Author Topic: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?  (Read 18614 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,457
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Dear Wyatt,

Have you ever formally studied moral theology? 

M.
Not Eastern Orthodox moral theology. I have studied my own Catholic moral theology, but I am basing my post on comments that have been made on this very forum.

Has you study been formal and if so who has taught you?
Is RCIA formal? If you mean am I a theology student then no, but I went through the RCIA process before entering the Catholic Church in 2007, and I am currently going through a program that takes you through the entire Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church in a year. I also sat in with my friend as he was going through the RCIA process this past year and was Baptized and Confirmed at this past Easter Vigil. My parish now uses the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults in its RCIA program so I have read large portions of it as well. I am currently stuck in bed due to injuries and because of that have ordered a Kindle online to help pass the time. I plan to do a lot of theological reading on it as well.

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,145
  • Faith: Spiritually homeless
I hope you get well soon!

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,196
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Dear Wyatt,

Have you ever formally studied moral theology? 

M.
Not Eastern Orthodox moral theology. I have studied my own Catholic moral theology, but I am basing my post on comments that have been made on this very forum.

Has you study been formal and if so who has taught you?
Is RCIA formal? If you mean am I a theology student then no, but I went through the RCIA process before entering the Catholic Church in 2007, and I am currently going through a program that takes you through the entire Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church in a year. I also sat in with my friend as he was going through the RCIA process this past year and was Baptized and Confirmed at this past Easter Vigil. My parish now uses the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults in its RCIA program so I have read large portions of it as well. I am currently stuck in bed due to injuries and because of that have ordered a Kindle online to help pass the time. I plan to do a lot of theological reading on it as well.
Get well!
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 Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,323
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Dear Wyatt,

Have you ever formally studied moral theology? 

M.
Not Eastern Orthodox moral theology. I have studied my own Catholic moral theology, but I am basing my post on comments that have been made on this very forum.

Has you study been formal and if so who has taught you?
Is RCIA formal? If you mean am I a theology student then no, but I went through the RCIA process before entering the Catholic Church in 2007, and I am currently going through a program that takes you through the entire Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church in a year. I also sat in with my friend as he was going through the RCIA process this past year and was Baptized and Confirmed at this past Easter Vigil. My parish now uses the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults in its RCIA program so I have read large portions of it as well. I am currently stuck in bed due to injuries and because of that have ordered a Kindle online to help pass the time. I plan to do a lot of theological reading on it as well.

Do you listen to podcasts? I recently gave Ancient Faith Radio a try -- first with the OL conference last week, then today I listened to Fr. Hopko on the filioque.

Not that I'm stuck in bed. But if you are, all the more reason for something good to listen to.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,457
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Dear Wyatt,

Have you ever formally studied moral theology? 

M.
Not Eastern Orthodox moral theology. I have studied my own Catholic moral theology, but I am basing my post on comments that have been made on this very forum.

Has you study been formal and if so who has taught you?
Is RCIA formal? If you mean am I a theology student then no, but I went through the RCIA process before entering the Catholic Church in 2007, and I am currently going through a program that takes you through the entire Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church in a year. I also sat in with my friend as he was going through the RCIA process this past year and was Baptized and Confirmed at this past Easter Vigil. My parish now uses the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults in its RCIA program so I have read large portions of it as well. I am currently stuck in bed due to injuries and because of that have ordered a Kindle online to help pass the time. I plan to do a lot of theological reading on it as well.

Do you listen to podcasts? I recently gave Ancient Faith Radio a try -- first with the OL conference last week, then today I listened to Fr. Hopko on the filioque.

Not that I'm stuck in bed. But if you are, all the more reason for something good to listen to.
I usually don't, but that one sounds interesting. I might have to give it a try. Lately, besides perusing this and a few other forums of course, I have been doing a lot of StumbleUpon and watching a little TV here and there.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Get well, Wyatt!

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,654
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,323
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
“And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more."
Luke 12:47-48
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,457
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Thank you, Father. I realize that part of the reason for the disconnect in our conversation about sin is due to differences in the way Catholics and Orthodox explain/think of sin. We (in the Latin tradition) tend to think of sin as actions and offenses more often than we do as spiritual illness. I think that seems to be changing within our Church because I have heard more and more Priests and teachers within the Catholic Church refer to the Church as "a hospital for sinners," but I realize this imagery of sin as sickness may not have always been the predominant view in the West.

