing non-existing guilt from birth. Thank God, Orthodoxy is the Freedom.

It is a very rare EO bird who accurately characterizes our doctrinal teaching on original sin. Alas, you are not one.
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2008, 09:09:10 AM »

BTW, on rare occasions where I've read that board I was always delighted for having such a brother like you. You were magnificent there.

You are too kind. I could have done better as I am learning more every day. The ones who were banned did such a good job that...well... they were banned!  Wink
I especially missed Fr Ambrose.

I believe my time there is finished.
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2008, 09:10:23 AM »

It is a very rare EO bird who accurately characterizes our doctrinal teaching on original sin. Alas, you are not one.

Bird?

What is the official teaching of original sin according to the RCC?

« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 09:10:58 AM by Mickey » Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2008, 10:12:46 AM »

Sorry lubeltri but I'm not able to understand your last post on this topic. What do you mean with "you're not one"? Whom is it referred to?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 10:13:15 AM by AlexanderOfBergamo » Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2008, 12:07:56 PM »

Hi Alexander,

I was directed my comment at the statement I quoted.

---

Hello Mickey,

The official teaching is very ably set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an expertly written article on original sin, which quotes extensively from Scripture, the Fathers, St. Thomas, and the Council of Trent.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2008, 12:51:56 PM »


I especially missed Fr Ambrose.

Me 2.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2008, 01:06:12 PM »

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an expertly written article on original sin, which quotes extensively from Scripture, the Fathers, St. Thomas, and the Council of Trent.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

From newadvent:

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

Yes. This is just as I had learned it as a Roman Catholic--"a hereditary stain". This is wrong and in contrast to the Orthodox understanding. It is heterodox!

No one is misrepresenting the RC teaching.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 01:06:49 PM by Mickey » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2008, 01:37:04 PM »

From newadvent:

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

Yes. This is just as I had learned it as a Roman Catholic--"a hereditary stain". This is wrong and in contrast to the Orthodox understanding. It is heterodox!

No one is misrepresenting the RC teaching.

I actually never studied RC teaching on Original Sin, but I remember so vividly when, as a kid, my younger RC sister (you'd say cousin), whom I love so much, exposed to me that God created devil to torture us because Adam and Eve were not good and we are not God, so God is angry at us, and how much I was scared. My grandma had to make a great theological effort to explain to me why it wasn't true. I was nine, or ten.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2008, 01:41:03 PM »

I actually never studied RC teaching on Original Sin, but I remember so vividly when, as a kid, my younger RC sister (you'd say cousin), whom I love so much, exposed to me that God created devil to torture us because Adam and Eve were not good and we are not God, so God is angry at us, and how much I was scared. My grandma had to make a great theological effort to explain to me why it wasn't true. I was nine, or ten.

Lord have mercy. 

I remember being taught by the RC nuns that babies who were not baptized could not go to heaven and ended up in a place called "limbo".  I was horrified!
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 01:41:40 PM by Mickey » Logged
Andrea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2008, 01:49:20 PM »



I remember being taught by the RC nuns that babies who were not baptized could not go to heaven and ended up in a place called "limbo".  I was horrified!
My mother was raised in Catholic schools and was taught this too...and she used the word "stain" to describe original sin as she was taught. She is no longer Catholic, and that is one of the reasons she gives for why not.
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2008, 01:57:31 PM »

My mother was raised in Catholic schools and was taught this too...and she used the word "stain" to describe original sin as she was taught. She is no longer Catholic, and that is one of the reasons she gives for why not.

I am guessing that she is protestant? If so, it saddens me greatly. Many people find that they cannot adhere to innovations such as Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, purgatory, etc.  They do not realize that there is one apostolic Church which does not subscribe to such heterodoxy. Instead, they separate themselves further from the one, true Church by seeking refuge in the reformed traditions.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2008, 02:04:04 PM »

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an expertly written article on original sin, which quotes extensively from Scripture, the Fathers, St. Thomas, and the Council of Trent.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

From newadvent:

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

Yes. This is just as I had learned it as a Roman Catholic--"a hereditary stain". This is wrong and in contrast to the Orthodox understanding. It is heterodox!

No one is misrepresenting the RC teaching.

The stain means a privation of grace, not an imputation of "guilt" as expressed by some of you above.

Why not read that statement in context?

Quote
Nature of original sin

This is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is "the death of the soul", it is the privation of sanctifying grace.

The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, "Istoria del Concilio di Trento", vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a "privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception" (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls "justice" what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice.

