|
0 members (),
242
guests, and
80
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,516
Posts417,590
Members6,168
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
In any case, remember that the typically Byzantine Orthodox way theological argument is based on florelegia; i.e., cantenaries of patristic citations in support of one's position. And since the Fathers wrote widely on just about every subject, it is not unusual to find people on both sides of an argument citing the same Fathers for support--indeed, sometimes even using the same passages. Therefore, it is not so much what this Father or that Father said about a particular subject, but how the Church itself decided to interpret the Fathers and integrate their works into the Tradition. The Fathers are authoritative, but no one Father is authoritative.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Dearest Father Ambrose,
I am more interested in a refutation of the numerous sources Vladimir Moss quotes, if you can offer one, than a mere attack on his credibility. Same goes for Ephrem Bensusan. In the absence of such, let's leave it to the reader to judge the merit of their statements, instead of trying to prevent others from reading them in the first place by merely impugning their character.
Humbly,
Marduk I apologise if my caveats were seen as impugning their characters. In the case of Vladimir Moss he apostasized from the Orthodox Church quite a few decades ago and has been a member of various vagante groups since and sees the Orthodox Church as a vehicle of damnation. All the Russian clergy will advise you to take care with his writings. In the case of Ephrem Bensusan it is lamented by many that his grounding in Orthodoxy is not the deepest and reflects his Protestant years of study. People ought to know these things when these two authors are innocently recommended by non-Orthodox sources as if their writings are soundly Orthodox. I confess that I do not have the interest to read through them at this time in order to refute them. Refutations can probably be located on the Net. I apologise also if you think my intention was to prevent people reading them rather than a word of caution as to their orthodoxy, much as Catholics might offer non-Catholics a word of caution about some Catholic authors. I frankly do not see any great worth in people reading them but I certainly would not try and prevent them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
As I read the two posts from Father Ambrose, I see him urging caution - not trying to prevent anyone from reading the two authors - a caution that certainly rings true with me from what I've heard of Moss. The writings of Vladimir Moss which I wouild wholeheartedly recommend is his many Lives of the Saints of the British Isles. Some have been published.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 802 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 802 Likes: 2 |
I think perhaps he is not claiming that we inherit the guilt of Adam per se, but only that we inherit a lack of holiness that would translate to "guilt" in God's eyes. A priest, Fr. Anthony Forte, on the comments to Ephrem's post commented the following: Perry Robinson writes:
“Ephrem replies: You must have missed what I said in the comment to which I referred you, to wit, “Nobody at all, Eastern or Western, teaches that all men are personally guilty of Adam’s personal sin. Rather, we all believe that, in a judicial sense, humanity was declared guilty when our federal head, Adam, sinned, thus placing the entire race under the dominion of Satan.””
This can’t be correct. The Fifth Session of the Council of Trent, sec. 5 reads,
“If anyone denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted: or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only raised, or not imputed, let him be anathama!”
————————
Here is perhaps the source of the misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching of Original Sin. The term that is rendered as “guilt” in the quote above from the Council of Trent is not the Latin “culpa” but “reatum.” While this is a common translation it is misleading. “Reatum” does not mean guilt or personal culpability but rather it is a technical legal term describing the legal status of one charged or convicted of a crime. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of a “fallen state.” Both the Council of Trent and the Catechism describe this reatum/fallen state as the loss of holiness and justice. As has been noted above, the Catechism explicitly denies that Original Sin has the nature of personal culpability; refuting the charge made by some Orthodox.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
I do not think that my Orthodox friends would find the distinction made by Trent between "culpa" and "reatum" any more palatable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
Whether it's "culpa" or "reatum," the Roman Catholic Church has taught, at least until modern times, that original sin is enough to land a soul in Hell, so it's rather disingenuous to make this semantic distinction and claim that it "refutes" Orthodox objections. Otherwise, whence is derived the notion of the "limbo of infants"? From the Council of Florence: ...[T]he souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
