Eastern Orthodox

[BeenaBobba]

Excellent posts, Apotheoun! I think you hit the nail right on the head with your descriptions.

God bless,

Jen

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 11 2004, 06:53 PM'] "Really? I thought some Eastern Churches really like don't mind us. According to that New Advent link I posted, some people don't like us (the Roman Catholics), but there are some relations going on. By Eastern Orthodox, does that include/refer to the Greek Orthodox?"

The Eastern Orthodox generally do not like Eastern Catholics, and see Eastern Catholics as [i]latinized[/i] heretics. They normally call us by the pejorative term [i]uniates[/i], because they hold that we have sold out to the Pope, and that we are no longer truly eastern in our spiritual customs and theology.

As far the second question is concerned, yes, the Greek Orthodox Church is an autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Church, as is the Russian Orthodox Church (which is divided into several Churches at the present moment), the Romanian Orthodox Church, etc. [/quote]
Sadly, last Fall, I had discussions with Orthodox Christians who refuse to even call Eastern Catholics "Eastern Catholics." Instead, they insisted on calling Eastern Catholics "Byzantine Roman Catholics," despite my telling them (numerous times) that this isn't accurate. Not all Orthodox Christians are like that, though.

God bless,

Jen

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 11 2004, 05:18 PM'] As far as it concerns the Immaculate Conception, the Eastern Orthodox deny this dogma because they have a mistaken notion of what the Catholic Church teaches about original sin. They generally confuse the Calvinist view of original sin with the Catholic dogma of original sin, but the Catholic Church has never taught that man is [i]depraved[/i] after the fall, quite the contrary the Catholic Church has always taught that man lost nothing essential to his nature in the fall; instead, he lost the supernatural gift of sanctifying (i.e., deifying) grace and the preternatural gifts of [i]infused knowledge[/i], [i]immortality[/i], [i]impassibility[/i], and [i]integrity[/i]. Thus, original sin is not a positive existing element or quality in the nature of the human person, it is instead the absence of sanctyfing grace in the soul. [/quote]
As I understand it the Catholic Church does teach that man is depraved after the fall, since original sin is the cause of concupiscence; the conflict with Calvinism is a matter of total depravity versus partial depravity.

[Apotheoun]

[quote]As I understand it the Catholic Church does teach that man is depraved after the fall, since original sin is the cause of concupiscence; the conflict with Calvinism is a matter of total depravity versus partial depravity.[/quote]


On the contrary, it is the Protestant Reformers who taught this, and the Catholic Church has never subscribed to this view of human nature after the fall. The Reformers confused man's nature (i.e., his natural faculties, capacities, and constituent qualities) with the supernatural grace originally bestowed gratuitously upon Adam. What Adam lost in the fall, was not natural to him; instead, he lost the superadded gifts of [i]sanctifying grace[/i], which is a supernatural participation in God's life and being, and the [i]preternatural gifts[/i] of [i]immortality[/i], [i]impassibility[/i], [i]infused knowledge[/i], and [i]integrity[/i]. Now it is proper to say that the loss of these gifts [i]wounded[/i] his nature, in that they added to the perfection of his existence, but it would be incorrect to say that he lost a component part or an essential element of his nature as man. [cf., [u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u], nos. 404-405] Thus it is wrong to say that human nature is depraved after the fall. As Fr. B. V. Miller pointed out in his essay on original sin, "The truth of the matter is both simpler and pleasanter. Adam indeed lost, by his sin, all his supernatural and preternatural gifts, but did not lose anything belonging to his nature as man." [Fr. George D. Smith, editor, [u]The Teaching of the Catholic Church[/u], (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1949), from the essay on "The Fall of Man and Original Sin," by Fr. B. V. Miller, volume 1, page 333] This distinction is important to bear in mind, first, because to say that he lost something essential to his nature as man, is the equivalent of saying that after the fall he is no longer truly human. Second, if man had lost something essential to his nature in the fall, then it would follow that original sin itself would in some sense become a positive existing quality in man, and this also is false, because original sin is simply the privation of sanctifying grace and the loss of the preternatural gifts. To hold that sin is a positive existing reality ultimately makes God the cause of sin, because He alone is the cause of everything that has essential existence. Finally, if original sin destroyed human nature, as the Reformers erroneously asserted, it would make, as I indicated above, sin and evil in some sense essential qualities of human nature after the fall, and as a consequence, sin itself would become natural to man. But sin is by definition unnatural, because it is disordered in its proper end, and thus sin and evil have no real essential existence, but are simply the relative absence of the good in the will of creature. [cf., St. Gregory of Nyssa, [u]The Great Catechism[/u], chapters 5-6] To say otherwise, makes God the cause of sin, and this is clearly false because God is all good and He never positively wills sin, but only permits it.

