Ideas on Ancestral and Original Sin

[Christiancounseling]

As an Eastern Catholic, I feel I would be welcome here.

Not to convert, but to reunify--for we are all equal brothers and sisters of the apostolic church--we all possess the true faith---just the center of unity, of Rome does not manifest.

I ask simply to discuss issues not to convert, or argue, but to open healthy dialogue on issues of Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, Filique, mutual communion---

I think ultimately, the reunification of the western churches, eastern churches and orthodox churches lies in our hands and understanding of each other

Glory to Jesus Christ

 

[truefiction1]

As an Eastern Catholic, I feel I would be welcome here.

Not to convert, but to reunify--for we are all equal brothers and sisters of the apostolic church--we all possess the true faith---just the center of unity, of Rome does not manifest.

I ask simply to discuss issues not to convert, or argue, but to open healthy dialogue on issues of Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, Filique, mutual communion---

I think ultimately, the reunification of the western churches, eastern churches and orthodox churches lies in our hands and understanding of each other

Glory to Jesus Christ

I suspect that you are in for disappointment then. I could be wrong though. Time will tell.

 

[Anhelyna]

As an Eastern Catholic, I feel I would be welcome here.

Not to convert, but to reunify--for we are all equal brothers and sisters of the apostolic church--we all possess the true faith---just the center of unity, of Rome does not manifest.

I ask simply to discuss issues not to convert, or argue, but to open healthy dialogue on issues of Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, Filique, mutual communion---

I think ultimately, the reunification of the western churches, eastern churches and orthodox churches lies in our hands and understanding of each other

Glory to Jesus Christ

Christiancounselling - to which EC Church is your affiliation ?

Perhaps you could use that affiliation instead of Newbie in your Custom User Title as I have done since joining this Board .

Doing this would allow us all to see your affiliation instead of you using the generic Christian Cross.

I will, however, state here and now, that I will not enter into discussion of Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, Filique, mutual communion--- etc. as this will lead to debate and that is not permitted between Catholics [ whether Eastern or Western/Latin ]and Orthodox Christians in this particular Forum

 

[GregConstantine]

@Christiancounseling, This will burst your bubble, but no, we are not equal and united because you are within a body that is under the bishop of Rome, which is in schism from the Church.
There is only one God, therefore, there is only one Church, and Rome and all who are under her are in schism. Now, as to your own personal standing before God, I do not know, I will not make any judgments about that. We cannot make any judgments about any one's personal standing before God. However, we can say that there is only one Church, and that is the Holy Orthodox Christian Church.

If you wish to be united, then what I would say to that is to go to your nearest Orthodox Church and let the priest there know that you wish to be made a catechumen and be received into the Church by chrismation. That is yours and all of our path to unity to God, His Church, and to one another.

You are very welcome to this forum and here you can learn more about what we believe as Orthodox Christians.

 

[Christiancounseling]

Thanks for the warm welcome.

 

[Anhelyna]

Christiancounselling

This was the first part of CF in which I posted - I regard TAW as my home Forum and I think I'm totally accepted here despite the fact I'm Catholic.

You are welcome here

 

[Christiancounseling]

So, if it befits this forum to discuss our mutual traditions, or you have questions, I am fine with that as well

 

[Kristos]

 

[GregConstantine]

I did not say you will need to be re-baptized. Unlike your tradition, we do not rely on one man or a group of men to dictate doctrine to us solely on the basis of the fact that they are clergy, but on the entire Church, the both the clergy and the people. So just because a patriarch here said this or did that really doesn't mean much. Rome is in schism, and it is not just division. Plus, Christ cannot be divided. If you believe the Church can be divided then you believe that Christ can be divided.
it will do us no good to discuss those Roman Catholic doctrines if we do not have an understanding of where each of us are coming from. I will not shy away from the teachings of the Church that are not at whims of any one person and what they may or may not say at any given time.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I gotta agree with Greg on this. those under Rome and those in the East are not one Church, and we have not been for some time. only those in Eastern Orthodoxy are members of the one True Church, and therefore Rome is not. from our POV, you are in schism. it is not just a division between us. read St Mark of Ephesus or St Alexis Toth if you don't believe me.

the items that you showed cannot be for healthy discussion because our position is pretty clear. the immaculate conception is heretical, original sin in the Western sense is heretical, the filioque is heretical, and intercommunion won't happen.

 

[Christiancounseling]

Well allow me to retort my Christian brothers In Christ.

