Author Topic: Post schism doctrines of Rome  (Read 31241 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Justin Kissel

  • •|•|•
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,761
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #45 on: December 02, 2008, 04:47:54 PM »
I put a St. Augustine tag on the bottom, since this has been discussed lots of times before. I don't see any point in reposting my own throughts on the subject, which I gave especially on this thread.
"My doubt in Christ is not like that of a child; it was forged in a furnace of faith." - Dostoevsky

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #46 on: December 02, 2008, 04:53:47 PM »
Well said Mickey (we do truly agree on many, many things, huh?)! Augustine of Hippo was and remains one of the greatest bishops and Christians of all time, was never excommunicated, and the bad opinion of many Orthodox in our times is grounded preminently on the use Rc's and protestants did of his fallible writings.

Oh Blessed Augustine, pray for us sinnersthat we may not fall in the weakness and heresy of those who abused your humble words! Amen!

In Christ,   Alex
"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")

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #47 on: December 02, 2008, 04:55:12 PM »
Well said Mickey (we do truly agree on many, many things, huh?)! Augustine of Hippo was and remains one of the greatest bishops and Christians of all time, was never excommunicated, and the bad opinion of many Orthodox in our times is grounded preminently on the use Rc's and protestants did of his fallible writings.

Oh Blessed Augustine, pray for us sinnersthat we may not fall in the weakness and heresy of those who abused your humble words! Amen!

In Christ,   Alex

Amen Alex, amen!

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,150
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #48 on: December 02, 2008, 05:01:15 PM »
Why is he always referred to as "Blessed" Augustine as opposed to St Augustine?
We Orthodox refer to many of our saints as "Blessed" so-and-so.  Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg, Blessed Thais of Egypt, Blessed Basil of Moscow the Fool-For-Christ...  (http://www.oca.org/FSlives.asp - Just type "blessed" into the search field and run your search.) So does the fact that we often refer to St. Augustine of Hippo as Blessed Augustine rather than Saint Augustine mean that we deprive him of the title of "Saint"?  This strikes me as excessive niggling over words to suggest that this is true.  By way of another analogy, we often refer to our monastic saints as the "venerable" so-and-so.  Would, then, a reference made to the Venerable Herman of Alaska be a failure to recognize Father Herman as a saint just because we didn't at that time speak of him as Saint Herman?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 05:02:49 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #49 on: December 02, 2008, 05:09:00 PM »
Not at all, PeterTheAleut. In fact I hope it's now clear how I consider Augustine to be a very great example of personal sanctity. If we should make such a distinction, even Ambrose of Milan would be re-titled (he actually taught the filioque in his writings). That would be really said (as I love saint Ambrose over all other Church Fathers except saint John Chrysostom and saint Ignatius of Antioch!).

Now I quit the discussion, by now. It's 10:08 PM in Italy and I'm going to bed. Have a good evening!

In Christ,    Alex
"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")

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,204
  • Distressed about my country
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #50 on: December 02, 2008, 05:39:28 PM »
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.

I certainly think that Augustine was a saintly man, but he made many errors in his writings that were really quite unnecessary and sometimes quite strange.  (Just one example would be some of his polemics against the heresy of Pelagianism.)  Forgive me, but I find it strange that people sometimes cite Fr Seraphim as an authority in these matters.  He was not a scholar and IMHO his writings sometimes show this all too clearly.
Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.

Offline orthodoxlurker

  • Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,372
  • al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #51 on: December 02, 2008, 07:32:09 PM »
If we should make such a distinction, even Ambrose of Milan would be re-titled (he actually taught the filioque in his writings).

As a matter of fact, he didn't. He taught per filium, referring not to eternal, but to temporal procession. At least that's what I learned from Fr. Ambrose and Apotheoun - I haven't read his works.
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

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #52 on: December 02, 2008, 07:38:46 PM »
The way I understand it, to the OP questions: papal infallibility is an ecclesiastical heresy; immaculate conception is a "teologumen," i.e. an opinion that one can hold or not hold without being a heretic.
Love never fails.

