|
0 members (),
322
guests, and
93
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,516
Posts417,589
Members6,167
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 4
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 4 |
Another distinction which I think is relevant to this debate: guilt as that which is imputed to someone convicted of sin, and guilt as a feeling. Adam was guilty of sin in the first sense. He also felt guilty. We are not guilty of Adam's sin ("guilt" understood in the first sense), but we can still feel guilty when we feel the inclination of our sinful nature.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1 |
Basically, you need to interpret the Western concept of original sin according to its own teaching of "sin," not according to the Eastern concept of "sin." If we keep trying to impose each others' theology on the other party, we will never understand each other. Maybe this is the reason why there will never be union. Catholic theology has become so attentuated that the Orthodox are simply unable to grasp it and cannot shake off the suspicion that it is erroneous. In all the years of reading your (Marduk's) quite complex theological explications, much of it has simply gone over my head. I cannot grasp it. It's the same way most Latins feel when the Essence/Energy debate is brought up. :shrug: Peace and God bless!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Another distinction which I think is relevant to this debate: guilt as that which is imputed to someone convicted of sin, and guilt as a feeling. Adam was guilty of sin in the first sense. He also felt guilty. We are not guilty of Adam's sin ("guilt" understood in the first sense), but we can still feel guilty when we feel the inclination of our sinful nature. That's a nice explanation, Mr. Moss. From a cursory reading of your "New Soteriology" I did not see that (or perhaps I just failed to see it). Again, thank you for the explanation. Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Basically, you need to interpret the Western concept of original sin according to its own teaching of "sin," not according to the Eastern concept of "sin." If we keep trying to impose each others' theology on the other party, we will never understand each other. Maybe this is the reason why there will never be union. Catholic theology has become so attentuated that the Orthodox are simply unable to grasp it and cannot shake off the suspicion that it is erroneous. In all the years of reading your (Marduk's) quite complex theological explications, much of it has simply gone over my head. I cannot grasp it. It's the same way most Latins feel when the Essence/Energy debate is brought up. :shrug: Good point, brother Ghosty. If the EO, OO and CC can come to agreement on the matter of Christology, a much older debate, then surely, the EO and CC can come to an understanding on the matter of original sin. It should also be noted that the OO understanding of Original Sin is closer to the Latin understanding than the EO understanding. Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Basically, you need to interpret the Western concept of original sin according to its own teaching of "sin," not according to the Eastern concept of "sin." If we keep trying to impose each others' theology on the other party, we will never understand each other. Maybe this is the reason why there will never be union. Catholic theology has become so attentuated that the Orthodox are simply unable to grasp it and cannot shake off the suspicion that it is erroneous. In all the years of reading your (Marduk's) quite complex theological explications, much of it has simply gone over my head. I cannot grasp it. So exactly what part of the explanation was hard to grasp? That you were neglecting St. Anselm's use of the term "personal?" Is it the definition of "sin" as "the state of separation from God?" Please explain. Humbly, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Maybe this is the reason why there will never be union. Catholic theology has become so attentuated that the Orthodox are simply unable to grasp it and cannot shake off the suspicion that it is erroneous. In all the years of reading your (Marduk's) quite complex theological explications, much of it has simply gone over my head. I cannot grasp it. Fr. Ambrose, You may be right. Perhaps Latin Catholics and Eastern Orthodox will have to agree to disagree, while Eastern Catholics are stuck in the middle. God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 672 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 672 Likes: 2 |
Has there ever a Church Council that defined "original sin?" Has the Augustinian view ever been condemned by the Church?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
You may be right. Perhaps Latin Catholics and Eastern Orthodox will have to agree to disagree, while Eastern Catholics are stuck in the middle. It's what they did for nearly 1000 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
You may be right. Perhaps Latin Catholics and Eastern Orthodox will have to agree to disagree, while Eastern Catholics are stuck in the middle. It's what they did for nearly 1000 years. And God willing they shall agree to disagree on the original sin, and a few other issues, until the Parousia.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
The faultiness of Mary
______________________
What does this mean? What did Pope Saint Leop the Great mean by Mary's "faultiness"?