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,145
  • Faith: Spiritually homeless
“And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more."
Luke 12:47-48
We were just talking about how not everyone suffers the same in Orthodoxy. Note that the deeds are still worthy of flogging.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Thank you, Father. I realize that part of the reason for the disconnect in our conversation about sin is due to differences in the way Catholics and Orthodox explain/think of sin. We (in the Latin tradition) tend to think of sin as actions and offenses more often than we do as spiritual illness. I think that seems to be changing within our Church because I have heard more and more Priests and teachers within the Catholic Church refer to the Church as "a hospital for sinners," but I realize this imagery of sin as sickness may not have always been the predominant view in the West.

Health and hospital may not have been the anthropology but the theology has always been and remains the fact that ALL sin...voluntary and involuntary, in knowledge and in ignorance...ALL objective sin committed by any person at all, disrupts God justice and providence in the entirety of creation.  The consequences of our negative thoughts, words and deeds impact God's good providence/justice negatively, regardless of blame or guilt.

That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.

That means that ALL sin, ALL evil must be redressed, must be restored.  Each time we tear a hole in the fabric of creation's goodness...WE, in God's good grace must restore and be restored...whether or NOT we sin voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge and in ignorance.

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.

Mary

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,457
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 04:26:32 PM by Wyatt »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,196
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Thank you, Father. I realize that part of the reason for the disconnect in our conversation about sin is due to differences in the way Catholics and Orthodox explain/think of sin. We (in the Latin tradition) tend to think of sin as actions and offenses more often than we do as spiritual illness. I think that seems to be changing within our Church because I have heard more and more Priests and teachers within the Catholic Church refer to the Church as "a hospital for sinners," but I realize this imagery of sin as sickness may not have always been the predominant view in the West.

Health and hospital may not have been the anthropology but the theology has always been and remains the fact that ALL sin...voluntary and involuntary, in knowledge and in ignorance...ALL objective sin committed by any person at all, disrupts God justice and providence in the entirety of creation.  The consequences of our negative thoughts, words and deeds impact God's good providence/justice negatively, regardless of blame or guilt.

That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.

That means that ALL sin, ALL evil must be redressed, must be restored.  Each time we tear a hole in the fabric of creation's goodness...WE, in God's good grace must restore and be restored...whether or NOT we sin voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge and in ignorance.

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.

Mary
Anselm lives.  :'(
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 Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,654
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

Hi Wyatt.  I don't think she was talking to you, but of herself and all in general.  Just my take on it. 

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,457
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

Hi Wyatt.  I don't think she was talking to you, but of herself and all in general.  Just my take on it. 
Well if that's the case then she should not have quoted my post as if she was responding to me.

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,145
  • Faith: Spiritually homeless
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Thank you, Father. I realize that part of the reason for the disconnect in our conversation about sin is due to differences in the way Catholics and Orthodox explain/think of sin. We (in the Latin tradition) tend to think of sin as actions and offenses more often than we do as spiritual illness. I think that seems to be changing within our Church because I have heard more and more Priests and teachers within the Catholic Church refer to the Church as "a hospital for sinners," but I realize this imagery of sin as sickness may not have always been the predominant view in the West.

Health and hospital may not have been the anthropology but the theology has always been and remains the fact that ALL sin...voluntary and involuntary, in knowledge and in ignorance...ALL objective sin committed by any person at all, disrupts God justice and providence in the entirety of creation.  The consequences of our negative thoughts, words and deeds impact God's good providence/justice negatively, regardless of blame or guilt.

That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.

That means that ALL sin, ALL evil must be redressed, must be restored.  Each time we tear a hole in the fabric of creation's goodness...WE, in God's good grace must restore and be restored...whether or NOT we sin voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge and in ignorance.

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.

Mary
Anselm lives.  :'(
Aside from the condescending talk of unwashed masses, how is this not the Orthodox view? Isn't this why wet dreams, etc. are sins in Orthodoxy?

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Thank you, Father. I realize that part of the reason for the disconnect in our conversation about sin is due to differences in the way Catholics and Orthodox explain/think of sin. We (in the Latin tradition) tend to think of sin as actions and offenses more often than we do as spiritual illness. I think that seems to be changing within our Church because I have heard more and more Priests and teachers within the Catholic Church refer to the Church as "a hospital for sinners," but I realize this imagery of sin as sickness may not have always been the predominant view in the West.

Health and hospital may not have been the anthropology but the theology has always been and remains the fact that ALL sin...voluntary and involuntary, in knowledge and in ignorance...ALL objective sin committed by any person at all, disrupts God justice and providence in the entirety of creation.  The consequences of our negative thoughts, words and deeds impact God's good providence/justice negatively, regardless of blame or guilt.