Offline The Iambic Pen

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #53 on: December 03, 2008, 05:11:34 AM »
The way I understand it, to the OP questions: papal infallibility is an ecclesiastical heresy; immaculate conception is a "teologumen," i.e. an opinion that one can hold or not hold without being a heretic.
Doesn't the Immaculate Conception require a view of original sin that the Orthodox Church does not hold in the first place?

Offline prodromas

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,239
  • Greek Orthodox
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #54 on: December 03, 2008, 06:07:09 AM »
The way I understand it, to the OP questions: papal infallibility is an ecclesiastical heresy; immaculate conception is a "teologumen," i.e. an opinion that one can hold or not hold without being a heretic.
Doesn't the Immaculate Conception require a view of original sin that the Orthodox Church does not hold in the first place?

You are correct Sir!
The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #55 on: December 03, 2008, 08:17:36 AM »
The way I understand it, to the OP questions: papal infallibility is an ecclesiastical heresy; immaculate conception is a "teologumen," i.e. an opinion that one can hold or not hold without being a heretic.
Doesn't the Immaculate Conception require a view of original sin that the Orthodox Church does not hold in the first place?

You see, that's a delicate point... I NEVER understood, just WHAT view does the Orthodox Church hold on the issue of original sin. I know that on this site, people always say that it's "ancestral sin," i.e. Adam sinned and we are not guilty (only he is), and that the blame for sin does not pass from one generation to the next like genes, and that we are born only with an "injured" nature, not with a "condemned" nature, etc. But in other sources that also claim that they are Orthodox (for example, a catechism of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, written by a Ukrainian Metropolitan Mykhail (Khoroshyj) (the 1940-s), it says that yes, we are all born condemned, yes, the blame spread onto the entire human race etc.

I just gave up. To me, a biologist, the notion of spreading of the sin is absurd, especially if I take into consideration that Christ was sinless HAVING INHERITED THE HUMAN GENETIC MATERIAL. Any "injury" of the entire human nature by any ACT of one single representative of it is an impossibility. I am not quite Pelagian in that I do not believe in "possere non peccare," but I believe that the impossibility not to sin has everything to do with the environment, "nurture," and precisely nothing to do with the human nature. I know I am a heretic in this regard and I am sorry.
Love never fails.

Offline prodromas

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,239
  • Greek Orthodox
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #56 on: December 03, 2008, 08:29:31 AM »
The way I understand it, to the OP questions: papal infallibility is an ecclesiastical heresy; immaculate conception is a "teologumen," i.e. an opinion that one can hold or not hold without being a heretic.
Doesn't the Immaculate Conception require a view of original sin that the Orthodox Church does not hold in the first place?

You see, that's a delicate point... I NEVER understood, just WHAT view does the Orthodox Church hold on the issue of original sin. I know that on this site, people always say that it's "ancestral sin," i.e. Adam sinned and we are not guilty (only he is), and that the blame for sin does not pass from one generation to the next like genes, and that we are born only with an "injured" nature, not with a "condemned" nature, etc. But in other sources that also claim that they are Orthodox (for example, a catechism of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, written by a Ukrainian Metropolitan Mykhail (Khoroshyj) (the 1940-s), it says that yes, we are all born condemned, yes, the blame spread onto the entire human race etc.

I just gave up. To me, a biologist, the notion of spreading of the sin is absurd, especially if I take into consideration that Christ was sinless HAVING INHERITED THE HUMAN GENETIC MATERIAL. Any "injury" of the entire human nature by any ACT of one single representative of it is an impossibility. I am not quite Pelagian in that I do not believe in "possere non peccare," but I believe that the impossibility not to sin has everything to do with the environment, "nurture," and precisely nothing to do with the human nature. I know I am a heretic in this regard and I am sorry.

I wouldn't go so far as to label you a heretic but I think you might be over thinking the issue and viewing it more physically due to your biology background. A more learned poster could explain it but I don't think it is the way you are representing it.
The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #57 on: December 03, 2008, 09:22:34 AM »
But in other sources that also claim that they are Orthodox (for example, a catechism of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, written by a Ukrainian Metropolitan Mykhail (Khoroshyj) (the 1940-s), it says that yes, we are all born condemned, yes, the blame spread onto the entire human race etc.
Is there an online link to this catechism?

