Posted on 11/23/2004 9:07:40 AM PST by Stubborn
No I don't disagree with the symbolism, or with scripture I am always willing to accept further enlightenment. Though I am not catholic- I agree with the statement I posted on Original sin by the RCC. "original sin is transmitted by nature" (truducianism if you will) "By his sin Adam lost the original holiness and justice he had recieved from God, not only for himself but for all human beings"
para.405. Although it is proper to each individual original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants."
That is what I am trying to say. It was not personally committed by me, anymore than Christ's obedience. THe character of a fault does not exist with it. We are implicated though. As far as the passage you quoted in Ex. I don't think this contradicts it. The children suffer the consequence but they certainly are not held for it. Just like the innocent children (many abused!) in Sodom perished as the result of their wicked relatives, or even Korah's descendants. I think we are really trying to convey the same point. I just think that scripturally it is more accurate and traditional to accept imputation in a different light than what perhaps I thought you were conveying. Yes ultimately we did put the thorns and nails in. We don't diminish that. Speaking of Gibson's movie I think he made an excellent point. The Lord says to His mother "behold I make all things new" This is the image we focus on in Orthodoxy. THe new creation. Christ alone creates us anew- just like the children of Israel entered the promised land only by God's promise. Yet they had to be faithful in order to enter that is why only two men entered- they followed Him wholly as the text says.
"Seems like a good list to me. Not sure about #1, but IMHO, seems like disecting them one at a time might be good. I was not aware that the east/west had different beliefs on most of these things but since Original Sin happened first in creation, why not start there?"
I can't say as I know much of anything about the problems with Eastern Rite Catholics, unless one includes Maronites and Melkites. The hierarchs seem to think this is a problem but I think they are referring to various Ukrainian, Czech and Ruthenian Churches which are in communion with the Pope while to certain outward liturgical and disciplinary appearances they seem to be Orthodox. I confess I know almost nothing about this and have wondered for a long time why its a problem. I suppose I should have looked into it further but I've never had the inclination before now. Perhaps there is an Orthodox out there who can clearly lay the problem out for me and pachomi.
Blessed Augustine's formulation of the Sin of Adam which the West calls Original Sin, carries with it, or in application has created, a whole series of dogmas and theolougemma and practices which are foreign to Orthodoxy. These affect the way we each look at theosis and in fact even sotirology, Christology and perhaps most glaringly Mariology. It ripples out even from there. That's why I thought it might be a good place to start. And of course, its at the beginning as you pointed out! :)
Here's a thought ... last year the protestants started a thread entitled The Never Ending Story, where they assembled for purposes of following a particular discussion. This might be a worthwhile approach for our discussion. We could title it: Ecumenical Council Discussion, and post relevant links to that one thread. As I recall, the prots posted more than 3000 posts to that one thread. What do you think?
But does that even matter? If God said to do "X" but we thought He said to do "Y", we did not do what God said to do - period. Or perhaps a better example is one where accusations abound when God said NOT to do "X", but because we are highly capable of error, we do precisely what God said not to do. Makes me wonder why He would have bothered in the first place - see what I mean?
Without a doubt God will take into account certain things, but should we think, that by virtue of ignorance,it will be automatically OK with God when we do not do what He wants? The answer is, No, because ignorance is not a virtue, it is a curse.
Excellent! Its not up to me, of course, but I say go for it. We need a clean thread to work on anyway.
I am afraid this discussion "in the spirit" of reconciliation is becoming somewhat a "touchy-feely" thing. "Eastern Catholic," or "Greek-Catholic" gives this political phenomenon ecclesiastical legitimacy, and equivalence.
First, why did the Vatican drop the name Uniate to begin with after using it for centuries? Second, let's review the history of the Uniate -- how it came about, what was its aim, etc. and why drop the name and not the whole thing?
The so-called "Eastern Catholics" represent but 2% of the RC membership and less than 10% of the traditionally Orthodox believers. Yet its political impact on the Church is disproportionate. They are like the high maintenance disobedient children protected by one, and chastised by another parent.
The fact is (by now long forgotten): the so-called "Eastern Catholics" come from areas that were never before the Union of Brest and overzealous Empress Maria Theresa under Rome's jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of each patriarchate has been clearly defined by the first seven Ecumenical Councils, which have later been either ignored or "rescinded" with the local councils the RCs call "ecumenical."
Thus, a vast minority of mostly labile Christians, whose allegiance is politically motivated (given that most Uniates still teach "Orthodox" theology and follow "Orthodox" praxis to match), has become a stumbling block par excellence and everyone in Rome and Moscow and elsewhere must be asking themselves "Why?"
Uniatism will not go away by dropping its name and giving it the status of a "Church." Uniatism will go away when the whole political concoction that has been known by that name for hundreds of years is dropped by the Vatican de iuris as well as de facto. Period. The sooner the better.
