Orthodox Belief

[KnightofChrist]

[quote]QUOTE(KnightofChrist @ Mar 15 2007, 04:47 PM) *
It would seem not all orthodox are agreed. If one Orthodox Church believes Mary was sinless from "the moment of her conception", and another Orthodox Church believes "she was born with the same fallen nature" of Adam, that would seem to be a conflict.[/quote][quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1214267' date='Mar 15 2007, 05:51 PM']
Read it inside of the right context, all orthodox agree. You can't just quote selective sentences [as you did with the article below when you just quoted the second paragraph but not the first], you have to put it inside of the right context.
Reza[/quote]

Forgive me but please explain to me how one Orthodox says Mary was born with the sinful nature of Adam, and another says she was sinless from the moment of conception. How is this not a conflict? How could the Theotokos be both sinless from conception, and yet still be born with the sinful nature of Adam?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1214275' date='Mar 15 2007, 05:04 PM']The problem with the Orthodox believers is that there is no central leadership like the Catholic Church has with the Pope and the Holy See.[/quote] Actually this is false, just as the Roman's have a Pope or Patriarch, so does the Orthodox Churches.

His Holiness Pope Shenounda III - Coptic Orthodox Patriarch
His Holiness Moran Mor Ignatios Zakka I - Syriac Orthodox Patriarch

The problem is that you're over simplifying and just don't understand the history of the church. Back before the Great Schism, there were 4 Holy Sees [Rites], North [Eastern Orthodox], East [Syriac], West [Roman], South [Coptic]. These were 4 different jurisdictions, the Roman is just but a single one of them.

[quote]Moreover, many doctrines are not “dogmatic” in their belief and not very clearly defined, leading to doctrinal dissent and disagreement.[/quote]This is wrong, as a matter of fact, at the time that the church was united [prior to the Great Schism] the other churches used to look to the Copts to calculate Easter and the Calender, the most advanced theological school was located in Egypt and was Coptic, the Father of Monisticism was Coptic Orthodox, and the church always has had an official position on doctrine. As a matter of fact, we're very "dogmatic" with our beliefs, just that you don't know much about our doctrines to comment on them, nor our history.

[quote]But the Orthodox does have a strong commonality of belief which for most cases is sufficient but there is much disagreement on many theological issues.[/quote] As there has been in the roman world.

[quote]Because of this one Orthodox can reject that the Blessed Virgin is sinless, another can claim this happened at the coming of the Angel, another can claim it happened at the conception of our Blessed Lord, and still another can claim she was always sinless. [/quote]The problem is that you don't understand [and havn't taken the time to understand] the Orthodox official position, which always has been but have gone on your own tangent about this issue. The truth is that you won't find a single orthodox agree with the Roman position on St. Mary's immaculate conception [as the Romans affirm].

Wikipedia and every other source that actually understands Orthodoxy [and has done the research] affirm that Orthodox don't subscribe to the Roman position, if you can't acept this, then that's your choice.