As far as concupiscence is concerned, it is simply a disordered inclination, and so it has no real existence. It is a consequence of the loss of the preternatural gift of [i]integrity[/i], and so again, it is not something essential to man's nature, but is a privation of a superadded gift given to Adam contingently at the time of his creation. Catholic doctrine does not hold that man is depraved or partially depraved, but only that his nature is [i]wounded[/i] in its natural faculties because of the loss of the preternatural gifts, which were intended to perfect and elevate his nature to a type of existence that exceeded its natural capacities.

Clearly, man can never attain the beatific vision through his own natural abilities, but can only receive the gift of [i]theosis[/i] and enter into the presence of the Trinity by the unmerited grace of God. But this truth does not require that we hold that man is essentially depraved after the fall, or that he has lost something belonging to his nature as man; instead, it requires that we understand that salvation is an unmerited gift of God, whereby man is elevated to a type of existence that exceeds his nature, and which is truly supernatural, because it involves man's participation in the divine nature. [cf., 2nd Peter 1:4]

Edited June 12, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Hananiah]

Alright, thanks for the clarification. When I heard terms such as man's "wounded nature" and the "stain of original sin" I interpreted that as partial depravity.

[Pope Saint Pius V]

As to the above question of lifting the mutual excommunications, one can only shake his head. First, the Orthodox have no authority from Christ and thus no authority to excommunicate the Roman Pontiff, nor do they have any authority to lift excommunications. Second, as one wise priest of a certain international society of priests put it, "The altars of Constantinople are set against the altars of Rome." Why Paul VI decided to make "ecumenical" concessions, I mean gestures is beyond me. The gestures have only served to lessen credibility with the world and even with the Orthodox. All of the concessions we have made to the schismatics, including giving them the venerable head of St. Andrew, have only strengthened them in their resolve against Christ's true Church. Let's pray for an end to the nonsense and a return to sound Catholic thought, in which affirmations of the Orthodox as "sister churches" will be nothing but a distant memory.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Not to sound uncharitable, this "wise priest" sounds more like a bloodlusting soldier. Thank God Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles did not take the same view when they argued. We have not "conceeded" anything to them, though we have certainly been ecumenical to them, and thank God for it. Our Holy Father is wise to see that gaps such as these need mending over further tearing and bridging over further widening.

We will not "set our altars against" anyone. We will open them to everyone who wishes to come home, and we will encourage them, with faith and love, to do just that.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Chrysologus]

I wonder if this "international society of priests" would be the Society of St. Pius X...

How come Hananiah and others got "Hello, I do not rep. the Church" labels, but Pope Saint Pius V hasn't?

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jun 11 2004, 06:10 AM'] (I've even read of some who allow abortion in rare cases where the mother's life is in danger. ) [/quote]
Yeah, they should have made them both die...

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Jun 11 2004, 06:12 AM'] I do have a general question, though. I read that in 1965 Pope Paul VI and the Ecunemical Patriarch of Constantinople reversed the excommunications of 1054. Is this true, and if so, what does this mean for Catholic-Orthodox relations? [/quote]
It means the Pope won't burn down Constantinople again

[conservativecatholic]

[quote]Ecuminism is to bring those who have fallen away from the Church back to unity in Orthodoxy... The Orthodox Church is the repository of the fullness of the Truth, which was given to Her on the day of Holy Pentecost. [/quote]

This quote I found on a reputable Eastern Orthodox website truly bothers me. Pentecost commemorates the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, fifty days after the Resurrection of Christ- not the establishment of Eastern Orthodoxy. Christ gave Peter the power to lead the Church on Earth, in which he did, from Rome-not Constantinople. I have deep respect for the Orthodox and their fabulous traditions; however, their inability to accept the institution of the papacy does not make me feel very warm inside. Ecuminism is key to healing the schism which was caused by the East 1,000 years ago, but the Orthodox claim that Catholics should return to the True Church of Orthodoxy. That is [u]not[/u] ecuminism. That is conversion and I will never leave my Catholic faith.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Many Eastern Orthodox espouse the idea that it is we who split from them. This is, of course, inconsistant with the facts, due to their rejection of the beliefs of their own "Fathers" such as St.s Athanasius, Anthony, and many others, all of whom supported the supremacy of the successor of Peter.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 7 2004, 02:33 PM'] Not to sound uncharitable, this "wise priest" sounds more like a bloodlusting soldier. Thank God Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles did not take the same view when they argued. [/quote]
They did. St. Peter told Jews that "there is only one name under heaven by which men are saved." St. Paul told heretics that "you have been cut off from Christ, and severed from grace." They always called a spade a spade. We need to do the same with the Eastern Orthodox.

"Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ... Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Boniface VIII, [i]Unam Sanctam[/i], 1302)

Edited July 8, 2004 by Hananiah

[Archbishop 10-K]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='Jul 7 2004, 05:55 PM'] It means the Pope won't burn down Constantinople again [/quote]
When did the Pope ever burn down Consantinople? Last time I checked, Pope Innocent III excommunicated the Crusaders who went against the Pope's orders and DID burn down Constantinople......