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #58 on: December 03, 2008, 09:24:45 AM »
Doesn't the Immaculate Conception require a view of original sin that the Orthodox Church does not hold in the first place?

Yes. See Alex's post #6.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #59 on: December 03, 2008, 09:27:55 AM »
immaculate conception is a "teologumen," i.e. an opinion that one can hold or not hold without being a heretic.
Are you saying that I am free to subscribe to the doctrine of the immaculate conception as set forth by the Roman Catholic Church because the doctrine is not considered to be heretical by Holy Orthodoxy?

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #60 on: December 03, 2008, 10:24:35 AM »
But in other sources that also claim that they are Orthodox (for example, a catechism of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, written by a Ukrainian Metropolitan Mykhail (Khoroshyj) (the 1940-s), it says that yes, we are all born condemned, yes, the blame spread onto the entire human race etc.
Is there an online link to this catechism?

Not that I know of; I have a hard copy, second edition, printed in Kyiv in the early 1990-s. I have already written about this book a while ago on this forum, giving some exact quotes in its original Ukrainian and then providing my own English translation. It talks about human race being stained by the original sin of Adam, and about the post-resurrection body being purely spiritual. My eyes almost jumped from eyesockets when I read it.
Love never fails.

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #61 on: December 03, 2008, 10:29:13 AM »
immaculate conception is a "teologumen," i.e. an opinion that one can hold or not hold without being a heretic.
Are you saying that I am free to subscribe to the doctrine of the immaculate conception as set forth by the Roman Catholic Church because the doctrine is not considered to be heretical by Holy Orthodoxy?

I am not sure. Vladimir Lossky, a very respected Orthodox theologian of the 1930's-1950's, gives a very good analysis of this doctrine in his article "The Dogmat of Immaculate Conception" (http://www.wco.ru/biblio/books/lossky4/Main.htm) and states there that it is not an Orthodox teaching, and yet he does not call it a heresy. 
Love never fails.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #62 on: December 03, 2008, 10:46:27 AM »
I am not sure. Vladimir Lossky, a very respected Orthodox theologian of the 1930's-1950's, gives a very good analysis of this doctrine in his article "The Dogmat of Immaculate Conception" (http://www.wco.ru/biblio/books/lossky4/Main.htm)
Sadly, I am unable to read Russian.  :'(

But I am going to take a course soon!  :laugh:

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #63 on: December 03, 2008, 10:48:04 AM »
and states there that it is not an Orthodox teaching, and yet he does not call it a heresy. 
Does he state that it is NOT a heresy?

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #64 on: December 03, 2008, 10:48:20 AM »
Hi people!

An answer to this post from orthodoxlurker:

Quote
Quote from: AlexanderOfBergamo on Yesterday at 05:09:00 PM
If we should make such a distinction, even Ambrose of Milan would be re-titled (he actually taught the filioque in his writings).


As a matter of fact, he didn't. He taught per filium, referring not to eternal, but to temporal procession. At least that's what I learned from Fr. Ambrose and Apotheoun - I haven't read his works.

I'm sorry to tell you that taught you wrong. Or at least, to better say what I mean: Ambrose believed in the same concept of procession through the Son, but he used the misinterpreted and fatal words "qui procedit de Patre Filioque".

"The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead."  (St. Ambrose of Milan, De Spiritu Sancto, 1:120)

In Christ,   Alex
"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")

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #65 on: December 03, 2008, 10:59:21 AM »
A quick search for roots connected with ересь (heresy) or еретический (heretic) in the text gave no results, but I should read through the entire text and it might be a very difficult work for me at the moment... yet I'll try the same (but I still hope in a more prepared person with a GOOD knowledge of Russian to provide us some help).

