www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church

Well said Joe. I would add only to the Nicene Creed some minimum dogma about the Lord's Body & Blood being truly present in the Supper (without definig the "how"), Baptism as the remittance of sins, regeneration and incorporation into Christ (which I guess, is already covered in the creed), and possibly Apostolic Succession as a constitutive element of the Church.

Sometimes, I feel we stress the head trip over love. We need to go beyond belief, and embrace an organic, living relationship with the living Lord.

It seems to me that Papal infallibility is the Catholic response to the enlightenment just as plenary, verbal inerrancy of the scriptural text is for the Princeton school, fundamentalism, and most of evangelicalism. One could probably say the same thing about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (although I believe of course that she is sinless).

I believe that neither doctrine is necessary in order to trust the revelation in scripture and the deposit of faith guarded by the Church. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, and the bible is reliable for our salvation and bringing us the revelation of Christ.

Our confidence should spring from our faith inspired by the Holy Spirit. For me the bible and Holy Tradition are trustworthy, it is not necessary for my existential commitment to Christ and to his Church to have inerrant, infallible external authorities, Bible or Pope- or councils or bishops.

This coming Monday we will observe the Transfiguration. Note that in Matthew & Mark's gospel, the transfiguration occurs six days after Jesus teaches his disciples that they must carry their cross; but it occurs eight days later in Luke's.

If we get hung up on the discrepancy of the time frame expressed in the text, we will miss the glory of the Transfiguration.

Truth is an encounter; Christ is the Truth.

I think in the simplist terms, both churches have doctrinal issues they will not budge on, and if they did you'd see a large number of Orthodox going over to more traditional Orthodox churches. A much smaller pct of Roman Catholics, including myself, would go sedevacantist.

Lawrence, what is "sedevacantist"?

Someone who believes the seat of Peter is vacant.

Dear Apotheoun...

I am not so sure that this (above) reflects the meaning of �Original Sin� as the RCC uses it. I think �Orginal Sin� is used more as a title for a concept rather than the naming of the specific very first sin that the first man and woman did (eat and apple against a command).

> Every man is innocent from the first moment of his conception,
> because guilt and sin are personal realities, not natural realities.

As I understand the RCC doctrine - it agrees with you on this point - if it were said like this �

---
Every man is [personally] innocent from the first moment of his conception, because [personal] guilt and [personal] sin are personal realities, [and] not [inherent] created nature.
---

The RCC does make a distinction between personal sin and guilt ... and ... �original sin� the dogma is such that I understand it to not apply any personal guilt to any of us for the first act of sin done by a first man named Adam and a first woman named Eve.

The effects of human sin ... have effected the state of nature. The Providential governance of the natural world is not the same as it would have been if no sin was ever committed. This has to do with God not wanting to violate the free will of man. For example - a child born into Nazi Germany at the time - would be born into an environment where his parents may have supported Hitler, and sent the child to Hitler Youth Camp, and all state media praised Hitler, etc.. the effects of Hitler and the childs parents do have their impression upon the �world� and environment surrounding the child. These effects - will tend the child toward (push it) to becoming a Nazi himself.
*
Let me use an example which I believe is consistent with the RCC doctrine...

Let us say a baby is conceived and born to a coke-head mother. When the baby is born it is born with a pre-addiction to cocaine. This condition is a pre-disposition to sin in as much as the child�s body craves the opiates and when the child grows it will always have that pre-disposition. His cells had once exppreienced the opiate wihtout his own concent and have forever been modified by that. In the same way that an alcoholic gains a bodily desire for alcohol and has to forever fight it for the rest of his life.

This pre-disposition is not caused by the personal sin or guilt of the child. It comes through nature (the chemicals involved in the fetal development) but can also be said not to be the �natural� state of nature for conception and fetal development. It is not the intent of nature that a fetus should developpe in an opiated womb.

And so, what I believe the RCC doctrine to be saying (as to the immaculate conception) is that Mary - when conceived - was conceived with the grace of being impervious to the effect of sin (the impression it has upon nature) which effects were alrady upon nature and at work within nature (her environment).

This state of conception (being impervious to the influences of the effects of sin which are impressed upon nature and at work within the envirinment of our world) did not make it impossible for her to select (by her own free will) to go ahead and sin if she wanted to. But it did protect her from the influential tendencies toward sin - which the rest of us are subject to in various ways and degress of strength.

In other words - the rest of us are easily pushed into sin. We attend a Christmas party and everyone is smashed and having a good time and drinks are pushed into our hands and with the peer pressure ... it is difficult for us to do much else but to join in the drunken fun.

As Paul said �I do what I do not want to do.�.

And so it is my impression of the RCC dogma that Mary was preserved from the influence of the effects of sin which are at work in nature (the world which surrounds us).