1. Baptism makes us members of the Mystical Body of Christ---full union is another matter, but to deny that Protestants, especially, are not members of Christs Church in some way, not fully but disconnected way would to be deny the sacramental theology of Baptism...yes, no?

2. The Filique. This is not an issue. The Ukrainian Church as the Union of Brest dictates omits the Filique in the Nicene Creed. The Pope who is due to the division, patriarch of some eastern churches, not mine, but some, issued all eastern churches to become unlatinized, and be true to their identity---HENCE there is no filioque in CATHOLIC CHURCHES that are eastern. So it is not an issue

3. Original Sin v Ancestral Sin. I am glad you decided to indulge me on this because I find this to be so intriguing. We can quote church fathers against church fathers all day but the reality is dogmas expand---the seed of truth expands as issues arise---such as the Christology of our church when it faced nestorious, or arius. Pelagius challenged the idea of the sin of Adam, and Augustine answered it. I know you probably don't agree with Augustine, but his teachings are held in the catholic churches---and he is a mutual saint in our churches together.

Orginal sin as a stain, that needs removed via baptism, developed in the west beyond a mere sin that was not personal to us. I call it the post fall nature and prefill nature of mankind. Christ took upon a pre fall nature as Adam, was before his fall. The idea of the Immaculate Conception stems from this---and I do believe in some Orthodox areas is acceptable, not all. But this dogma of the church is definitely Western in origin and we can debate all day--but to declare original sin v ancestral sin a heretical divide is strong language---why? Because in essence---we both believe adam fell and we needed the redeemer WHO IS CHRIST, who took upon a human and divine nature to save us. How sin is transported or not, and how our nature is fallen is very speculative---and not truly dogmatic to the point where it must be a AGREEMENT OF FAITH to have full communion.

4. I would really like to see how Rome does not follow the apostolic traditions of faith? I am eastern and do not see this sister church as a betrayer of the faith--they profess the Nicene creed, they accept the sacraments--and the first ecumenical councils of the church

so im a little bewildered by this.

 

[Christiancounseling]

Again, I come not to offend my orthodox brothers and sister, and cosharers of our eastern traditions---whenever this discussion becomes overbearing, we can discuss our mutual loves of faith--as eastern christians

 

[Christiancounseling]

Maybe I can share one more story---in my own rite, in America, we are in the eparch of Parma-Ukrainian Catholic Church, and many of us share different values----one deacon preaches ancestral sin---I original sin. Others discuss immaculate conception.
Now some even discourage rosary but the pray rule of the theokokos. As Ukrainians we have a devotion to the rosary due to a Marian apparition in Ukraine. so its divided by those who wish to orthodoxize, or those who wish to maintain a healthy balance of our eastern catholic identity which is catholic but eastern.

But I was quite surprised when the deacon said he followed the ideas of ancestral sin, over original. This difference in thought is permitted to exist in the eastern churches who share communion with rome--and except for spiritual situations of great need--as in the past with Leo and his tome, etc, the roman pontiff has no authority to appoint our own bishops, we merely send them a letter acknowlding our decision. Some eastern churches without a patriarch however have been adopted by the pope of rome, but would be returned to the proper orthodox patriarch---

this is how we think and feel----I find it so amazing that there remains such a hard liner stance in some orthodox communities when the catholic church is ripe for reunification.....the west will always be the west, and we will always be the east---DIFFERENT, but expressing the same gospel

 

[GregConstantine]

"1. Baptism makes us members of the Mystical Body of Christ---full union is another matter, but to deny that Protestants, especially, are not members of Christs Church in some way, not fully but disconnected way would to be deny the sacramental theology of Baptism...yes, no?"

Yes, baptism is our entrance into the One Undivided Apostolic Church, from which Rome is in schism. Would it be to deny the sacramental theology, yes, because the sacraments are not found outside the One Undivided Apostolic Church.


"2. The Filique. This is not an issue. The Ukrainian Church as the Union of Brest dictates omits the Filique in the Nicene Creed. The Pope who is due to the division, patriarch of some eastern churches, not mine, but some, issued all eastern churches to become unlatinized, and be true to their identity---HENCE there is no filioque in CATHOLIC CHURCHES that are eastern. So it is not an issue"

Great! Then Rome in her parishes that follow the Western rite should stop reciting it and stop teaching it in her catechism!