Apparently, this is also the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas: He Who is the preexisting and good Word of the Father, moved by His unutterable love for mankind and compassion for us, put on our image, that He might reclaim for Himself our nature which had been dragged down to uttermost Hades, so as to renew this corrupted nature and raise it to the heights of Heaven. For this purpose, He had to assume a flesh that was both new and ours, that He might refashion us from out of ourselves. Sermon on the Entry of the Theotokos This refers to the corruption resulting from the ancestral curse; it does not refer to the type of original sin that necessitated the Immaculate Conception dogma in Latin minds. No Orthodox has ever denied that Man has a fallen nature, and that Christ did not. The Theotokos had the same nature as we do, but she resisted all temptations to sin. Papal infallibility will probably go this way, not with a bang but with a whimper. The Orthodox ought to be willing to settle for a solution that eliminates the power without requiring a humiliating repudiation. A solution that allows the Latin Church to save face would be best not only for the Latin Church but for Orthodoxy as well. "Divinely revealed dogma", which is what Rome claims Papal Infallibility to be, does not go out with a whimper. It's a legion of a skronking trombones as long as it's dogma. "Pay no attention to those crazy trombones behind me, I've grown up now and I'm not into such silliness anymore." Are we to just pretend that Vatican I never happened? As long as it's "on the books", it can legitimately be invoked at anytime, notwithstanding the Vatican's current embarrassment. No reasonable Orthodox Christian will "settle" with such a situation. The most prominent and widely known Vatican dogma of recent centuries will not just fade away; it can't be allowed to stand. Since "papal infallibility" is only a theological opinion, and not a dogma, it cannot be called heretical; instead, it can at most be called an invalid or erroneous opinion. "Papal infallibility" is a proclaimed dogma for Rome, so it's absurd to regard it a theologoumenon. If you want to say it's a mere "theological opinion," then you are directly contradicting Rome's assertions. For them, it is a dogma. Is papal infallibility true or false? If it is true, then those who reject it are heretics, as it is a divinely revealed dogma. If it is false, then those who pronounce it as a dogma are heretics. What does it mean to be "in communion with Rome" if you do not share the Pope's faith? If the Pope does not believe in Papal Infallibility, then he's a liar. The position of Byzantine Catholics who reject Papal infallibility is therefore untenable. That Rome does not anathematize them reveals a considerable inconsistency in applied Roman Catholic ecclesiology. If Vatican I is merely a local council, then it must be a false council as well, since it proclaims dogma that it means to apply to the entire Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 132 |
What does "unequal pains" mean?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
[quote=Dr. Henry P.]What does "unequal pains" mean? [/quote]
What does "mortal sin" mean? In this context, does it really matter?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 4
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 4 |
Well, it's nice you can say something nice about me, Fr. Ambrose.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,036 Likes: 4
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,036 Likes: 4 |
The writings of Vladimir Moss which I wouild wholeheartedly recommend is his many Lives of the Saints of the British Isles. Some have been published. Off topic, but quickly . . . My wife had always wanted to read some Lives of Saints books. While wandering through the stacks at Iowa State, I passed a book title, Lives of the Irish Saints. Great! I put it in my pile, and brought it home. As it turned out, the spine and Title page were in English. Then it switched to Gaelic . . . *argh*! hawk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Well, it's nice you can say something nice about me, Fr. Ambrose. You're welcome, Dr Moss. :-) But I confess there is a major problem with my anxiety levels to be informed by a member of your Church that I am damned and no matter if I give my body to be burnt I am still damned.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Apotheoun, I do not think that my Orthodox friends would find the distinction made by Trent between "culpa" and "reatum" any more palatable. I'm not accusing you of anything, but it seems rather hypocritical for Easterns to expect Westerns (or Orientals, for that matter) to understand them, yet for those same Easterns to make no attempt to understand the Westerns (or Orientals, for that matter). Same goes for judgmental Westerns and Orientals. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Whether it's "culpa" or "reatum," the Roman Catholic Church has taught, at least until modern times, that original sin is enough to land a soul in Hell, so it's rather disingenuous to make this semantic distinction and claim that it "refutes" Orthodox objections. Otherwise, whence is derived the notion of the "limbo of infants"? Regardless of the definition of "Hell," the difference does refute the Orthodox objection, because it demonstrates that the Latin Catholic Church never taught that we are guilty of Adam's personal sin - which is what the Orthodox accusation is. Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother Seraphim, Apparently, this is also the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas: He Who is the preexisting and good Word of the Father, moved by His unutterable love for mankind and compassion for us, put on our image, that He might reclaim for Himself our nature which had been dragged down to uttermost Hades, so as to renew this corrupted nature and raise it to the heights of Heaven. For this purpose, He had to assume a flesh that was both new and ours, that He might refashion us from out of ourselves. Sermon on the Entry of the Theotokos This refers to the corruption resulting from the ancestral curse; it does not refer to the type of original sin that necessitated the Immaculate Conception dogma in Latin minds. No Orthodox has ever denied that Man has a fallen nature, and that Christ did not. The Theotokos had the same nature as we do, but she resisted all temptations to sin. What "corruption" are you talking about? Physical corruption or spiritual corruption? And what type of original sin" do you suppose is taught by the Latin Catholic Church? I suspect you have a misunderstanding of the Latin teaching on Original Sin. I have much to say on the issue of papal infallibility (I accept the teaching), but since this thread is not about that, I will refrain.  Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