"I can't say as I know much of anything about the problems with Eastern Rite Catholics, unless one includes Maronites and Melkites. The hierarchs seem to think this is a problem but I think they are referring to various Ukrainian, Czech and Ruthenian Churches which are in communion with the Pope while to certain outward liturgical and disciplinary appearances they seem to be Orthodox. I confess I know almost nothing about this and have wondered for a long time why its a problem."
While I can't offer a first hand Orthodox perspective on the "problem" of the Eastern Catholics, I can offer you some of the things that some Orthodox have said about them:
1) They are a result of Rome's poaching Orthodox believers and Churches away from communion with Constantinople.
2) Their "submission" to the Pope means Rome has direct influence in Orthodox canonical territory and is using them as a means of invading Orthodox territory.
3) They are a 5th column within Orthodoxy that Rome will use to forcibly bring the rest of the Orthodox Church under its influence.
4) They are means of uniting Orthodox believers to an heretical and schismatic Pope.
etc. etc.
Why I believe that many Orthodox find them problematic is that they claim to be fully Orthodox and yet are in communion with Rome. If what they claim is true then it rather negates the reasons for the schism over the last 1,000 years.
Many Latins find them problematic because their existence means it is possible to be truly Catholic without being a Latin, and that, of course, could never be true!!! ;)
Although Kosta50 suggests "looking at the history of uniatism", that would not be as simple as you might think because all these Churches have entered communion with Rome at different points in history and for different reasons - sometimes theological and sometimes politics has played a major part.
However, some like the Maronites have just always been in communion with Rome and elected to remain as such following the events of 1054 and subsequent Church-dividing moments between East and West.
I'm sure that if there are other problems with them that I have left out, someone will be happy to fill in the blanks!
"1) They are a result of Rome's poaching Orthodox believers and Churches away from communion with Constantinople.
2) Their "submission" to the Pope means Rome has direct influence in Orthodox canonical territory and is using them as a means of invading Orthodox territory.
3) They are a 5th column within Orthodoxy that Rome will use to forcibly bring the rest of the Orthodox Church under its influence.
4) They are means of uniting Orthodox believers to an heretical and schismatic Pope.
etc. etc. "
Well, Deacon, Rome just ought to stop that! :)
Seriously, thanks!
Are Maronites considered "uniates"? I had recently come to the probably erroneus conclusion that "uniates" were only in Eastern Europe. Wrong?
I like the order in which you place the points for discussion -- starting from political points (like Uniatism) and moving on to serious dogmatic issues/differences. This would be the way forward.
One ought to also thank God for making one a less divisive, less spiteful, less blinder person......
some of the things that some Orthodox have said about them:
1) They are a result of Rome's poaching Orthodox believers and Churches away from communion with Constantinople.
This IS a political issue, thank you for pointing out the Orthodox viewpoint.
2) Their "submission" to the Pope means Rome has direct influence in Orthodox canonical territory and is using them as a means of invading Orthodox territory.
Catholics cannot understand how a land can be "Orthodox territory" any more than if we were to state that all of the West, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas and Asia were "Catholic-Western territory" (given the clause that Catholics or Protestants were the ones who set up large Church congregations there) -- which would be silly to our ears. The Orthodox Churchs have the right to set up Churchs in these lands and, since the people will still remain Christians belonging to an Apostolic church, why not?
3) They are a 5th column within Orthodoxy that Rome will use to forcibly bring the rest of the Orthodox Church under its influence.
Again, political and thank you for pointing out the Orthodox viewpoint.
4) They are means of uniting Orthodox believers to an heretical and schismatic Pope.
Well, the mutual declarations of heresy were rescinded.
Why I believe that many Orthodox find them problematic is that they claim to be fully Orthodox and yet are in communion with Rome. If what they claim is true then it rather negates the reasons for the schism over the last 1,000 years.
The Schism was always due to political reasons (yes there are and were theological differences but they have always been magnified or not resolved due to politics on BOTH sides).
Many Latins find them problematic because their existence means it is possible to be truly Catholic without being a Latin, and that, of course, could never be true!!! ;)
I disagree -- I am a Latin rite Catholic and have attended and known Syrian rite Catholics and recently Maronnites (NYer and a Syrian friend here in England) and would consider them equally Catholic.
Although Kosta50 suggests "looking at the history of uniatism", that would not be as simple as you might think because all these Churches have entered communion with Rome at different points in history and for different reasons - sometimes theological and sometimes politics has played a major part.
Good point
Maronnites and the Syrian and Chaldean churchs are NOT Uniates. Per se they would have been Oriental churchs on the same footing as the Assyrian, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Marthomite and other Eastern Churchs (including the Nestorians?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.