In Christ,   Alex
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 11:00:08 AM by AlexanderOfBergamo »
"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")

Offline Alpo

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,339
  • My borcht recipe is better than your borcht recipe
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #66 on: December 03, 2008, 11:00:49 AM »
But in other sources that also claim that they are Orthodox (for example, a catechism of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, written by a Ukrainian Metropolitan Mykhail (Khoroshyj) (the 1940-s), it says that yes, we are all born condemned, yes, the blame spread onto the entire human race etc.
That doesn't seem to be the only catechism which teaches like that. There are also others:

http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/03/original-sin-in-eastern-orthodox.html
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 11:01:24 AM by Alpo »

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #67 on: December 03, 2008, 11:21:13 AM »
It seems that OrthodoxWiki indicates the site you cited as a different case then traditional Orthodoxy. At this page http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin Rezilazhenje is listed apart from the other Orthodox sources who discuss this topic. I prefer to read directly through the Church Fathers listed on that page before judging, however... I'll find very interesting to read St. Symeon the New Theologian, and also the many modern theologians such as Fr John Romanides or bishop Kallistos Ware.

In Christ, Alex
"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")

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #68 on: December 03, 2008, 11:29:03 AM »
and states there that it is not an Orthodox teaching, and yet he does not call it a heresy. 
Does he state that it is NOT a heresy?

Not directly. He says that this dogmat is not a part of the Orthodox dogmatics because

"...оно не может принять этот крайний юридизм, который стирает действительный характер подвига нашего искупления и видит в нем только лишь отвлеченную заслугу Христа, вменяемую человеческому лицу до страдания и воскресения Христова, даже до Его воплощения, и это по особому Божиему произволению."

("... it (the Orthodox teaching) cannot accept the extreme juridism, which mars the true character of the work of our redemption, and which sees in it merely an abstract "merit" of Christ imputed into a human person before the actual suffering and resurrection of Christ, - even before His incarnation, - by a special will of God." )
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 11:29:29 AM by Heorhij »
Love never fails.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #69 on: December 03, 2008, 11:39:23 AM »
Not directly. He says that this dogmat is not a part of the Orthodox dogmatics

So then...Lossky is saying that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the IC is heterodox.

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #70 on: December 03, 2008, 11:49:30 AM »
Not directly. He says that this dogmat is not a part of the Orthodox dogmatics

So then...Lossky is saying that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the IC is heterodox.

Correct, but if something is heterodox, is it automatically heretical?
Love never fails.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #71 on: December 03, 2008, 11:58:39 AM »
Correct, but if something is heterodox, is it automatically heretical?

I do not know. What do you think?

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #72 on: December 03, 2008, 12:10:31 PM »
Correct, but if something is heterodox, is it automatically heretical?

I do not know. What do you think?

Well, semantically, AFAIK, άιρεσις means simply a separate opinion, but this term acquired a rather negative meaning, as something that a faithful person should not think is true (like the heresy of arianism, or the heresy of docetism, etc.). We usually can trace this or that heresy to works of a particular individual or a group of individuals whose activities were specifically condemned by the Church at one of the seven Ecumenical Councils. In this regard, one can hardly call something like, for example, a belief in predestination or a belief in original sin (in the Augustinian sense) to be bona fide HERESIES, because hardly there was any carved in stone official decision of an Ecumenical Council that specifically condemned these believes. Am I way off here?
Love never fails.

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #73 on: December 03, 2008, 12:22:13 PM »
Am I way off here?

I do not think so.  But the IC is a doctrine--a dogma of the RC faith.  Is it not true that they are ex-communicated if they do not accept doctrines of the their church? In other words, the doctrine of the IC is much more than theological speculation for the RCC.  Can faithful Orthodox Christians accept something as theological speculation which relates to a major doctrine of the RCC, and not be considered as accepting a heretical belief? I do not know the answer to that.

Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion.


XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 12:24:16 PM by Mickey »

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #74 on: December 03, 2008, 03:29:46 PM »
Exactly like Heorhij said, heterodoxy and heresy are indeed very different things, as we can't say RC's are heretic for something that was never condemned at an Ecumenical Council. Then why should we be worried of this? Because RC's call it a DOGMA. A dogma is something which must be absolutely believed by a person in order to be a Christian. RC's then, proclaiming IC as a dogma of the Church, are thus indicating that WE Orthodox Christians are heretic because we don't proclaim it (as well as other dogmata as Papal Infallibility). Then the problem isn't "Is the Immaculate Conception a possible belief for an Orthodox?" but "Should we accept a dogma of a separated ecclesiastical body who has got no power at all to proclaim universal doctrines?". Put in other words, a public and authoritative proclamation of this dogma by the Orthodox Church could even be to Roman Catholics as a sign that we are recognizing Papal Infallibility and the superiority of the Church of Rome on the Patriarchs and autocephalies of the Easter Orthodox Church!
That's why any Orthodox can have his own opinion on the subject and no Orthodox hierarch will ever impose IC, Augustinian "Original Sin" and other Latin doctrines on the faithful. After all, any theological opinion (theologumenon) on matters which were never defined has never been an occasion for excommunication to the same Augustine of Hippo, for example. The official doctrine on Immaculate Conception is nothing but another instrument to repeat that the Pope can say what we must believe, even contrarily to the consent of the bishops and Ecumenical Synods.

In Christ,   Alex
"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")

Offline Mickey

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,309
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #75 on: December 03, 2008, 03:44:33 PM »
Exactly like Heorhij said, heterodoxy and heresy are indeed very different things, as we can't say RC's are heretic for something that was never condemned at an Ecumenical Council. Then why should we be worried of this? Because RC's call it a DOGMA. A dogma is something which must be absolutely believed by a person in order to be a Christian. RC's then, proclaiming IC as a dogma of the Church, are thus indicating that WE Orthodox Christians are heretic because we don't proclaim it (as well as other dogmata as Papal Infallibility). Then the problem isn't "Is the Immaculate Conception a possible belief for an Orthodox?" but "Should we accept a dogma of a separated ecclesiastical body who has got no power at all to proclaim universal doctrines?". Put in other words, a public and authoritative proclamation of this dogma by the Orthodox Church could even be to Roman Catholics as a sign that we are recognizing Papal Infallibility and the superiority of the Church of Rome on the Patriarchs and autocephalies of the Easter Orthodox Church!
That's why any Orthodox can have his own opinion on the subject and no Orthodox hierarch will ever impose IC, Augustinian "Original Sin" and other Latin doctrines on the faithful. After all, any theological opinion (theologumenon) on matters which were never defined has never been an occasion for excommunication to the same Augustine of Hippo, for example. The official doctrine on Immaculate Conception is nothing but another instrument to repeat that the Pope can say what we must believe, even contrarily to the consent of the bishops and Ecumenical Synods.

In Christ,   Alex

As usual--eloquently stated once again, Alex.  :)

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #76 on: December 03, 2008, 03:56:58 PM »
Too kind, brother!

In Christ,  Alex
"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")

Offline orthodoxlurker

  • Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,372
  • al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah

I'm sorry to tell you that taught you wrong. Or at least, to better say what I mean: Ambrose believed in the same concept of procession through the Son, but he used the misinterpreted and fatal words "qui procedit de Patre Filioque".

I need to kindly disagree with you. "de Patre Filioque" still doesn't amount to ex Patre Filioque". That regardless St. Ambrose reposed before Nicea-Constantinopolis. It isn't wrong to refer to the procession in time through the Son.


"The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead."  (St. Ambrose of Milan, De Spiritu Sancto, 1:120)

The above is fine reasoning of our belief in Holy Trinity, and co-equality of Holy Spirit with Father and Son. I can't see he has spoken filioque.
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

Offline orthodoxlurker

  • Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,372
  • al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #78 on: December 03, 2008, 08:01:43 PM »
Exactly like Heorhij said, heterodoxy and heresy are indeed very different things, as we can't say RC's are heretic for something that was never condemned at an Ecumenical Council. Then why should we be worried of this? Because RC's call it a DOGMA. A dogma is something which must be absolutely believed by a person in order to be a Christian. RC's then, proclaiming IC as a dogma of the Church, are thus indicating that WE Orthodox Christians are heretic because we don't proclaim it (as well as other dogmata as Papal Infallibility). Then the problem isn't "Is the Immaculate Conception a possible belief for an Orthodox?" but "Should we accept a dogma of a separated ecclesiastical body who has got no power at all to proclaim universal doctrines?". Put in other words, a public and authoritative proclamation of this dogma by the Orthodox Church could even be to Roman Catholics as a sign that we are recognizing Papal Infallibility and the superiority of the Church of Rome on the Patriarchs and autocephalies of the Easter Orthodox Church!
That's why any Orthodox can have his own opinion on the subject and no Orthodox hierarch will ever impose IC, Augustinian "Original Sin" and other Latin doctrines on the faithful. After all, any theological opinion (theologumenon) on matters which were never defined has never been an occasion for excommunication to the same Augustine of Hippo, for example. The official doctrine on Immaculate Conception is nothing but another instrument to repeat that the Pope can say what we must believe, even contrarily to the consent of the bishops and Ecumenical Synods.

