“Why Orthodoxy, not Rome” [for Anglicans]

Pontifications ^ | 4/04/2005 | Mark Harrison

[pharmamom]

One of my Orthodox spiritual mentors put it to me this way:

in Western theology, the crucifixion is paramount (hence Christ hanging on the cross in every RC Church). In Orthodoxy, the resurrection is paramount. The victory over death is celebrated more than the redemption from sin. Again, I think it is a matter of focus. What also seems to me is that us "common folk" have more common thoughts--it's when the theologians try to nail it all down in words that the differences become glaring.

[Kolokotronis]

As I have mentioned before, Great Lent is not a good time for us to engage in arguments over fine points of theology like the Immaculate Conception. Your post speaks to two questions, one, at base, is whether there is any salvation without Baptism. The other is in regard to Original Sin. On the first the Orthodox Church has never, to my knowledge spoken in "dogmatic" terms on this subject. Indeed, most Orthodox theologians seem to reject the idea as limiting the salvific actions of the Holy Spirit, though there is certainly another side to that and at various times throughout history one "side" or the other has been ascendant. The second, concerning Original Sin and its effects was one some of us beat to a pulp about a year ago. In the end the Romans and the Orthodox, at least in terms of the Most Holy Theotokos came to understand the position of the other and at least to us it seemed that the differences might not be what they seem. In a nutshell, we concluded that any "stain" talk was not helpful. That Panagia was, from the moment of her conception by St. Anne, and through God's infinite mercy, a saint (her saintliness is attested to by the fact that the Church celebrates the Feast of the Conception by St. Anne of the Most Holy Theotokos, something which could not happen unless Panagia was a saint from her conception) though subject to all of the human consequences of the sin of Adam. Her sainthood at conception was a divine gift and in preparation for her role as the Mother of the Word, the Virgin Throne as we call her in the Akathist. For the rest of her life she was as subject to the consequences of the Fall as the rest of us, but nevertheless did not sin (though interestingly, +John Chrysostomos thought she had, at Canna) and ultimately died and was buried, but was thereafter assumed into heaven. I think it likely that without the idea of any "stain" or "guilt" associated with the doctrine of Original Sin, what Rome and Orthodoxy believe is very close, perhaps even the same. What the concepts of stain and guilt, rightly held and preached or not, lead to is another matter entirely.

May we leave this one until after Pascha like the pending discussion of the Petrine Office?

[gbcdoj]

May we leave this one until after Pascha like the pending discussion of the Petrine Office?

As you wish. Thanks for your post :) I can't imagine that there's really a difference on original sin besides different terminology - certainly when the Latins and the Orthodox compared their beliefs at Florence it didn't come up, despite the Orthodox being well-aware at that point of Thomas Aquinas' theology.

[SaintThomasMorePrayForUs]

I must say that your post is an example of the incredible respect that has been shown in this forum. I have seen many forums in which such respect and charity has been all but entirely absent.

[Kolokotronis]

Can't let this one pass,

"certainly when the Latins and the Orthodox compared their beliefs at Florence it didn't come up, despite the Orthodox being well-aware at that point of Thomas Aquinas' theology."

We all know what happened when the Orthodox prelates got home, don't we now? :)

[Kolokotronis]

"I must say that your post is an example of the incredible respect that has been shown in this forum. I have seen many forums in which such respect and charity has been all but entirely absent"

LOL, but thanks for the kind words. As my Roman interlocutor gbcdoj can attest, it isn't always such, but for most of us this is serious and in any event both JP II of Blessed Memory and +Bartholomeus I have asked the Faithful to discuss our perceived (and in many cases undoubtedly real) differences in love and with temperance. That's not too much to ask. In any event, flamming each other won't advance our understanding one bit, nor, and far more importantly, our own theosis which of course is why The Church and the particular churches within it exist in the first place.

[gbcdoj]

We do. But not even Mark of Ephesus made an issue of it, so far as I know.

[gbcdoj]

made an issue of it

That is, of West v. East views on original sin.

[Kolokotronis]

St. Mark had far bigger fish to fry and the protestants hadn't gotten much of a grip on Blessed Augustine at that point! :)

I knew you'd respond, you know! We have to stop this! :)

[Agrarian]

My main point was not to parse fine issues of doctrinal differences, but to point out what Orthodox Christians actually do, and to draw inferences on what this means regarding what we believe.

This is not proof positive that what we do is always in the best traditions of Orthodoxy, but usually when it is not, there are copious voices always calling people to practices that better reflect true Orthodox teaching. And I have never heard or read anything exhorting Orthodox Christians to baptize their children as soon as possible after birth.

As to the rest, there is of course more to be said, but as Kolokotronis says, it is perhaps best left unsaid until after Great Lent.