That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.

That means that ALL sin, ALL evil must be redressed, must be restored.  Each time we tear a hole in the fabric of creation's goodness...WE, in God's good grace must restore and be restored...whether or NOT we sin voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge and in ignorance.

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.

Mary
Anselm lives.  :'(
Aside from the condescending talk of unwashed masses, how is this not the Orthodox view? Isn't this why wet dreams, etc. are sins in Orthodoxy?
Why would something be a sin if it is involuntary?

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,145
  • Faith: Spiritually homeless
Because our instincts and bodily functions are as fallen as the rest of us?

I don't know, I'm trying to understand the Orthodox view.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,323
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

Hi Wyatt.  I don't think she was talking to you, but of herself and all in general.  Just my take on it. 

I don't think it's much of a stretch, Father, to conclude that the post was referring to him ...

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

I am speaking VERY specifically about your grasp of moral theology.  You are misleading people here, and I have said so.  I think you may be reading more into what I have said about you personally...but you've argued and argued and argued...so I have to figure that you think you know all about what you are arguing here, and it seems to me that you do not know as much as you think.  That is not a slap at your character.  It is an assessment of this particular topic and how you are dealing with it...here and now.

M.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

Hi Wyatt.  I don't think she was talking to you, but of herself and all in general.  Just my take on it. 

Accurate insight...with particular reference to the quote above.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 10:44:44 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Thank you, Father. I realize that part of the reason for the disconnect in our conversation about sin is due to differences in the way Catholics and Orthodox explain/think of sin. We (in the Latin tradition) tend to think of sin as actions and offenses more often than we do as spiritual illness. I think that seems to be changing within our Church because I have heard more and more Priests and teachers within the Catholic Church refer to the Church as "a hospital for sinners," but I realize this imagery of sin as sickness may not have always been the predominant view in the West.

Health and hospital may not have been the anthropology but the theology has always been and remains the fact that ALL sin...voluntary and involuntary, in knowledge and in ignorance...ALL objective sin committed by any person at all, disrupts God justice and providence in the entirety of creation.  The consequences of our negative thoughts, words and deeds impact God's good providence/justice negatively, regardless of blame or guilt.

That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.

That means that ALL sin, ALL evil must be redressed, must be restored.  Each time we tear a hole in the fabric of creation's goodness...WE, in God's good grace must restore and be restored...whether or NOT we sin voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge and in ignorance.

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.

Mary
Anselm lives.  :'(
Aside from the condescending talk of unwashed masses,

It is a phrase that used to be used ironically by the chairman of my dissertation committee, and it used to make me laugh because I was one of them.  He was a traditional prairie populist, so he was hardly ever condescending...

M.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 10:41:47 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline Shlomlokh

  • 主哀れめよ!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,323
Because our instincts and bodily functions are as fallen as the rest of us?

I don't know, I'm trying to understand the Orthodox view.
This is how I was instructed by my priest on the matter, and how he was instructed by others, etc.

In Christ,
Andrew
"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Offline Volnutt

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,145
  • Faith: Spiritually homeless
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Thank you, Father. I realize that part of the reason for the disconnect in our conversation about sin is due to differences in the way Catholics and Orthodox explain/think of sin. We (in the Latin tradition) tend to think of sin as actions and offenses more often than we do as spiritual illness. I think that seems to be changing within our Church because I have heard more and more Priests and teachers within the Catholic Church refer to the Church as "a hospital for sinners," but I realize this imagery of sin as sickness may not have always been the predominant view in the West.

Health and hospital may not have been the anthropology but the theology has always been and remains the fact that ALL sin...voluntary and involuntary, in knowledge and in ignorance...ALL objective sin committed by any person at all, disrupts God justice and providence in the entirety of creation.  The consequences of our negative thoughts, words and deeds impact God's good providence/justice negatively, regardless of blame or guilt.

That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.

That means that ALL sin, ALL evil must be redressed, must be restored.  Each time we tear a hole in the fabric of creation's goodness...WE, in God's good grace must restore and be restored...whether or NOT we sin voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge and in ignorance.

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.

Mary
Anselm lives.  :'(
Aside from the condescending talk of unwashed masses,

It is a phrase that used to be used ironically by the chairman of my dissertation committee, and it used to make me laugh because I was one of them.  He was a traditional prairie populist, so he was hardly ever condescending...

