Sin

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1775969' date='Feb 8 2009, 05:07 PM']What differences? Eastern Catholics must affirm dogmas like original sin and the Immaculate Conception to be in full communion with us.[/quote]
You phrasing is unfortunate because you make it sound like the Eastern church are a graft on the Latin Church instead of an equal. Here is some Q & A on these topics from an excellent site:
[url="http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm#IC"]http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm#IC[/url]

[color="#0000FF"]Original Sin #1:[/color] I have heard that the Greek biblical texts of Rom. 5:12 do not contain the phrase "in whom all have sinned" relating to Adam's sin. Consequently, I gather that the Eastern churches' doctrine of original sin developed differently than that of the Western churches. Is this correct?

The Greek biblical text of Romans 5:12 does contain the phrase "eph'ho pantes hemarton." The Western Church has traditionally translated this as "in whom all have sinned.

In contrast, the Eastern Fathers understood the word "eph'ho" to modify the preceding word "thanatos," which means "death." Therefore the Eastern Church translates the phrase in question as "because of which (death) all have sinned." Both are legitimate translations of the text. However, this difference in translation changes the meaning of the entire verse.

Thus, the Western Church has traditionally translated the entirety of Romans 5:12 as such:

"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned," (Douay-Rheims Version).

The Eastern Fathers translated the second part of Romans 5:12 as follows:

"...and so death passed upon all men, because of which all have sinned."

In part because of this difference the Eastern Christian teaching on original sin developed differently. In our tradition, the primary effect of original sin is not a "stain," passed on from generation to generation. Rather, it is death. Because "death passed upon all men," all of us now sin. It is death itself that causes us to sin.

[color="#0000FF"]Original Sin #2:[/color] Do you view death itself as the "stain" or original sin, and if so, how does death cause us to sin?

Yes, perhaps one could say that in a certain sense death itself is the "stain" of original sin. Because of the certainty of physical death, we try to evade the inevitable. This leads us to try and cheat death, which results in sin. We store more food than we need (gluttony), we horde wealth and resources (avarice), we use our reproductive potential wantonly (lechery), etc... In the quest to cheat death we distort natural God-given gifts. Thus, death causes us to sin.


[color="#0000FF"]Original Sin #3[/color]: Can you explain the difference in the way the East views Original Sin?

I'll try to briefly summarize the issue, but I can't do it justice in so little space.

In the East: The primary consequence of Original Sin is death. The reality of death causes people to desire that which can distract them from the reality of their impending death. Hence, people turn to sex, money, and power as a way to forget about death. In this way, death leads to sin.

In the West: The primary consequence of Original Sin is a "stain" of guilt. People are born with a guilt that needs to be washed away as soon as possible.

Both the East and the West agree that original sin causes an ABSENCE of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Through baptism, the Holy Spirit can again dwell within man.

It should be noted that the Catholic Church has adopted a much more Eastern understanding in recent years. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is very Eastern in its approach to original sin.

[color="#0000FF"]Immaculate Conception #1:[/color] How do Eastern Catholics understand the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Does it differ from the Western understanding?

Concerning the Eastern Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception, I will offer a very brief summary of the issue. First, the theological seeds of the Immaculate Conception originated in the East, and were later spread to the West. Since the earliest centuries the Eastern Churches have celebrated "St. Anne's Conception of the Theotokos," on December 9. Only later was this feast transplanted to the West, where it is celebrated on December 8.

In the Eastern Catholic Churches we have maintained much of the theological heritage of the Eastern Church Fathers. We try to be very Patristic in our theology, and generally model our theological approach after the great Eastern Fathers. In the West theology has developed somewhat differently. Beginning in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a whole new style of theology developed, known as Scholasticism. Scholasticism utilized a great deal of philosophical terminology from the writings of Aristotle. It essentially created a whole new way to approach theological questions, and answered them with very specific philosophical terminology. Scholasticism was the dominant theological system in the Western Church until the beginning of the 20th century.

In 1854 Pope Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Being a good Western theologian, he used a great deal of scholastic terminology in the definition. Here it is, with the specifically scholastic terms emphasized by me:

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the MERITS of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from every STAIN of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful."

There are two terms used in the definition that are completely foreign to Eastern Christian theology: "merits" and "stain." Both of these terms are of very late origin, and came to mean very specific things in the scholastic system. But to us Eastern Christians, who still use only the theological expressions of the Church Fathers, these terms are completely alien. So is this a problem, or isn't it?

I don't believe that this a problem at all. If something is written in a language that you can't understand, you simply TRANSLATE it! With some very basic knowledge of scholastic theological terminology, what Pope Pius IX is saying becomes very obvious: From the very first moment of her existence, Mary was miraculously preserved from all sin. We Easterns would go even a step further: she wasn't just preserved from sin, but was graced with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Also, the definition speaks of Mary being "free from every stain of original sin." In the East we have always spoken of Mary's perfect holiness. The language "free from every stain of original sin" is really a somewhat negative formulation in comparison. In fact, this definition speaks of Mary as being "absent of something (the stain of sin)," while we would prefer to speak of her as being "full of something (the Holy Spirit)." In this regard I think that the Eastern approach makes a marvelous contribution to the understanding of this dogma. So does Pope John Paul II:

"In fact, the negative formulation of the Marian privilege, which resulted from the earlier controversies about original sin that arose in the West, must always be complemented by the positive expression of Mary's holiness more explicitly stressed in the Eastern tradition." (Pope John Paul II, General Audience June 12, 1996)

So, the Holy Father agrees that the Eastern understanding of the Immaculate Conception actually helps to elucidate the meaning behind the definition.