"3. Original Sin v Ancestral Sin. I am glad you decided to indulge me on this because I find this to be so intriguing. We can quote church fathers against church fathers all day but the reality is dogmas expand---the seed of truth expands as issues arise---such as the Christology of our church when it faced nestorious, or arius. Pelagius challenged the idea of the sin of Adam, and Augustine answered it. I know you probably don't agree with Augustine, but his teachings are held in the catholic churches---and he is a mutual saint in our churches together.

Orginal sin as a stain, that needs removed via baptism, developed in the west beyond a mere sin that was not personal to us. I call it the post fall nature and prefill nature of mankind. Christ took upon a pre fall nature as Adam, was before his fall. The idea of the Immaculate Conception stems from this---and I do believe in some Orthodox areas is acceptable, not all. But this dogma of the church is definitely Western in origin and we can debate all day--but to declare original sin v ancestral sin a heretical divide is strong language---why? Because in essence---we both believe adam fell and we needed the redeemer WHO IS CHRIST, who took upon a human and divine nature to save us. How sin is transported or not, and how our nature is fallen is very speculative---and not truly dogmatic to the point where it must be a AGREEMENT OF FAITH to have full communion."

We could recite quotations from the fathers and what not all day, but we won't. Rather, we will focus on what the One Undivided Church has taught from the very beginning without change. And no, it is a dogmatic issue and full communion is dependent on it.


"4. I would really like to see how Rome does not follow the apostolic traditions of faith? I am eastern and do not see this sister church as a betrayer of the faith--they profess the Nicene creed, they accept the sacraments--and the first ecumenical councils of the church"

Papal Primacy, Papal Infalliability, Indulgences, Purgatory, Penal Substitutionary Atonement just to name a few reasons why some of the teachings of Rome are not Apostolic.


"so im a little bewildered by this."

You might be bewildered perhaps because you might be making certain assumptions that are false?

 

[ArmyMatt]

1. Baptism makes us members of the Mystical Body of Christ---full union is another matter, but to deny that Protestants, especially, are not members of Christs Church in some way, not fully but disconnected way would to be deny the sacramental theology of Baptism...yes, no?

no, Christ promised the fullness of baptism to the Body He started. if you leave that Body, you are no longer a member no matter what ritual you might perform. I don't deny that something can happen in a protestant or Catholic baptism, but they are not members of the Church of Christ.

2. The Filique. This is not an issue. The Ukrainian Church as the Union of Brest dictates omits the Filique in the Nicene Creed. The Pope who is due to the division, patriarch of some eastern churches, not mine, but some, issued all eastern churches to become unlatinized, and be true to their identity---HENCE there is no filioque in CATHOLIC CHURCHES that are eastern. So it is not an issue

is an issue. Roman Catholic councils condemn those who omit the filioque. ignoring history does not make it not an issue.

3. Original Sin v Ancestral Sin. I am glad you decided to indulge me on this because I find this to be so intriguing. We can quote church fathers against church fathers all day but the reality is dogmas expand---the seed of truth expands as issues arise---such as the Christology of our church when it faced nestorious, or arius. Pelagius challenged the idea of the sin of Adam, and Augustine answered it. I know you probably don't agree with Augustine, but his teachings are held in the catholic churches---and he is a mutual saint in our churches together.

true but for us mostly for his piety, not his theology. the totality of his life is Orthodox, even if his theology was not.

Orginal sin as a stain, that needs removed via baptism, developed in the west beyond a mere sin that was not personal to us. I call it the post fall nature and prefill nature of mankind. Christ took upon a pre fall nature as Adam, was before his fall. The idea of the Immaculate Conception stems from this---and I do believe in some Orthodox areas is acceptable, not all. But this dogma of the church is definitely Western in origin and we can debate all day--but to declare original sin v ancestral sin a heretical divide is strong language---why? Because in essence---we both believe adam fell and we needed the redeemer WHO IS CHRIST, who took upon a human and divine nature to save us. How sin is transported or not, and how our nature is fallen is very speculative---and not truly dogmatic to the point where it must be a AGREEMENT OF FAITH to have full communion.

yes it is because Original sin in the West says that we are born guilty of Adam's sin, not affected. to say that someone is guilty of the sin of another is wrong. the error of the Immaculate Conception is that if Christ assumed a humanity born guilty of Adam, than He is also born guilty. so His merits are applied to Mary before hand to remove her stain, so that He would not be born guilty of Adam. this begs the question, if God could do that for Mary, why not do it for everyone?