We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin". This principle is developed by St. Anselm: "the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect" (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam's fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

Then read the end of the article:

Quote
"Your dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam." That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as "a moral deformity", "a separation from God", as "the death of the soul", original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the "stain" which St. Thomas defines as "the privation of grace" (I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, "takes away all that is really and properly sin", for concupiscence which remains "is not really and properly sin", although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v.). Considered precisely as voluntary, original sin is only the shadow of sin properly so-called. According to St. Thomas (In II Sent., dist. xxv, Q. i, a. 2, ad 2um), it is not called sin in the same sense, but only in an analogous sense.

Several theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, neglecting the importance of the privation of grace in the explanation of original sin, and explaining it only by the participation we are supposed to have in the act of Adam, exaggerate this participation. They exaggerate the idea of voluntary in original sin, thinking that it is the only way to explain how it is a sin properly so-called. Their opinion, differing from that of St. Thomas, gave rise to uncalled-for and insoluble difficulties. At present it is altogether abandoned.

The "stain" is a metaphor describing that state of privation of grace. The Council of Trent describes it as a state that is "contracted" or "propagated," like a disease is passed on or passed down. It is like a terminal illness with which we are born. It is not a matter of a wrathful God blaming everybody else for Adam's personal sin.

Why not read the relevant discussion in the Catechism? I will post again, since I was unsuccessful the first time:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm
Logged
Andrea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2008, 02:11:02 PM »


I am guessing that she is protestant? If so, it saddens me greatly. Many people find that they cannot adhere to innovations such as Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, purgatory, etc.  They do not realize that there is one apostolic Church which does not subscribe to such heterodoxy. Instead, they separate themselves further from the one, true Church by seeking refuge in the reformed traditions.

Yep, those are all things she's disagreed with.  She is very Protestant now, and blends in some New Age belief, which makes for an odd mix. It saddens me as well.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2008, 02:11:45 PM »

The stain means a privation of grace
the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul
How did Moses and Elijah speak with Christ on Mount Tabor if their souls were "dead" and they were "deprived of sanctifying Grace"? Was the Immaculate Conception not a "singular Grace", but one conferred also on these two prophets?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2008, 02:13:14 PM »

She is very Protestant now, and blends in some New Age belief, which makes for an odd mix. It saddens me as well.

Ouch. I will pray for her.
Logged
Andrea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2008, 02:18:36 PM »


Ouch. I will pray for her.

Thank you so much.
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2008, 02:22:06 PM »

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an expertly written article on original sin, which quotes extensively from Scripture, the Fathers, St. Thomas, and the Council of Trent.

If the RCC is using inheritance as a metaphor, why do they not clarify? Aquinas, Anselm, and Trent are meaningless to me because they are products of the post schism heterodox RCC. Aristotlian scholasticism makes my mind shut down.  Grin

And your quote from the council of Orange does nothing for your argument.  
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 02:47:02 PM by Mickey » Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2008, 03:27:36 PM »

Thanks for your clarifications, lubeltri, but I must admit that, as Mickey and others pointed out, what's taught in the "official" hierarchies of RCC is actually not believed and taught to the faithful in catechetical instruction.
I say this because I was taught what I wrote before both at "Catechismo" (Sunday School) and in the "religion hour" (because of an agreement - the "Concordato" -  between Benito Mussolini and the Pope, at school there's an hour when a teacher approved by the diocese actually teaches RC doctrine... a very sad abuse of power and lack of laicism; fortunately parents could choose not to have their children attend that lesson, =)). Another proof I have is that the doctrine "Stain=guilt" is taught in seminaries too. A friend of mine, a 24 years old ex-seminarist, confirmed me that their teachers gave this as established doctrine to be believed. It must be said that my friend left the seminary for this and many other abominations the RCC was trying to impose the future clergymen they were teaching... and also because of his love for ancient and complex liturgies (so that he even thinks he wants to join the Fraternity of Pius X; but thanks to my intercession he's also considering Orthodoxy, now). Thus, I think the more recent attitude of the Pope to "minimalize" these differences with Orthodoxy is just a weak attempt to show that after all we're the same. RC's did the same in the pseudo-Council of Union of Ferrara-Florence trying to say things such as "from the Son or through the Son it's the same". I find it less difficult to admit that the Oriental Orthodox are truly more Orthodox (as in truth they anathematize those who were anathematized at Chalcedon) and the difference is nothing but linguistical, while I know for certain that RC's are trying to show that the Orthodox are just "handicapped brothers" because they don't follow the Pope and his own doctrines.
I hope you can forgive me for my total lack of Christian charity towards RC hierarchs, but as an Italian I feel all RC interferences in daily life more then all of you in the USA.