[quote]All Orthodox are agreed that Mary was born with the same fallen human nature that we all share in Adam's fallen condition. By this confession we Orthodox Christians reject the Roman dogma of the "Immaculate Conception." This Roman teaching, dogmatized at the First Vatican Council (presided over by Pope Pius IX, in 1854), holds that Mary was conceived in the womb of her parents, Joachim & Anna, in a miraculous way such that she was kept from the stain of "original sin and guilt." The Roman Church (and all the Protestant churches that sprang from her in the sixteenth and following centuries) all hold that all human beings are born with the stain of Adam's guilt. We are born personally guilty for Adam's original transgression. This was the teaching of Augustine of Hippo (died AD 430) who would prove to be enormously influential in all of Western Christendom, whether Roman or Reformed. This teaching about "original sin/guilt" posed a problem for Roman theology in that it was Mary who gave humanity to our Lord Jesus Christ, thus our Lord would have been born with this "original sin/guilt." If this were the case He could not be the sinless lamb of God who could offer Himself up on our behalf. Thus the Roman Church escaped this dilemma by teaching that Mary was not born with the same fallen and guilty humanity with which we are born. She was proleptically kept from the stain of "original sin/guilt" by the grace of her Son. The Orthodox Fathers and the Orthodox Church as a whole have always taught that we are all born with a fallen, weakened, "death-bound" mortal nature inherited from Adam but that we are not born with Adam's personal guilt. Thus Mary was born with the same fallen, mortal nature that we all share and it was precisely this fallen humanity that she gave to God the Son! If this were not so He could not have healed our fallen condition. As the Holy Fathers repeatedly stated, "That which God the Son did not assume in His Incarnation is not healed." By assuming our fallen nature and uniting it to His divine nature God has healed our fallen condition and set us free from sin and death! Thus the Orthodox Church has rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception since it is not the consensus of the Tradition and since it is not logically necessary. None of us are born with Adam's personal guilt, including Mary. Therefore there is simply no need for an immaculate conception of the Theotokos. If this is what one means when asking whether Orthodox Christians believe in the sinlessness of Mary then we must answer, "no."

But that is not the end of the story! On the point of the purity of the Theotokos in the sense of her sinlessness all Orthodox are agreed that she is consecrated and holy in that God Himself has dwelt in her womb. She is called the Theotokos (bearer or birth-giver of God) and therefore the Panagia ("all-holy one" This follows from the biblical principle that wherever God dwells is holy. The Tabernacle and the later Temple, as well as the Ark of the Covenant, are all examples of this principle. These are all "set apart" from common use in the biblical Tradition by the fact that God graciously dwelt in them. In Scriptural logic whatever God touches or indwells is "set apart" from common use, which is the meaning of the word "holy." To be holy is to be set apart from common use for the indwelling of God Himself. In this sense the Virgin Mary was set apart, "holy," because God Himself dwelt within her womb. This is precisely why the Holy Church insisted on the title of "Theotokos," or "the one who bore God Himself in her womb" against the heretical denial of this title to Mary on the part of the Patriarch Nestorius. Nestorius taught that the person in Mary's womb was not God Himself but rather simply a being who was somehow united to God. Thus for the Nestorians Mary could be called "anthropotokos," or "bearer of a man," or even "christotokos," the "bearer of the Messiah," but not "Theotokos," the "bearer of God." Against Nestorius the Holy Church at the Third Ecumenical Council (AD 431) responded that if God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, did not take our flesh in the womb of the Theotokos then we are still in our sins and cannot be brought into saving union with God through her Son. It follows naturally by biblical logic that the one in whom God Himself dwelt is "holy." If this is what one means by asking whether Orthodox Christians believe in the sinlessness of Mary then we would answer, "Yes!"[/quote]

Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1214282' date='Mar 15 2007, 05:11 PM']Forgive me but please explain to me how one Orthodox says Mary was born with the sinful nature of Adam, and another says she was sinless from the moment of conception. How is this not a conflict? How could the Theotokos be both sinless from conception, and yet still be born with the sinful nature of Adam?[/quote]

It has to do with putting it in the right context. First you've got to define the different kinds of sin. There's the sinful nature of Adam but then there is sins that we make choices to commit. St. Mary didn't sin in regards to sins that were deliberately made, but she was subject to the sinful nature of Adam inherently [as the article says more elaborately].

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

I found this to be very informative... [url="http://www.ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/articles/catholic/holymother.htm"]SOURCE[/url]

[quote][b]The Immaculate Conception: The Holiness of the Mother of God in East and West[/b]

Dr. Alexander Roman alex.roman@unicorne.org

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, proclaimed by Rome as an article of the Catholic faith in the 19th century, has long been an additional point of disagreement between East and West on the subject of Mariology or the theological study of the role of Mary. In what way is this so and what are the possibilities for overcoming the difficulties here?

The Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception itself affirms that the Mother of God, from the moment of her Conception in the womb of St Anne, was preserved free of the “stain of Original Sin.” In other words, she who was called to assume the great role in salvation history as the Mother of the Divine Word Incarnate and the Ark of the New Covenant was prevented from contracting the sin of Adam.

The foundation of this definition is and always has been the resolution of the issue of: a) the fact that all have fallen in Adam and: b) how can the Mother of Christ, from whose very flesh the Son of God fashioned a Body for Himself by which we are saved and sanctified, ever be said to have been a subject of sin?

St Augustine of Hippo himself, when commenting on Original Sin, affirmed that the Mother of God must always be excluded from any such consideration to begin with. But it was only later with the Blessed John Duns Scotus, the Franciscan theologian, that the theological reasoning behind this view was worked out: The Virgin Mary was preserved free from Original Sin because the FUTURE merits of Christ’s passion and death were applied to her at her conception.

By the seventh century, the Byzantine East was celebrating the feast of the Conception of Saint Anne. This festival was first adopted in the West by the English Church from whence it soon spread elsewhere. It is still to be found in the calendar of the Anglican Church.

The West, however, was divided on whether the Mother of God could be said to have been conceived without Original Sin. St Thomas Aquinas and others, in fact, replied to this question in the negative and one could be a Latin Catholic in good standing while denying the Immaculate Conception.

However, even before this theological position was proclaimed as a binding dogma on all Catholics by Rome, there was strong, local devotion to it throughout the Catholic world centuries before.

Religious associations organized to honour the Immaculate Conception abounded in the Middle Ages and later. They wore a medal similar to the Miraculous Medal of more recent times, invoked the Virgin as the “Immaculate Mother” and even took the “bloody vow” or a vow to defend to the death her Immaculate Conception.

Even some Catholic empires proclaimed the Immaculate Conception as a dogma to be held by all their faithful subjects.

We know that the Spanish Empire did so and anyone who was a subject of the Spanish king was obliged to accept the Immaculate Conception. The Church, built by the Spaniards, in New Orleans, Louisiana is a mute testimony to the local proclamation of this dogma by the Spanish Church.

The Immaculate Conception also came to be reverenced in Orthodox countries, especially during the height of the Baroque period in the Kyivan Church and also by Greeks, as Father John Meyendorff has shown.

The Ukrainian Saint Demetrius of Rostov, for example, belonged to an Orthodox Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception (for which he was called before an Orthodox Synod to give account).

St Demetrius and others of his day prayed the rosary, recited the Hail Mary at the turn of each hour, the Little Office of the Virgin Mary and even the Psalter of the Mother of God composed by St Bonaventure. His “Easternized” prayer in honour of the Sorrows of the Mother of God survives in many Orthodox prayerbooks today as the “Tale of the Five Prayers!”

(The rosary known as the “rule of prayer of the Mother of God” was likewise prayed throughout by Orthodox Christians, especially by St Seraphim of Sarov whose main icon of the Mother of God was actually a Western picture of Our Lady of the Annunciation, known today as “Our Lady, Joy of all Joys” and is among the most popular icons of the Theotokos in Russia.)

The Kyivan Orthodox Brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception likewise took the bloody vow and produced Western-style depictions of Our Lady of Grace and their invocation was, “Most Immaculate Theotokos, save us!” This was a play on the “Panaghia” or “All-Holy” invocation to the Virgin Mary that is a refrain in so many liturgical services (“All Holy Theotokos, save us!”)

Some of the icons themselves came to be venerated as Orthodox miraculous icons as Professor Poselianin shows in his magnum opus, “Bogomater” (“The Immaculate Mother” as one example, although a copy of this icon is not included).

The website of the Orthodox Church in America likewise affirms that the icon for the feast of the Conception of St Anne in Orthodoxy depicts the Mother of God very much as the Western picture of Our Lady of Grace, with hands stretched downwards and standing on a globe etc.