The RCC doctrine, I believe, assumes that the Original Sin is not to be thought of as just an act performed millions of years ago by a man named Adam and a woman named Eve (a physical act of sin) but rather more importantly it assumes that the spiritual realities (the real cause of the physical act of sin) are still present and foundational to every sin. In that case - what Original Sin is - is a spiritual act and attitude of wanting to ignore God's Providence and to taking matters into our own hands by attempting to manipulate things in such a way as to provide for ourselves what we think is to our own profit and benefit.

Doe any of this make sense to you?

I do hesitate to get involved in yet another deep discussion because I am already involved in a couple of others and am really stretching myself thin.

-ray

Ray,

I am not sure that I agree with your post, because it is rather long and somewhat convoluted (no offense intended), but if you are saying that there is a natural propensity for man to sin, or that sin is somehow in human nature after the ancestral disobedience of Adam, then I must say that I disagree.

In fact, in Eastern theology there is no such thing as original sin, if by this term one holds that there is some kind of inherited natural guilt or a natural inclination to sin; instead, the original sin of Adam has brought about a condition of mortality in his descendants (both physical and spiritual). In other words, Adam's sin did not cause an ontological change in human nature, which means that human nature cannot be described as sinful or inclined to sin. Sin is unnatural, not natural. Moreover, Christ assumed a complete human nature identical to our own; and so, if sin or the propensity to sin resides in human nature, it follows that Christ was a sinner, which is clearly false.

Sin is a hypostatic (i.e., personal) reality. Thus, only persons -- and not nature[s] -- can sin. In fact, nature[s] cannot act at all.

God bless,
Todd

From an Eastern perspective Mary was subject to the effects of the original sin, and that is why she died.

"The RCC doctrine, I believe, assumes that the Original Sin is not to be thought of as just an act performed millions of years ago by a man named Adam and a woman named Eve (a physical act of sin) but rather more importantly it assumes that the spiritual realities (the real cause of the physical act of sin) are still present and foundational to every sin. In that case - what Original Sin is - is a spiritual act and attitude of wanting to ignore God's Providence and to taking matters into our own hands by attempting to manipulate things in such a way as to provide for ourselves what we think is to our own profit and benefit.

Doe any of this make sense to you?"

Dear Ray,

I think it does make sense to me.

Even an young infant who is able to speak when in need of a diaper change will vehemently deny he/she needs a diaper change if they are engaged in what they are doing at the time and don't want their diaper changed just then. Likewise after 4 year old "Tommy" hits his 2 year old sister "Susie" and "Susie" tells "Mom" when confronted "Tommy" will most likely deny that he hit "Susie". These young children, not aware they are lying are hiding the truth.

When Tommy and Susie become old enough to realize they are not telling the truth and Mom's prized vase gets knocked off it's stand and breaks and neither of them are willing to admit guilt, the guilty party I would think is well aware of his/her guilt/sin.

Questions:

Is this all human nature or is this hypostatic reality?

Adam and Eve after eating the forbidden fruit also "hid" themselves, trying to mask their wrongdoing did they not?

Is it not possible that God set the Mother of His Son apart from the rest of humanity, even though she was wholly human and subject to death, because she would be the vessel through which God would come among us?

Why was Elijah taken up to Heaven if he, like all other humans, was subject to the Fall?

Was Christ not like us (humans) in everything but sin?

Wondering,
Bill

Right.

I am not saying either.

Well - if I was not careful with my words I may have - but I think I said �at work within nature�.

In the same way that we can say a lumberjack is at work within the forest. The cuts he makes with his axe are not a natural part of the forest - yet the forest takes the impression (the cuts) of his work.

In the same way � evil and sin are not a part of the natural world, We can see the impression of evil and sin impressed upon the things and events of the world.

We can see the results of a suicide bomb in Baghdad. We know bad people can murder and kill - and so when they come to us as say �Join us - or we will kill your family..� our tendency is to save our family and so many of us would help the insurgents kill Americans as well as other innocent Iraq civilians - in order to save our own family. We do not trust Providence (thou shall not murder) or we are confused about Providence - we trust more that the bad guys can and will - kill our family if we do not help them.

These are the effects of sin at work within nature.

Another example would be to see our natural father being cut-throat at business. We grow up in that environment and tend to take on his ways and attitude. Money first - people second.

Why do we fall to them? Why do we ��I do what I do not want to do!�

The reason is within the origin of sin. Again - it is named Original Sin only because the foundation of how we sin is revealed in the narration of adam and the woman in the garden. But rather think of it as �the Origin of Sin� - the foundational movement towards sin that takes place within us - when we sin.

As you say - nature is good and God does not create sin. The sin is within us is a spiritual reality - yet leaves its impression upon the external reality of created nature.

The foundation of sin is: We prefer to provide for ourselves - we manipulate creation (its things and events) in order to bring to ourselves � a desired result.