M.
Ah. Sarcasm is often lost on the net.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,457
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

I am speaking VERY specifically about your grasp of moral theology.  You are misleading people here, and I have said so.  I think you may be reading more into what I have said about you personally...but you've argued and argued and argued...so I have to figure that you think you know all about what you are arguing here, and it seems to me that you do not know as much as you think.  That is not a slap at your character.  It is an assessment of this particular topic and how you are dealing with it...here and now.

M.
How have I mislead?

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,654
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

Hi Wyatt.  I don't think she was talking to you, but of herself and all in general.  Just my take on it. 

I don't think it's much of a stretch, Father, to conclude that the post was referring to him ...

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

I know Peter.  I will let Mary speak for herself, and she has.   I just read it as a specific response and then a drift into general principle.  It is obvious the first part of the response was specific to him, but then a gradual move to a general admonition, that's all. 

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

Hi Wyatt.  I don't think she was talking to you, but of herself and all in general.  Just my take on it. 

I don't think it's much of a stretch, Father, to conclude that the post was referring to him ...

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

I know Peter.  I will let Mary speak for herself, and she has.   I just read it as a specific response and then a drift into general principle.  It is obvious the first part of the response was specific to him, but then a gradual move to a general admonition, that's all. 

Wyatt has been ill in bed so he may not have picked up on Mary's drifting.  I'm not ill but I still find it hard sometimes to understand what Mary is saying.  But as you say,  I am easily confused and Mary is an expert at it.   :laugh: :D

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,654
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
^Father, I know you say this in jest, but just to make it clear I do not think that you are an easily confused person.  I was simply saying that, just as you found me too confusing in a certain area of eschatology, I also found you to be too easily confused in the same area.  I am sure the reverse can be said in other areas of theology.   But I do find you a sound thinker and appreciate your insights. 

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
^Father, I know you say this in jest, but just to make it clear I do not think that you are an easily confused person.  I was simply saying that, just as you found me too confusing in a certain area of eschatology, I also found you to be too easily confused in the same area.  I am sure the reverse can be said in other areas of theology.   But I do find you a sound thinker and appreciate your insights. 

Father,  thank you for your kind words but I am most certainly confused by my brethren in my understanding of the many afterdeath states.   They blather on about them as if they have it all sorted out, but whenever I ask them for simple definitions which I can understand they shut up.

hell

hades

sheol

gehenna

tartarus

the lake of fire

the place of nice waiting

the place of very not-nice waiting.....etc.


Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
^Father, I know you say this in jest, but just to make it clear I do not think that you are an easily confused person.  I was simply saying that, just as you found me too confusing in a certain area of eschatology, I also found you to be too easily confused in the same area.  I am sure the reverse can be said in other areas of theology.   But I do find you a sound thinker and appreciate your insights. 

Father,  thank you for your kind words but I am most certainly confused by my brethren in my understanding of the many afterdeath states.   They blather on about them as if they have it all sorted out, but whenever I ask them for simple definitions which I can understand they shut up.

hell

hades

sheol

gehenna

tartarus

the lake of fire

the place of nice waiting

the place of very not-nice waiting.....etc.


Since you have asked for your brethren to clarify, I hope that you will not mind if I take a shot at it.
There is (according to R. Catholic belief) heaven, hell, and purgatory.
As you have mentioned, there is the place of waiting, which in the Apostle's creed we say: ....suffered under Pontius Pileate, was crucified, died and was buried. And He descended into hell, and on the third day He arose again from the dead.  The hell mentioned here is not the hell of the damned, but the place of nice waiting where Jesus announced the opening of the gates of heaven to the preChristian saved. This is also sometimes called limbo. But it is not the same limbo for unbaptised infants  as was previously taught in Catholic schools.
To sum up then: In the afterlife there are three places (according to RC):
Heaven,
Hell  and
Purgatory.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,457
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.
If this is, in fact, true, then why does the catechism speak of reduced culpability based on one's mental state as well as other factors when determining the gravity of a sin, or even whether a sin took place at all. If sin can be involuntary, I wouldn't think the Catechism would speak like this.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.
If this is, in fact, true, then why does the catechism speak of reduced culpability based on one's mental state as well as other factors when determining the gravity of a sin, or even whether a sin took place at all. If sin can be involuntary, I wouldn't think the Catechism would speak like this.

In moral theology, the Church distinguishes among sin...personal guilt...blame, which is not the same as guilt...and the fact that ALL sin/evil rends the fabric of God's providence for Creation...consequences that are intended and unintended, known or unknown, seen or unseen, etc.