Despite the acceptance of this doctrine in certain Orthodox circles, the fact remains that the doctrine itself was not acceptable to the Eastern Churches. Very often, Roman Catholic commentators have attacked Orthodoxy for refusing to accept this doctrine for, otherwise, this must mean that Orthodox Christians believe the unspeakable – that the Mother of God was conceived in and contracted Original Sin . . .

The crux of the matter here lies, however, not in a disagreement over Mary’s total sinlessness and holiness from her Conception.

In fact, the East does indeed affirm Mary’s All-holiness in its liturgical tradition. The liturgical celebration, and that from early times, of the Conception of St Anne ALREADY means that the Mother of God was a saint at her Conception and was sanctified by the Spirit as the Temple of the Most Holy Trinity – only feasts of saints may be celebrated, after all!

(The same holds true for John the Baptist, whose Conception is ALSO celebrated in the calendar of the Orthodox Church.)

So both East and West already affirm Mary to be All-Holy and Ever-Immaculate.

What is the problem then?

The problem is in the thorny issue of Original Sin and the way in which it has been understood in the West, taking its cue, as it does, from Saint Augustine.

For the Christian East, Original Sin does not totally ravage human nature. Adam’s personal sin resulted in death for all his descendants, the experience of concupiscence and the darkening of the mind that makes us subject to temptation etc.

So if Mary died, then she had indeed been subject to the effects of Original Sin i.e. she could not be said to have been conceived without it.

But by her great sanctification at her Conception and at other times in her life (Annunciation, Pentecost, Dormition/Assumption) God deemed to bestow on His Temple, the Ark of the New Covenant, the fullness of His Gifts of Grace.

And so, the effects of Original Sin, while not completely taken away from Mary, were mitigated in an exemplary way.’

Thus, she suffered no pain when she gave birth to Christ and her passing into eternal life was but a gentle falling asleep (or “Dormition”). Furthermore, she was taken in body and soul to Heaven by Her Son as her body was not to experience corruption. And she continues to grow in holiness in heaven as holiness is a dynamic, rather than static, thing.

So, for the East, when the West affirmed that the Mother of God was conceived without Original Sin, this implied that she did not die – something the East had always believed as its liturgical tradition (“lex orandi, lex credendi”) bore out.

But today the West understands the “stain of Original Sin” in a way that would be compatible with the view of the East. Perhaps this was all a misunderstanding that was artificially maintained across centuries by ill-will on both sides – who can know for sure?

And the West does not deny that the Mother of God was under the effects of Original Sin, even though her great holiness mitigated greatly her experience of these.

Ultimately, a mutual agreement on this issue would centre on the matter of a common and clear definition concerning Original Sin.

It would also have to be based on whether Rome’s definition of the Immaculate Conception, rooted in a form of Augustinianism as it is, cannot be adapted to a more ecumenical perspective that would be open to Eastern theological/patristic viewpoints.

Certainly, there could be no question that the East would ever need to adopt the IC dogma, given the fact that the matter of the All-holiness of the Mother of God was never a point of disagreement in the East and that the dogma itself is the product of a purely Western theological paradigm.

Apart from the dogmas of the Divine Maternity and Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God, as defined by the Councils, the East prefers to keep all else concerning the Virgin Mary as part of its own intense, inner liturgical piety towards her.

As the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom sings of Mary:

“Having commemorated our Most Holy, Most Pure, Most Blessed and Glorious Sovereign Mother of God and Every-Virgin Mary, with all the Saints, let us give offer ourselves and one another unto Christ our God!”[/quote]

Edited March 16, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[N/A Gone]

