OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 03:54:37 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 27486 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,575



« 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.
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« 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
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 #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!
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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 » Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« 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
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")
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« 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.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
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 #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.
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
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« 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.
Logged

Love never fails.
The Iambic Pen
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic - Church of Old Rome
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 123



« 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?
Logged
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« 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!
Logged

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
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« 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.
Logged

Love never fails.
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« 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.
Logged

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
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« 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?
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« 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.
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« 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?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« 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.
Logged

Love never fails.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« 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. 
Logged

Love never fails.
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« 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.  Cry

But I am going to take a course soon!  laugh
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« 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?
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« 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
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 #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 » 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")
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,647



« 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 » Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« 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
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")
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« 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 » Logged

Love never fails.
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« 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.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« 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?
Logged

Love never fails.
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« 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?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« 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?
Logged

Love never fails.
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« 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 » Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« 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
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 #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.  Smiley
Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #76 on: December 03, 2008, 03:56:58 PM »

Too kind, brother!

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")
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 #77 on: December 03, 2008, 07:42:59 PM »


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.
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
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 #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 » 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
The Iambic Pen
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic - Church of Old Rome
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 123



« 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... Smiley
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: 37,481



« 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.
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
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 #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... Smiley

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.
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
The Iambic Pen
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic - Church of Old Rome
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 123



« Reply #82 on: December 04, 2008, 03:39:41 AM »

BTW, we use Ancestral sin, not Original one.
Ah yes, thanks!  Smiley
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« 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...
Logged

Love never fails.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« 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
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 #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
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")
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



« 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.
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
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« 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...
Logged

Love never fails.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« 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  Wink)

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")
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



« 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  Wink)

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 » 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
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 0.15 seconds with 72 queries.