"The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness"
Phillip Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. What is the faultiness of Mary that Leo believes she possesses but also believes that Jesus does not?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
I am curious about a different but related quote. It's from Blessed Theophylact's commentary on Matthew 12: 47-50. Christ's mother and brethren stand outside, asking to speak with him, and he says "...whosoever shall do the will of My Father Who is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother."
Bl. Theophylact says this: "He did not say this to offend his mother, but to correct this vainglorious and human thought of hers."
I think we all agree that the Theotokos is sinless. How do we then interpret this "vainglorious thought"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,689 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,689 Likes: 8 |
I would assume that the "faultiness" mentioned is mortality.
Regarding "vainglorious" thoughts.. I read this on monachos:
Archimandrite Sophrony echoes the thoughts of St Silouan beatifully on this matter, p391:
"...once when I was a young novice I was praying before an ikon of the Mother of God, and the Jesus Prayer entered into my heart and there began to repeat itself of its own accord. Ans another time in church I was listening to a reading from the Prophet Isaiah, and at the words, 'wash you, make you clean (Isaiah i:16). I reflected, 'Maybe the Mother of God sinned at one time or another, if only in thought.' And, marvellously to relate, in unison with my prayer a voice surrounded in my heart, saying clearly, 'The Mother of God never sinned even in thought.'
Thus did the Holy Spirit bear witness in my heart to her purity. But during her earthly life even she was not quite perfect and complete - she did make some mistakes that did not involve sin. We can see this from the Gospel when on the return from jerusalem she did not know where her Son was, and together with Jospeh sought Him for three days (cf. Luke ii:44-46) ... "
Last edited by Michael_Thoma; 09/13/09 09:17 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1 |
I would assume that the "faultiness" mentioned is mortality.
Regarding "vainglorious" thoughts.. I read this on monachos:
Archimandrite Sophrony echoes the thoughts of St Silouan beatifully on this matter, p391:
"...once when I was a young novice I was praying before an ikon of the Mother of God, and the Jesus Prayer entered into my heart and there began to repeat itself of its own accord. Ans another time in church I was listening to a reading from the Prophet Isaiah, and at the words, 'wash you, make you clean (Isaiah i:16). I reflected, 'Maybe the Mother of God sinned at one time or another, if only in thought.' And, marvellously to relate, in unison with my prayer a voice surrounded in my heart, saying clearly, 'The Mother of God never sinned even in thought.'
Thus did the Holy Spirit bear witness in my heart to her purity. But during her earthly life even she was not quite perfect and complete - she did make some mistakes that did not involve sin. We can see this from the Gospel when on the return from jerusalem she did not know where her Son was, and together with Jospeh sought Him for three days (cf. Luke ii:44-46) ... " I think it's more likely that the Saints in question simply had a mistaken view of Our Lady, and believed she sinned in some minor way. Jesus Himself was mortal, after all, else He couldn't have died on the Cross. Saints aren't free from all error, after all; many of the greatest Fathers have held to some rather conspicuous errors on something or another. Peace and God bless!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Pope Saint Leo and the Faultiness of Mary
____________________________________
Nobody has really touched on what Pope Saint Leo meant in his Tome by Mary's faultiness.
Can somebody please supply the text in Latin? That may help us reach an understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
The faultiness of Mary
______________________
What does this mean? What did Pope Saint Leop the Great mean by Mary's "faultiness"?
"The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness"
Phillip Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. What is the faultiness of Mary that Leo believes she possesses but also believes that Jesus does not? Those interested can read the text in question in Latin, English, and Greek at the website linked below: The Tome of Leo [ earlychurchtexts.com]
|
|
|
|
|