[quote]79. It is already possible to identify the areas in need of fuller study before a true consensus of faith can be achieved:
[b]1)[/b] the relationship between Sacred Scripture, as the highest authority in matters of faith, and Sacred Tradition, as indispensable to the interpretation of the Word of God;
[b]2)[/b] the Eucharist, as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, an offering of praise to the Father, the sacrificial memorial and Real Presence of Christ and the sanctifying outpouring of the Holy Spirit;
[b]3)[/b] Ordination, as a Sacrament, to the threefold ministry of the episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate;
[b]4)[/b] the Magisterium of the Church, entrusted to the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him, understood as a responsibility and an authority exercised in the name of Christ for teaching and safeguarding the faith;
[b]5)[/b] the Virgin Mary, as Mother of God and Icon of the Church, the spiritual Mother who intercedes for Christ's disciples and for all humanity.[/quote]

Ut Unum Sint, when speaking about the unitfied Church mentions these principles. WHat is the status on catholic/orthodox discussion here?

[Mr.Cat]

With all due respect while Orthodox (among the versions of Orthodoxy) there is nothing similar to the Papacy, unless you are claiming one of your Bishops has the Primacy and Supremacy having such ministry of infallibility chiefly in matters of faith and morality? Also while there is a central leadership it does not hold the same authority as one would find in the Catholic Church. Unless one can prove otherwise…

Dogmatic Law proposes that it is required belief by all the faithful and while the Orthodox does have structured belief, it is not required by all the Orthodox faithful such as Dogmatic Law. You claimed even yourself that many doctrines such as the True Presence are not heavily defined as they are in the Catholic Church. Likewise, the issue of the Immaculate Conception and the Sinless state of the Blessed Virgin is not a dogmatic issue even though there is much writing about it (mostly in the affirmative). So it is not the accusation that Orthodox have no dogmatic laws but rather that there are not as many or as defined as they are in the Catholic faith. Unless one can prove otherwise…

I have quoted the Eastern Orthodox theology and I have even quoted several places. I have even quoted what you have quoted to show what they have stated, but every time you keep saying we do not understand what the whole of doctrine says because we are “Romans” and we cannot understand. I am not the only one to quote something to show you that the Orthodox does propose the belief in the sinless state of the Blessed Virgin. Unless one can prove otherwise…

If you read back I quoted from “Wikipedia” and I even then quoted from the Orthodox “Wikipedia”. I have not seen a single thread of evidence against this proposal except, for what I have mentioned far before you mentioned it, that there is a difference in the theology of original sin.

RezaLemmyng the next time you want to give me one of your lectures on arrogance and ignorance, please read your own posts. I think the fact that there are plenty of other Catholics proposing the same arguments as myself and the fact that the quotes already on this topic supporting what I wrote, I think that there is plenty of room to say that I am being very reasonable. You although have quite an aversion to me so anything I say you will take negatively. So I await your next response to my post so this can be proven... Because nothing I have said is very offending and nothing I have said is wrong, because I have researched into this subject this is the reason I started the topic. To understand the orthodox viewpoint, one that you have repeatedly failed to give any evidence or explanation of, who is being unreasonable? The one who asks for clarification giving quotes and explanation? Or the one in that same context who gives no quotes, little explanation, accuses everyone of offending his beliefs, and then claiming that the Romans simply don’t understand.

[KnightofChrist]

This was to be in bold, but I did not.


[quote][b]So, for the East, when the West affirmed that the Mother of God was conceived without Original Sin, this implied that she did not die – something the East had always believed as its liturgical tradition (“lex orandi, lex credendi”) bore out.

[u]But today the West understands the “stain of Original Sin” in a way that would be compatible with the view of the East.[/u] Perhaps this was all a misunderstanding that was artificially maintained across centuries by ill-will on both sides – who can know for sure?

[u]And the West does not deny that the Mother of God was under the effects of Original Sin, even though her great holiness mitigated greatly her experience of these.[/u][/b][/quote]


This is what I meant by saying that it would seem some Orthodox are close to the Catholic Church understanding of the sinlessness of Mary. This Orthodox seems to even hint at that we are in agreement.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1214423' date='Mar 16 2007, 12:03 AM']This was to be in bold, but I did not.
This is what I meant by saying that it would seem some Orthodox are close to the Catholic Church understanding of the sinlessness of Mary. This Orthodox seems to even hint at that we are in agreement.[/quote]
Alexander Roman is Ukrainian Catholic.