So when you see this discussion on reduced culpability there are a couple of things that SHOULD spring immediately to mind:

NOBODY but God determines the personal guilt or culpability of a sinner...nobody.  Absolution says NOTHING about levels or magnitudes of personal guilt.  Once absolved, all sins are forgotten...however the consequences of that evil set loose in the world remain.

EVEN IF a person is absolutely blameless in willing an objectively sinful thought, word or deed, then that evil MUST BE REPAIRED...so that God's good Providence/Justice may be restored.

So that whether you are personally guilty of the sinfulness/evil of a thought word or deed makes no difference to the impact that evil, set loose in the world, has on any part of Creation.

Stated as simply as I can at the moment:  I can do evil/be objectively sinful without being blamed or without suffering guilt, but the consequences of that sin/evil are just as disruptive, as if I were totally to blame and exquisitely guilty.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2011, 03:15:01 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,457
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.
If this is, in fact, true, then why does the catechism speak of reduced culpability based on one's mental state as well as other factors when determining the gravity of a sin, or even whether a sin took place at all. If sin can be involuntary, I wouldn't think the Catechism would speak like this.

In moral theology, the Church distinguishes among sin...personal guilt...blame, which is not the same as guilt...and the fact that ALL sin/evil rends the fabric of God's providence for Creation...consequences that are intended and unintended, known or unknown, seen or unseen, etc.

So when you see this discussion on reduced culpability there are a couple of things that SHOULD spring immediately to mind:

NOBODY but God determines the personal guilt or culpability of a sinner...nobody.  Absolution says NOTHING about levels or magnitudes of personal guilt.  Once absolved, all sins are forgotten...however the consequences of that evil set loose in the world remain.

EVEN IF a person is absolutely blameless in willing an objectively sinful thought, word or deed, then that evil MUST BE REPAIRED...so that God's good Providence/Justice may be restored.

So that whether you are personally guilty of the sinfulness/evil of a thought word or deed makes no difference to the impact that evil, set loose in the world, has on any part of Creation.

Stated as simply as I can at the moment:  I can do evil/be objectively sinful without being blamed or without suffering guilt, but the consequences of that sin/evil are just as disruptive, as if I were totally to blame and exquisitely guilty.
When you get time, could you provide me with an authentic Catholic source for this teaching?

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,654
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
^Father, I know you say this in jest, but just to make it clear I do not think that you are an easily confused person.  I was simply saying that, just as you found me too confusing in a certain area of eschatology, I also found you to be too easily confused in the same area.  I am sure the reverse can be said in other areas of theology.   But I do find you a sound thinker and appreciate your insights.  

Father,  thank you for your kind words but I am most certainly confused by my brethren in my understanding of the many afterdeath states.   They blather on about them as if they have it all sorted out, but whenever I ask them for simple definitions which I can understand they shut up.

hell
hades
sheol
gehenna
tartarus
the lake of fire
the place of nice waiting
the place of very not-nice waiting.....etc.


Really, it is quite simple.  You make things more complicated than they need to be:

hell is of course an English word used for two different purposes, so we will take that out of the equation to avoid confusion.  

hades=sheol=the place of not very nice-waiting of prior to the resurrection (before they have been united to their bodies).  Tartarus is simply the deepest part of hades (depicted in the icon of the resurrection with satan bound held for judgment) holding those angels and persons who have sinned unpardonably.  The upper region (as it is depicted in the icon of the resurrection), inhabited with the souls of those who have sinned pardonably (in ancient terms Ἔρεβος)

gehenna=the lake of fire=the place of eternal existence of the ungodly in body and soul (as whole persons) after the resurrection
 
« Last Edit: July 02, 2011, 04:54:31 PM by FatherHLL »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,482
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.
If this is, in fact, true, then why does the catechism speak of reduced culpability based on one's mental state as well as other factors when determining the gravity of a sin, or even whether a sin took place at all. If sin can be involuntary, I wouldn't think the Catechism would speak like this.

In moral theology, the Church distinguishes among sin...personal guilt...blame, which is not the same as guilt...and the fact that ALL sin/evil rends the fabric of God's providence for Creation...consequences that are intended and unintended, known or unknown, seen or unseen, etc.

So when you see this discussion on reduced culpability there are a couple of things that SHOULD spring immediately to mind:

NOBODY but God determines the personal guilt or culpability of a sinner...nobody.  Absolution says NOTHING about levels or magnitudes of personal guilt.  Once absolved, all sins are forgotten...however the consequences of that evil set loose in the world remain.