In Christ,   Alex

That might be a good reasoning for Orthodox, but I'm affraid RC won't be impressed.

The problem with IC as I see it is underlying presumption about the necessity of Theotokos being conceived in any other fashion than us, other humans, and that's exactly because we inherited something (responsibility, guilt, whatever) from Adam's sin.

The underlying reason of Ephesus and Chalcedon was union of God and man in the person of Christ, and inseparability of that union as from His conception, through death and Resurrection until all ages. And we are separated from pre-Ephesians and pre-Chalcedonians for our perception of the consequences of their beliefs that might put that union under question mark.

IMHO, underlying logic of IC puts more severe question mark on that union, since it assumes it actually isn't possible, except in case of Theotokos, whom was conceived immaculately. If it was, why the need for IC?

Moreover, the reasons of inability of (the rest of ordinary conceived) humankind assume "God is angry at us, for Adam and Eve were naughty, and we are naughty" (copyright my RC sis when she was 7 o 8 ). If He wasn't angry and disgusted, why the need for IC?

Together with filioque, IC is the evidence that we should ask ourselves if RC still believe the same God as us.


Fixed "8 )" to override automatic smiley  -PtA
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 08:11:59 PM by PeterTheAleut »
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

Offline The Iambic Pen

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #79 on: December 03, 2008, 08:24:34 PM »
In regard to the immaculate conception, I would like to propose a formula of sorts.

A=Original sin, according to the Catholic (i.e., Roman, Western, etc...) understanding
B=Original sin, according to the Orthodox understanding

A does not=B

The immaculate conception can be defined as the following:  All of us are conceived with A.  Mary was not.

If this formula is correct, it seems odd to suggest the IC could be Orthodox, as there is no B in that statement.

Of course, as usual, I could be wrong about some or all of this... :)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,668
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #80 on: December 03, 2008, 10:33:05 PM »
Hi people!

An answer to this post from orthodoxlurker:

Quote
Quote from: AlexanderOfBergamo on Yesterday at 05:09:00 PM
If we should make such a distinction, even Ambrose of Milan would be re-titled (he actually taught the filioque in his writings).


As a matter of fact, he didn't. He taught per filium, referring not to eternal, but to temporal procession. At least that's what I learned from Fr. Ambrose and Apotheoun - I haven't read his works.

I'm sorry to tell you that taught you wrong. Or at least, to better say what I mean: Ambrose believed in the same concept of procession through the Son, but he used the misinterpreted and fatal words "qui procedit de Patre Filioque".

"The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead."  (St. Ambrose of Milan, De Spiritu Sancto, 1:120)

No mention "filioque" there, which shows the first sentence is speaking of something (as does the Creed) different from what the first sentence says.
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

Offline orthodoxlurker

  • Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,372
  • al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #81 on: December 04, 2008, 01:22:34 AM »
In regard to the immaculate conception, I would like to propose a formula of sorts.

A=Original sin, according to the Catholic (i.e., Roman, Western, etc...) understanding
B=Original sin, according to the Orthodox understanding

A does not=B

The immaculate conception can be defined as the following:  All of us are conceived with A.  Mary was not.

If this formula is correct, it seems odd to suggest the IC could be Orthodox, as there is no B in that statement.

Of course, as usual, I could be wrong about some or all of this... :)

Don't want to disappoint you, but that's exactly how Fr. Ambrose reasoned the difference once we were at that other forum - Theotokos was conceived in exactly the same fashion as the rest of us.