[Anomaly]

Apotheoun,
Slightly off topic, but PhatMass has deemed it fitting to not allow 'Seperated Bretheren' to have Instant Message or e-Mail capablilites. I've read your profile and have a sense of you thought process from your posts.
What is your opinion regarding the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome becoming to mean both the Supremacy, Infallible Alone Bishopric?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1214517' date='Mar 16 2007, 10:20 AM']Alexander Roman is Ukrainian Catholic.[/quote]


Ah I see that now. Its what I get for assuming... Yet this Ukrainian Orthodox Church must agree with what he has written like wise Roman's work would not be on their website.

[N/A Gone]

I am excited to get his answer

[theculturewarrior]

Reza:

I understand that the Orthodox have Patriarchs, and even that the Coptic Pope has gone by that title for longer than the Roman Pope. The difference is that while both Orthodox and Catholics have Patriarchs (we have them too), the Catholic Church has a sort of Patriarch of Patriarchs, who is the definitive word on all questions of faith and practice, and for this reason, there is more agreement on matters of doctrine among Catholics than Orthodox. I say this not to tout superiority. There is something to be said for diversity.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' post='1214635' date='Mar 16 2007, 02:28 PM']Reza:

I understand that the Orthodox have Patriarchs, and even that the Coptic Pope has gone by that title for longer than the Roman Pope. The difference is that while both Orthodox and Catholics have Patriarchs (we have them too), the Catholic Church has a sort of Patriarch of Patriarchs, who is the definitive word on all questions of faith and practice, and for this reason, there is more agreement on matters of doctrine among Catholics than Orthodox. I say this not to tout superiority. There is something to be said for diversity.[/quote]

Though I wouldn't agree that the Roman Pope is the "patriarch of patriarchs", I like your genuine post and comment with a more clear understanding the the previous posters that know nothing about the original 4 rites, and their patriarchs. I respect the Roman Pope Greatly, even though I [as the other Copts] disagree with a great amount of the doctrine of the Roman Church.

See here's the issue: All 4 of the original rites [Sees] are Catholic, though we greatly disagree. Alot of people use the word "Catholic" as if it only applies to Rome but the truth is that it applies to Antioch, Egypt and Constantinople. There is more agreement between Antioch, Egypt and Constantinople then there is between Rome and Antioch, Egypt and Constantinople.

For those that don't agree about the history of the original 4 rites, you should really study your church history more and the Apostles after Jesus left this earth. St. Mark traveled to Egypt and was the Bishop/patriarch of Egypt, which became one of the rites [the southern See], as the other Apostles traveled yonder to establish the other Sees and spread Christ to the 4 corners of the earth.

I'm not going to address Cat because she frequently misquotes Orthodox writings that she doesn't get directly from the Diocese, refuses to read them within context [which results in being a waste of my time], interprets them as she sees fit, uses insulting labels and terminology in reference to Orthodox but gets her underwear in a grunge if anyone does this same behavior to Romans, she doesn't attempt to understand Orthodox doctrine but simply is attempting to slander it, as she still states that Orthodox believe something that they don't [as anyone that doesn't believe me, can go and visit any Orthodox Church in this whole world and find the truth that I've stated here to be the truth and her heretical claimis regarding Orthodox to be wrong].
Reza

Edited March 16, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1214598' date='Mar 16 2007, 01:10 PM']Ah I see that now. Its what I get for assuming... Yet this Ukrainian Orthodox Church must agree with what he has written like wise Roman's work would not be on their website.[/quote]
Just because something is posted on a particular website it does not follow that the owner of the site agrees with everything that is said in the posts (or articles); take Phatmass for example: Dust clearly agrees with much of what is posted here, but he certainly does not agree with it all.