EVEN IF a person is absolutely blameless in willing an objectively sinful thought, word or deed, then that evil MUST BE REPAIRED...so that God's good Providence/Justice may be restored.

So that whether you are personally guilty of the sinfulness/evil of a thought word or deed makes no difference to the impact that evil, set loose in the world, has on any part of Creation.

Stated as simply as I can at the moment:  I can do evil/be objectively sinful without being blamed or without suffering guilt, but the consequences of that sin/evil are just as disruptive, as if I were totally to blame and exquisitely guilty.
When you get time, could you provide me with an authentic Catholic source for this teaching?

What would you accept as an authentic source?

Try starting here:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1048.htm
« Last Edit: July 02, 2011, 05:21:59 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 39,196
That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.
If this is, in fact, true, then why does the catechism speak of reduced culpability based on one's mental state as well as other factors when determining the gravity of a sin, or even whether a sin took place at all. If sin can be involuntary, I wouldn't think the Catechism would speak like this.

In moral theology, the Church distinguishes among sin...personal guilt...blame, which is not the same as guilt...and the fact that ALL sin/evil rends the fabric of God's providence for Creation...consequences that are intended and unintended, known or unknown, seen or unseen, etc.

So when you see this discussion on reduced culpability there are a couple of things that SHOULD spring immediately to mind:

NOBODY but God determines the personal guilt or culpability of a sinner...nobody.  Absolution says NOTHING about levels or magnitudes of personal guilt.  Once absolved, all sins are forgotten...however the consequences of that evil set loose in the world remain.

EVEN IF a person is absolutely blameless in willing an objectively sinful thought, word or deed, then that evil MUST BE REPAIRED...so that God's good Providence/Justice may be restored.

So that whether you are personally guilty of the sinfulness/evil of a thought word or deed makes no difference to the impact that evil, set loose in the world, has on any part of Creation.

Stated as simply as I can at the moment:  I can do evil/be objectively sinful without being blamed or without suffering guilt, but the consequences of that sin/evil are just as disruptive, as if I were totally to blame and exquisitely guilty.
When you get time, could you provide me with an authentic Catholic source for this teaching?

What would you accept as an authentic source?

Try starting here:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1048.htm
Ooooh! Something specific! How novel!
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 Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,991
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
^Father, I know you say this in jest, but just to make it clear I do not think that you are an easily confused person.  I was simply saying that, just as you found me too confusing in a certain area of eschatology, I also found you to be too easily confused in the same area.  I am sure the reverse can be said in other areas of theology.   But I do find you a sound thinker and appreciate your insights.  

Father,  thank you for your kind words but I am most certainly confused by my brethren in my understanding of the many afterdeath states.   They blather on about them as if they have it all sorted out, but whenever I ask them for simple definitions which I can understand they shut up.

hell
hades
sheol
gehenna
tartarus
the lake of fire
the place of nice waiting
the place of very not-nice waiting.....etc.


Really, it is quite simple.  You make things more complicated than they need to be:

hell is of course an English word used for two different purposes, so we will take that out of the equation to avoid confusion.  

hades=sheol=the place of not very nice-waiting of prior to the resurrection

Father, I find you confusing since this is *not* what the Russian Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) is teaching in his books and lectures.  For example in "Christ the Conqueror of Hell".   Various points of his teaching are scattered thruoghout not a few messages in this forum.

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,654
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
^Father, I know you say this in jest, but just to make it clear I do not think that you are an easily confused person.  I was simply saying that, just as you found me too confusing in a certain area of eschatology, I also found you to be too easily confused in the same area.  I am sure the reverse can be said in other areas of theology.   But I do find you a sound thinker and appreciate your insights.  

Father,  thank you for your kind words but I am most certainly confused by my brethren in my understanding of the many afterdeath states.   They blather on about them as if they have it all sorted out, but whenever I ask them for simple definitions which I can understand they shut up.

hell
hades
sheol
gehenna
tartarus
the lake of fire
the place of nice waiting
the place of very not-nice waiting.....etc.


Really, it is quite simple.  You make things more complicated than they need to be:

hell is of course an English word used for two different purposes, so we will take that out of the equation to avoid confusion.  

hades=sheol=the place of not very nice-waiting of prior to the resurrection

Father, I find you confusing since this is *not* what the Russian Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) is teaching in his books and lectures.  For example in "Christ the Conqueror of Hell".   Various points of his teaching are scattered thruoghout not a few messages in this forum.

Where is there a contradiction with what Met. Hilarion has written?