BTW, we use Ancestral sin, not Original one.
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

Offline The Iambic Pen

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #82 on: December 04, 2008, 03:39:41 AM »
BTW, we use Ancestral sin, not Original one.
Ah yes, thanks!  :)

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #83 on: December 04, 2008, 07:23:39 AM »
In regard to the immaculate conception, I would like to propose a formula of sorts.

A=Original sin, according to the Catholic (i.e., Roman, Western, etc...) understanding
B=Original sin, according to the Orthodox understanding

A does not=B

Unfortunately, the veracity of the above statement entirely depends on what Orthodox catechism you read...
Love never fails.

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #84 on: December 04, 2008, 09:46:55 AM »
Quote
Unfortunately, the veracity of the above statement entirely depends on what Orthodox catechism you read...
I'd prefer to say that it depends on how much Orthodox is the catechism you read... (Just a provocation, of course).
I think the interferences of Western theology are affecting what we could call "Orthodox mindset". As for me, I subscribe this quotation from OrthodoxWiki: "If Latin babies are born blind, and Pelagian babies are born with 20/20 vision, then Greek babies are born in need of spectacles". I can't admit to think a baby is completely fallen as RC's say. Infants are the most pure image we can see every day of how innocent we could have been if "Adam and Eve" (or whatever you believe them to be, I'm not meant to offend neither creationists nor evolutionists here) had not sinned. Even Jesus himself invited us to follow infants and children as "models" of how innocently we must approach to Christian life, in order to gain the Kingdom of Heaven!

In Christ,  Alex
"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")

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #85 on: December 04, 2008, 09:57:15 AM »
Quote
Quote from: AlexanderOfBergamo on Yesterday at 10:48:20 AM

I'm sorry to tell you that taught you wrong. Or at least, to better say what I mean: Ambrose believed in the same concept of procession through the Son, but he used the misinterpreted and fatal words "qui procedit de Patre Filioque".

I need to kindly disagree with you. "de Patre Filioque" still doesn't amount to ex Patre Filioque". That regardless St. Ambrose reposed before Nicea-Constantinopolis. It isn't wrong to refer to the procession in time through the Son.



Quote from: AlexanderOfBergamo on Yesterday at 10:48:20 AM
"The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead."  (St. Ambrose of Milan, De Spiritu Sancto, 1:120)


The above is fine reasoning of our belief in Holy Trinity, and co-equality of Holy Spirit with Father and Son. I can't see he has spoken filioque.

1) Sorry, that's MY error. The Latin says Ex Patre Filioque. You know, my Latin is so rusty, since I haven't been studying it for... well... 6 years!
2) That's exactly what I was trying to say. The formula "procedit ex Patre Filioque" didn't mean, when used by Ambrose, the same as RC's filioque clause. But I also think that the expression came to be ambiguous when Augustine received it, and then he was misled to think that Latin verb "procedere" had exactly the same meaning of "ekpourein" in the Greek text (in his works he even thought the Councils didn't truly approach the "problem" of distinguishing between procession and generation...).
It must be added that blessed Augustine had no knowledge of Greek and he was reading the other Church Fathers through Latin translations. We can't say he was an heretic just because somehow ignorant on the subjects he was treating. The true heresy is that an hierarch (the Pope) obliged everyone to acknowledge his unlearned doctrines as dogma...

In Christ,   Alex
"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")

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,790
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #86 on: December 04, 2008, 10:12:32 AM »
I can't admit to think a baby is completely fallen as RC's say. Infants are the most pure image we can see every day of how innocent we could have been if "Adam and Eve" (or whatever you believe them to be, I'm not meant to offend neither creationists nor evolutionists here) had not sinned. Even Jesus himself invited us to follow infants and children as "models" of how innocently we must approach to Christian life, in order to gain the Kingdom of Heaven!
I completely agree with you that babies cannot be fallen creatures. Yet I have to disagree with your statement that we would be innocent if Adam and Eve had not sinned. You see, that whole structure of interpreting Scripture is flawed. We do not read the stories in Scripture to find out what other people did a long time ago. We read to find out about our own lives. Adam and Eve's sin is not the point; it is our sin that causes us to know Good and Evil. We would have been innocent if we had not sinned. All of us are born innocent and experience our own fall when we sin for the first time.