Now, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Churches because they do not conceive the fall of Adam in the same way that St. Augustine did, and the Augustinian viewpoint has dominated Western thought for nearly 1,500 years. That said, as far as Eastern Christians are concerned, there is no "stain" of sin on anyone when they are born; instead, all men are born mortal (i.e., subject to a principle of death), and it is mortality that eventually causes human beings to sin, because they try to maintain their temporal existence and lose sight of the true good in the process.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - For more information on the Eastern Christian understanding of [i]the original sin[/i], go back to page one of this thread and read the text I posted from Fr. John Meyendorff's book entitled, "Byzantine Theology."

Click the link in order to read the text from "[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65507&view=findpost&p=1212104"]Byzantine Theology[/url]."

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Apotheoun,
How does an Eastern Catholic view the term "original sin" in the text of magisterial documents? How do you reconcile Eastern theology to these statements to which assent must be given? Not a debate or a disagreement, just trying to learn.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1214732' date='Mar 16 2007, 08:29 PM']Just because something is posted on a particular website it does not follow that the owner of the site agrees with everything that is said in the posts (or articles); take Phatmass for example: Dust clearly agrees with much of what is posted here, but he certainly does not agree with it all.

Now, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Churches because they do not conceive the fall of Adam in the same way that St. Augustine did, and the Augustinian viewpoint has dominated Western thought for nearly 1,500 years. That said, as far as Eastern Christians are concerned, there is no "stain" of sin on anyone when they are born; instead, all men are born mortal (i.e., subject to a principle of death), and it is mortality that eventually causes human beings to sin, because they try to maintain their temporal existence and lose sight of the true good in the process.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - For more information on the Eastern Christian understanding of [i]the original sin[/i], go back to page one of this thread and read the text I posted from Fr. John Meyendorff's book entitled, "Byzantine Theology."[/quote]

Yes but unlike Phatmass which is a form were any person can post nearly anything they wish is quite different than the setup over at this Ukrainian Orthodox Church website, Dr. Alexander Roman is part of their "team", he is speaking for the "team" and has "contributed a large number of articles which are on this site."

I find it doubtful that he would be allowed to speak for the team if what he says is not what they wish to say. If you notice on the "about us" page Roman is listed second to Archpriest Ihor George Kutash. Roman undoubtedly has a very respected place on this site, he is allowed to teach and speak for this Ukrainian Orthodox Church on the matters of faith. Again I would find it doubtful that his writings are allowed to be place on the site if they are counter to what this church teaches.

Yet I have found the rest of your statements informative and I will read your post on page one.

[Mr.Cat]

No quotes, no explanation, rude comments, and a belittling of who I am.. When I started this topic to understand (since I was told I misunderstood). Thank you for that proof. Although, I would really like to understand how I am misreading this, but maybe I can speak to other Orthodox believers (which I frequently speak with). Thank you for your time.

But I think you seriously need to examine my name “[b]Mr[/b].CatholicCat.” Otherwise you are just being highly RUDE which you have accused me off always... Maybe I should do the same...

Edited March 17, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1214747' date='Mar 16 2007, 08:17 PM']No quotes, no explanation, rude comments, and a belittling of who I am.. When I started this topic to understand (since I was told I misunderstood). Thank you for that proof. Although, I would really like to understand how I am misreading this, but maybe I can speak to other Orthodox believers (which I frequently speak with). Thank you for your time.

But I think you seriously need to examine my name “[b]Mr[/b].CatholicCat.” Otherwise you are just being highly RUDE which you have accused me off always... Maybe I should do the same...[/quote]

You've intentionally misquoted Orthodox sources, so no I don't have respect for you. I could quote Roman Sources and take their words out of context too, I could even find priests that make statements about the Roman Church that the Church as a whole doesn't support, but I chose not to stoop to that level of ignorance.

Apotheoun: Good post!!!