4. I would really like to see how Rome does not follow the apostolic traditions of faith? I am eastern and do not see this sister church as a betrayer of the faith--they profess the Nicene creed, they accept the sacraments--and the first ecumenical councils of the church

Papal universal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, Mary's Immaculate Conception, her assumption before death, transubstantiation (as defined in the West), the filioque, created grace, Limbo, Purgatory, indulgences, the Augustinian view of original sin, to name a few.

 

[Christiancounseling]

There is a lot to digest there my friends. I have had this discussions before in the same beautifl tone we are sharing. I would like to take a break and let my mind rest and maybe resume our discussion later---

Again, I am not here to convert for that would deny the beauty and truthfulness of the Orthodox churches as the church of Christ......its just you guys gotta understand your not the only kid on the block

have a blessed day, I look forward to if not finding common ground at least mutual love and respect for our churches

Glory to Jesus Christ

 

[ArmyMatt]

Then the crux of our issue between at least me and you is what you consider dogmatically binding, I find to be at the very best speculative in theology and not something Christ would expect his church to fight over--number one.

indeed, proof that union will not occur until Rome repents of what we deem heretical

Number two. The Western Church has a right to teach the filique as it sees fit--its a Trinitarian riddle at best, whether the holy spirit proceeds from the logos and father or just father is a foolish issue to fight about. it was then, it is now.

no they don't, it contradicts the councils (which said all manner and teaching on the Holy Spirit is full and complete), and earlier Popes (like John VIII who said anyone who used it was excommunicated).

3. And baptism makes you an heir to heaven, a child of God, and restores the soul to original beauty----it applies the sacrifice of the cross----it does not need to be done in an orthodox church, it can be done by anyone who supplies the intent to baptize, with the acceptance of the idnvidual---these are rare cases and should be done in church--but baptism is not something unique and only for sale in orthodoxy but for all who profess Christ. we all become members of the church when we are baptized, whether we seek full unity or not, is another story---we must belong to the apostolic church for all the sacraments and graces

I would love to see anything in Scripture that supports that idea.

and.... allow my catholic side to come out---there is plenty apostolic and early church instances when rome showed papal primacy in matters of theology, and showed to the early church how she was spared from error---PETER HAS SPOKEN THROUGH LEO they chanted!

right, after his tome was scrutinized by the other Fathers. just because he may have spoken through St Leo, that does not mean he would always speak through a Pope. like Vigilius who was excommunicated at the Second Council or Honorius who was named a Monothelite heretic.

Finally, Purgatory---this is taught in orthodoxy---they have spoken about it in many other forums but it appears they have different interpretations of it. Again, the issue is speculative--not an outward denial as found in Protestantism

no, read St Mark of Ephasus or more modern Met Heirotheos Vlachos. there is no Purgatory.

But you are entitled to your opinion if many of these doctrines are deal breakers for union. I whole heartedly disagree, and assure you they are not---and I also assure you that you would see a different rome in a unified church---she would be first among equals as her ancient title demands but she would not have authority over the other churches---like you fear.

if that were truly the case she would reject having jurisdictional authority over the whole Church and would only be commemorated in her own jurisdiction, like the EP is today.

We see the pope greet the patriarchs as brothers, equals, not bishops appointed by himself

which is great for a photo op, but does nothing for actual understanding between the Church and Rome.

 

[ArmyMatt]

its just you guys gotta understand your not the only kid on the block

we know, but you gotta understand we are the only Church of Christ on the block.

have a blessed day, I look forward to if not finding common ground at least mutual love and respect for our churches

we are down with the mutual love and respect. there are many aspects of Rome that I have great admiration for. her theology and adherence to the Faith of the Apostles are not among them.

 

[Lukaris]

I have a tendency to just nod and smile when Roman or Eastern Catholics tend to think we are in communion. Since I know we cannot commune, at least from our end, then its a settled issue. Nonetheless, I am most hopeful for our reconciliation in the heavenly kingdom as long as individuals we work out our salvation with fear & trembling.

 

[truefiction1]

The Roman and Eastern Catholics here where I live have paved parking lots, as opposed to no parking lot, and they also have air conditioning! They also have plentius good voices to sing and to read, which would make my worship experience much easier and more pleasant. It is tempting to go where life would be, in some ways, better. But then, I wouldn't real if I did, would I? No, I wouldn't be true.