[LouisvilleFan]

Well, I wouldn't call those major differences. We couldn't enjoy full communion with major differences in our theology. We have different understandings or perspectives of the same dogmas, whereas the Eastern Orthodox reject the doctrine of original sin.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1776135' date='Feb 8 2009, 07:13 PM']You phrasing is unfortunate because you make it sound like the Eastern church are a graft on the Latin Church instead of an equal.[/quote]

Like I said, we're all in full communion... I like the Eastern Churches.

Edited February 9, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1776738' date='Feb 9 2009, 10:21 AM']Well, I wouldn't call those major differences. We couldn't enjoy full communion with major differences in our theology. We have different understandings or perspectives of the same dogmas, whereas the Eastern Orthodox reject the doctrine of original sin.[/quote]
From what I understand their view of original sin and the Eastern Catholic Church are the same.

Appy can you clarify this?

[Formosus]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1776738' date='Feb 9 2009, 10:21 AM']Well, I wouldn't call those major differences. We couldn't enjoy full communion with major differences in our theology. We have different understandings or perspectives of the same dogmas, whereas the Eastern Orthodox reject the doctrine of original sin.[/quote]


Byzantine Eastern Catholics believe the same thing about Original Sin as Eastern Orthodox do. The Early Church enjoyed full communion with each other where there was a difference in theology, I don't see why you find it difficult to accept such a situation today.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Formosus' post='1776948' date='Feb 9 2009, 04:34 PM']Byzantine Eastern Catholics believe the same thing about Original Sin as Eastern Orthodox do. The Early Church enjoyed full communion with each other where there was a difference in theology, I don't see why you find it difficult to accept such a situation today.[/quote]

I never said any situation is difficult to accept or anything against Eastern Catholics.

What I know is that the Eastern Orthodox do not believe in original sin, and thus don't believe in the Immaculate Conception. I always figured Eastern Catholics believed in original sin because they obviously must accept the Immaculate Conception. Apparently the two are not mutually exclusive.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1776966' date='Feb 9 2009, 05:13 PM']I never said any situation is difficult to accept or anything against Eastern Catholics.

What I know is that the Eastern Orthodox do not believe in original sin, and thus don't believe in the Immaculate Conception. I always figured Eastern Catholics believed in original sin because they obviously must accept the Immaculate Conception. Apparently the two are not mutually exclusive.[/quote]
Did you read the Q & A I posted above? Eastern catholics see both Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception in very different ways than Latin rite churches, and yet are fully Catholic.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1776997' date='Feb 9 2009, 05:43 PM']Did you read the Q & A I posted above? Eastern catholics see both Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception in very different ways than Latin rite churches, and yet are fully Catholic.[/quote]

Yes, I read it.

The Eastern Orthodox do not believe in original sin and definitely don't believe in the Immaculate Conception.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1777835' date='Feb 10 2009, 10:22 AM']Yes, I read it.

The Eastern Orthodox do not believe in original sin and definitely don't believe in the Immaculate Conception.[/quote]
THe Q & A was concerning eastern CATHOLICS, not the orthodox.

[Apotheoun]

In 1995 the Holy Synod of the Melkite Catholic Church made the following profession of faith, which it has not renounced or rescinded:

[quote]1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.[/quote]

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1777840' date='Feb 10 2009, 10:29 AM']THe Q & A was concerning eastern CATHOLICS, not the orthodox.[/quote]

Yes. You said there are major differences between Eastern and Western theology, which is when added that I figured you were referring to the Eastern Orthodox rejecting the doctrine of original sin.

I realize now I should've kept my mouth shut about things I'm unsure about. At the time, all I knew is:

a) Eastern Orthodox do not believe in original sin or Immaculate Conception
b) Eastern Catholics do believe in the Immaculate Conception

I think the phrase "major differences" needs to be better defined.

Edited February 10, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[Formosus]

"Our attitude practically is that between the Orthodox and ourselves there are no differences in faith. Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith. And they of course are very different, but they are ultimately complementary. So they do not represent a different faith. They represent a different understanding of the gift of faith." - Patriarch Lubomyr Husar of Kyiv and Halych

[LouisvilleFan]

Hmm... whatever.

One of the local Orthodox priests that I know would probably laugh at this... and adamently disagree. That seems to be the way it goes... Orthodox believers I talk to don't believe it's realistic, and it would be really interesting to see how many split off (or, from their perspective, remain faithful to Orthodoxy) if their bishops ever actually agreed to full communion.

Not that we shouldn't have hope and pray for unity. It's only possible by God's grace. After all, I'm pretty sure full communion with Orthodox Church is slightly more realistic than with the Southern Baptist Convention.

[ChildoftheCreator]

[quote]"Our attitude practically is that between the Orthodox and ourselves there are no differences in faith. Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith. And they of course are very different, but they are ultimately complementary. So they do not represent a different faith. They represent a different understanding of the gift of faith." - Patriarch Lubomyr Husar of Kyiv and Halych[/quote]

If you hold the same opinion as Patriarch Lubomyr Husar how do you describe faith as used in this context? If faith is a belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior, then wouldn't Eastern Catholicism hold the same faith as most of the rest of Christians? It really wouldn't matter if we were in communion with Rome, or Constantinople, or Alexandria.
Since the IC and purgatory were proclaimed as dogmas it would seem that they are a step higher than theological concepts and are necessary to belief. If it were the case that there were merely differences in theological concepts, then Orthodox, Orientals, and Catholics would all have the same faith. Perhaps Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Holiness, etc. would all have the same faith as well. That could be taking it a step too far, though.