We have turned from what God wants to provide - to - what we provide for ourselves. THAT is both the �original sin� and at the same time the origin of sin. Turning away from the Will of God (Providence) in order to create for ourselves our own providence.

That is why in the drama play of Genesis, in the �council of the gods� held after the fall (very similar to the �court of heaven� as described in the opening of the book of Job) �. the gods say, �Look - man has become like us.� meaning that man has created his own providence for himself - he is doing for himself what God does through his angelic hierarchy (project his Providence into creation).

My posts are always convoluted I think. If I had not written them I am not sure I would be able to follow then either.

Anyways � Bill is on the right track.

Peace to you my friend.

-ray

Right. Adam passed the buck to Eve and even back to God himself �The woman YOU gave me - made me do it!�) and eve passed the buck on down to the snake. (�Wait, wait! Not ME - the snake MADE me do it!�). It is absolutely plain that the narrations of Genesis are not written as a history lesson - they are a drama - a play - which takes place in the theater of our imagination (we view it there) and we are to know ourselves (our own human nature) in it.

The other things you mention I have no time to comment on right now.

But the essence of sin is the manipulation of creation and its events in order to bring about one's own desired providence. If Providence is reality (and it is) than what we do is take un-reality into ourselves as if it were real - and do our best to convince ourselves that what is un-real - is actually real. We deny reality (what God has provided for us) and try to live in a reality we ourselves create.

"Did I break that vase? No sir I did not. It fell by itself."

The very first person we have to convince of that unreality - is ourselves. We have to pretend our lie is actual reality. Only from there - can we have a change of convincing someone else of the un-real scenario. When we do this we are hiding from reality (from God - from Providence).

As we grow - and if our taking into ourselves of un-reality continues - it becomes a habit. And at work in part of our nature - it becomes a pressure.

If Mary had freely chosen to sin or not - I have no clue. But she (by grace) was impervious to the inclination to sin that the impression of sin have upon nature and within the humans of our environment.

We can say with Paul �I do what I do not want to do� (our function of freedom of will being overwhelmed) � but Mary can not say that with Paul. Tempted � her freedom of will was never overwhelmed so as to make sin something she would do from anything other than her own free choice to do or not do.

If these things do not have any practice application for us in understanding our own human nature � what real value would they be to us?

-ray

Bill,

It is precisely this viewpoint that I disagree with, because the original sin is simply a specific personal sin of Adam, which introduced a condition of mortality into his descendants. In other words, no one is born with original sin; instead, Adam's descendants are born with the effects of the original sin (i.e., the condition of mortality and the tendency toward the dissolution of existence, both physical and spiritual, that St. Athanasios spoke of in his writings).

Thus, as I understand the Orthodox teaching, no one is born or conceived sinful, nor does anyone inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, because guilt (like sin itself) is personal, and not natural, and so it cannot be inherited. That said, as far as Mary is concerned, she -- like every other human being -- was born with the effects of the original sin (i.e., mortality and the principle of the dissolution of existence introduced by Adam's original disobedience), and that is why she died.

God bless,
Todd

Ray,

I am still uncomfortable with the way that you express things, because I would avoid entirely the use of the terms "nature" and "natural" in relation to sin in world, since sinful actions are always unnatural. Nevertheless, I think that we are in general agreement, that is, if by "nature" and "natural" you simply mean to describe man's social environment, because one can speak of an environmental condition that facilitates sinful behavior, but this environmental condition is not the original sin itself, but is merely an effect of the many personal sins of human beings piled up on top of each other over time.

Finally, as I see it, a distinction must be made between the original sin which is proper only to Adam (and -- by her personal participation, and her position as mother of the race -- Eve), and the effects of the original sin (i.e., mortality and the principle of the dissolution of personal existence), which alone are inherited by Adam's descendants as a consequence of his original disobedience.

God bless,
Todd

Actions are by definition a hypostatic reality. In other words, natures do not act, only persons act.

That said, sinful actions, which are always and by definition personal, are only imputable when a human being reaches the age of reason, and this is the common teaching of both traditions, which is why young children do not participate in the mystery of confession.

Dear Apotheoun...

Todd...

I don't have time to read your posts just now .. it is morning just before work.

But I did want to tell you that I am in the second week of examining Matt 16 where Jesus talks to Peter ... and ... so far ... I see three major mistakes in the traditional Catholic view of these events.

In fact, so far, there seems to be support for the Orthodox postion regarding Peter.

The keys are not the keys of the Prime Minister of Davidic government (a prime point of the RCC foundation) ... plus ... they are a 'I shall give' (future) thing and are not yet given.

I believe I know what the keys are - but I have to confirm what I believe - before I say anything. It takes a lot of cross referencing.

That is all I can say for now.

Peace to you.
-ray