St. Paul points out in his epistle to the Romans that through the one man, Adam, sin entered the world, so too through the One Man Jesus Christ sin is overcome. Yet this is not an historical analysis; it is a description of each person's life. Through our own initial sin, sin enters our lives, and through becoming like Christ sin leaves us. Adam's sin has no more power over us than anyone else's sin does (which is to say it affects us profoundly yet does not implicate us in itself), but the effect of our own sin, as St. Paul points out a short time later in his epistle, is death.

In summary, the whole argument between original/ancestral sin is irrelevant. What matters is what I do and what we do. My sin affects everyone else, and everyone else's sin affects me. But sin, death, and the devil have been trampled down by the Pascha of Christ, and by trusting in Him we can overcome sin.
"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

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #87 on: December 04, 2008, 10:16:21 AM »
Quote
Unfortunately, the veracity of the above statement entirely depends on what Orthodox catechism you read...
I'd prefer to say that it depends on how much Orthodox is the catechism you read... (Just a provocation, of course).
I think the interferences of Western theology are affecting what we could call "Orthodox mindset". As for me, I subscribe this quotation from OrthodoxWiki: "If Latin babies are born blind, and Pelagian babies are born with 20/20 vision, then Greek babies are born in need of spectacles". I can't admit to think a baby is completely fallen as RC's say. Infants are the most pure image we can see every day of how innocent we could have been if "Adam and Eve" (or whatever you believe them to be, I'm not meant to offend neither creationists nor evolutionists here) had not sinned. Even Jesus himself invited us to follow infants and children as "models" of how innocently we must approach to Christian life, in order to gain the Kingdom of Heaven!

In Christ,  Alex

It's not as much about babies as about the "mode of transmission" of something from "Adam" to us.

The RC dogma, AFAIK, is plain and simple (due to St./Bl. Augustine): Adam sinned, and his condition changed, because of that act of sin, from good to bad; the new "bad" condition is passed down all generations, like genes.

The Orthodox say, instead, that the condition changed from good (albeit, maybe, according to some Fathers more than to other Fathers, slightly immature) to... mmmmm... there's the kicker, "mortal?" "prone to mortality?" "prone more to immortality than before the sin?" "injured?" "passionate?" "not quite good?" etc. etc. etc.

And that varies from one catechism to another, and they all claim that they are 100% Orthodox...
Love never fails.

Offline AlexanderOfBergamo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 706
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #88 on: December 04, 2008, 10:50:14 AM »
Quote
I completely agree with you that babies cannot be fallen creatures. Yet I have to disagree with your statement that we would be innocent if Adam and Eve had not sinned.
That's not what I was meant to say... Sorry for this misunderstanding.
I was saying exactly what you're saying. As usual I find it difficult to express many things in English (I think an Italian reader would have understood better what I meant)... but you explained it better then me and I think your post is 100% correct (still even if I think in some historical existence of Adam and Eve  ;))

In Christ,    Alex
"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")

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,790
Re: Post schism doctrines of Rome
« Reply #89 on: December 04, 2008, 10:58:36 AM »
Quote
I completely agree with you that babies cannot be fallen creatures. Yet I have to disagree with your statement that we would be innocent if Adam and Eve had not sinned.
That's not what I was meant to say... Sorry for this misunderstanding.
I was saying exactly what you're saying. As usual I find it difficult to express many things in English (I think an Italian reader would have understood better what I meant)... but you explained it better then me and I think your post is 100% correct (still even if I think in some historical existence of Adam and Eve  ;))

In Christ,    Alex
It's wonderful that we can write to each other so quickly across vast distances, but we are still a ways from true communication. I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I do think there are many reasons to believe in an historical Adam and Eve, just as there are many reasons to believe in an historical Moses, Elijah, and Lazarus. Yet these stories have meaning beyond their historical value, as well: They help us to understand our own condition.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 10:59:07 AM by ytterbiumanalyst »
"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