In Christ,    Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2008, 03:38:47 PM »

Quote
Quote from: Mickey on Today at 01:41:03 PM


Quote
I remember being taught by the RC nuns that babies who were not baptized could not go to heaven and ended up in a place called "limbo".  I was horrified!
My mother was raised in Catholic schools and was taught this too...and she used the word "stain" to describe original sin as she was taught. She is no longer Catholic, and that is one of the reasons she gives for why not.

I confirm this also. This teaching is still belived (unfortunately) by my grandmother who was instructed before the 2nd Vatican Council. At that time they followed another Catechism where limbo was almost accepted as a fact (a Catechism written and approved by authority of a Pope). The doctrine of Limbo was taught extensively for the first time by Augustine (who specified that limbo was connected to Hell). This was also taught in the Supplement to the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas, written by one of his disciples, indicating limbo of infants as one of the five parts of the otherworld (together with heaven, purgatory, limbo of the patriarchs and hell). The doctrine was strenghtened by Dante's Divina Commedia (where limbo is attached to Hell) and became the prevalent opinion of theologians, Popes and common faithful. Until Benedict XVI said this RC doctrine was actually wrong.

In Christ,  Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2008, 03:44:25 PM »

I hope you can forgive me for my total lack of Christian charity towards RC hierarchs, but as an Italian I feel all RC interferences in daily life more then all of you in the USA.


Thank you for your perspective, Alex. It is refreshing.

I also see a process where Rome has been back-peddling and jumping through Thomistic hoops.  Limbo is one example where a commonly taught concept has been reversed.

Peace and blessings,
Mickey
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2008, 03:55:22 PM »

And the other one is Immaculate Conception. The Dominical School whom Thomas Aquinas belonged to said that Mary was not conceived immaculate but she became immaculate some time after conception, for example, while the Franciscan School was in favor of IC. The same play of over-estimating and at the same time over-mistreating a Latin Father can be found with Augustine. He is thought of as a perfect father on almost everything (purgatory, filioque, original sin) but is completely ignored when he's contrary to their doctrines (such as papal infallibility: Augustine was the first one to clearly say that in the formula "Thou art Peter, and on this stone I will build up my Church" the word STONE refers to Peter's faith and not to his "infallible" person!!!). It's a sort of "pick and choose"; they think the fathers are a sort self service store.

In Christ,  Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #37 on: December 02, 2008, 04:06:25 PM »

And the other one is Immaculate Conception. The Dominical School whom Thomas Aquinas belonged to said that Mary was not conceived immaculate but she became immaculate some time after conception, for example, while the Franciscan School was in favor of IC. The same play of over-estimating and at the same time over-mistreating a Latin Father can be found with Augustine. He is thought of as a perfect father on almost everything (purgatory, filioque, original sin) but is completely ignored when he's contrary to their doctrines (such as papal infallibility: Augustine was the first one to clearly say that in the formula "Thou art Peter, and on this stone I will build up my Church" the word STONE refers to Peter's faith and not to his "infallible" person!!!). It's a sort of "pick and choose"; they think the fathers are a sort self service store.

In Christ,  Alex

Could this be the reason why Blessed Augustine is not glorified as a saint in the Orthodox Church?

An Eastern Catholic monk once told me that if Blessed Augustine had lived any longer--he would have become a heretic like Origin!!!  Shocked
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #38 on: December 02, 2008, 04:12:26 PM »

Augustine was the first one to clearly say that in the formula "Thou art Peter, and on this stone I will build up my Church" the word STONE refers to Peter's faith and not to his "infallible" person!!!).

And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.
(John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327)
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 04:14:46 PM by Mickey » Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #39 on: December 02, 2008, 04:18:48 PM »

Well, on the contrary, Augustine was very humble. In his last works he even asked forgiveness for every single error he might have written in his works... and the greatest "fan" of Augustine has been... TADAN, Patriarch st. Fotius of Constantinople!
I think Augustine had to struggle with his complete lack of knowledge of the Greek language. He was also reading the Bible through a bad Latin version of the Septuagint now lost, the Itala, and all his attempts to understand the theological subtlties of the first Ecumenical Councils on the Trinity failed (so that he tended to extend the concept of procession to the Son, too).
In truth I'm not a fan of Augustine, but I esteem him for his humble attitude in his life, and his immense love for God. At a personal level he's been a good Christian, but also an unlearned Church Father...

In Christ,  Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #40 on: December 02, 2008, 04:19:06 PM »


....

Could this be the reason why Blessed Augustine is not glorified as a saint in the Orthodox Church?

An Eastern Catholic monk once told me that if Blessed Augustine had lived any longer--he would have become a heretic like Origin!!!  Shocked

But Augustine IS a saint in the Orthodox Church.  Read "The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church" by Fr Seraphim Rose if you doubt it.  Use the search function on this site as well - I have posted about this same subject with excerpts from the book in other posts.  Your monk friend was being unwisely speculative.
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #41 on: December 02, 2008, 04:28:56 PM »

Ahem, it depends on the jurisdiction. Some Churches call him blessed, some other saint. Nobody discusses his faith and love for Jesus but only his Orthodox identity... After all, the canonization of the saints is not a doctrinal issue (there are even saints who are decanonized and later re-canonized by autocephalous Churches like the Emperor Constantine)

In Christ,  Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #42 on: December 02, 2008, 04:29:38 PM »


....

Could this be the reason why Blessed Augustine is not glorified as a saint in the Orthodox Church?

An Eastern Catholic monk once told me that if Blessed Augustine had lived any longer--he would have become a heretic like Origin!!!  Shocked

But Augustine IS a saint in the Orthodox Church.  Read "The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church" by Fr Seraphim Rose if you doubt it.  Use the search function on this site as well - I have posted about this same subject with excerpts from the book in other posts.  Your monk friend was being unwisely speculative.
Hmmm? I will have to look into this further. Why is he always referred to as "Blessed" Augustine as opposed to St Augustine?  Here is a quote from Fr Seraphim's Book:

[He] has always been regarded with some reserve in the East. In our own days, ...there have risen two opposite and extreme views of him. One view, influenced by Roman Catholic opinions, sees rather more importance in him as a Father of the Church than the Orthodox Church has given him in the past; while the other view has tended to underestimate his Orthodox importance, some even going as far as to call him a ‘heretic.’ ...The Orthodox view of him..., held consistently down the centuries by the Holy Fathers of the East and (in the early centuries) of the West as well, goes to neither extreme, but is a balanced appraisal of him with due credit given both to his unquestioned greatness and to his faults. The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church .
(Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1983)

PS--My monk friend was joking--sorry if you were offended.
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #43 on: December 02, 2008, 04:43:09 PM »

I add to this new point of discussion what Orthodox Wiki says on the reception of Augustine of Hippo in the modern Orthodox Church.
Quote
More moderate views regard Augustine as (1) a theological writer who made too many mistakes to be included among the Church Fathers but still a saint, (2) a theological writer among many in the early Church (but not a saint), and (3) a theological writer with, perhaps, the title "Blessed" before his name. It should be noted, however, that the Orthodox Church has not traditionally ranked saints in terms of "blessed" or "saint" (i.e., suggesting that the latter has a greater degree of holiness than the former). Saint "rankings" are usually only differences in kind (e.g., monastics, married, bishops, martyrs, etc.), not in degree. The practice of ranking by degree is much more characteristic of the Roman Catholic tradition.

There are at least two books explicitly dealing with the issue of Augustine's place in Orthodoxy: The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church by Fr. Seraphim Rose (ISBN 0938635123), which is generally favorable toward Augustine, citing his importance as a saint in terms of his confessional and devotional writings rather than in his theology, and The Influence of Augustine of Hippo on the Orthodox Church by Dr. Fr. Michael Azkoul (ISBN 0889467331), which tends to see Augustine as the root of all Western Christendom's errors. (There is also a condensation of this book into a booklet titled Augustine of Hippo: An Orthodox Christian Perspective.) The former's cover (shown on right) includes a traditional Greek icon of Augustine, where he is labelled as "Ό Αγίος Αυγουστίνος"—"Saint Augustine."

Hope this helps.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #44 on: December 02, 2008, 04:44:59 PM »

Ahem, it depends on the jurisdiction.

This is true.

I believe he was in error regarding free will and his notion of predestination as well as his view of atonement in salvation.  But we all err on many things.  Blessed Augustine was not perfect.  He was a wise and holy bishop and he died in communion with the Holy Orthodox Church---and we commemorate and venerate him.
Logged
Tags: Papal Infallibility St. Augustine Immaculate Conception St. Ambrose of Milan Infallibility cheval mort filioque 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   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 0.148 seconds with 72 queries.