Pope: No Limbo for Babies, Only Heaven (dreadful misreporting of Catholic Traditional Beliefs)

"As has been often noted, the Romans were, and the West today is, very legalistic in its thought. Because of this, and the importance that the concept of justice holds, the Latin Fathers often spoke in terms of justice where the Greeks would not. I would maintain that this was not only proper but necessary. If they had not the Gospel would have been incomplete the same as if it were insisted that the faith could only be preached to the Romans in Greek."

I would strongly disagree with this line of argument, since it it leaves the implications that Hebrew thought forms cannot be translated into any language but Greek. For that is what Greek theological language is: Hebrew concepts expressed with Greek words, which do *not* mean the same thing that they do in pagan Greek philosophy. If I as an English-speaking Christian can understand Orthodox theological thought and express it in the English language, there is no reason why it could not have been expressed in Latin (and indeed many Orthodox would argue that the writings of St. Ambrose and St. Hillary are very consonant with "Greek" thought forms, even though expressed in Latin.)

The reason that the East did not take a legalistic approach to this matter is clearly not that the Greek word for "justice" is not legalistic but whereas the Latin word is. Far from it. The reason is rather that the Greek fathers, of which St. Isaac of Syria is the most commonly referred to, took pains to explain what "justice" means in Christian terms, just as they took pains to redefine each and every Greek philosophical term that entered Christian theological writing -- displacing the "original" meaning.

I don't think that the reason that the West developed in a legalistic direction is because the Western mind (whatever that is) is genetically incapable of not being legalistic, and that therefore a theology had to develop that took that legalism into consideration. Christianity is to transform the thought of a people, rather than be transformed by it.

I think it is rather because St. Augustine's theology (or at least aspects of his theology that were disproportionately amplified and emphasized by his successors) came in later centuries to so thoroughly dominate in the West, without any influence or tempering from the East.

Many Orthodox historians view what St. Augustine did as being a "Hellenization" (i.e. development of theology highly influenced by pagan Greek thought forms) of Western Christianity -- a Hellenization that the "Greek" part of the Church reacted against and condemned when it first became fully aware of it around the time of St. Photius.

And yes, this *has* been a good discussion!

I guess that the best way to describe the two is that "reatus culpae" is the condition because of our legal standing, guilty vs. innocent. As for "reatus poenae" note that this is something distinct from the "poena", or penalty, itself. "Reatus poenae" comes from the need to be purified from our attachments to sin which separate us from God. The purification is the penalty, one that arise from the nature of sin itself, not from a revengeful God. "Reatus poenae" would thus be the state of needing to be purified of our attachments to sin.

Finally, if the West uses justice in a sense different from the apparent scriptural meaning of the term, how do they use it? If it is the secular/civil understanding of "justitia", isn't that exactly the meaning of jsutice which I think causes the problem?

First I should not imply that justice is always different from the usage of Scripture. Indeed, when St. Thomas discusses justice in the Summa he speaks in terms of a debt owed to another but justice can also have an abstract meaning. In the article that we have been discussing there is no indication that some penalty is owed to God, rather that order that He established requires the suffering because of sin. This is also why He is not constrained by justice since it is of His will.

The reason that the East did not take a legalistic approach to this matter is clearly not that the Greek word for "justice" is not legalistic but whereas the Latin word is.

But I am arguing the need in the West to speak in terms of justice goes beyond the mere definition of the word. Rather, the Romans had a strong commitment to the concept of justice (admittedly more often in theory rather than in practice) that informed their entire outlook upon the world. Yes, the Church could have ignored this and spoken in only Hebraic terms but this would have raised an unnecessary barrier. The Roman appreciation of the concept of justice was just too great. Rather, the Church in the West sought to baptize that understanding.

I think it is rather because St. Augustine's theology (or at least aspects of his theology that were disproportionately amplified and emphasized by his successors) came in later centuries to so thoroughly dominate in the West, without any influence or tempering from the East.

And where is the tempering of Greek thought from the West? I must confess my frustration with the attitude of some of the Orthodox that the presence of the Holy Spirit in the early Church stopped at the Adriatic. If the Orthodox Church is the continuation of the one true Church then it is the continuation of that Church both East and West, both Latin and Greek.

I must also express my annoyance at the constant attacks upon St. Augustine and his theology, as if he were the font of all error. His value as a Church Father is attested to by his ready acceptance in the Latin West. While he may express himself differently than the Greek Fathers he is completely orthodox in his teaching. I fear that some among the Orthodox are attempting to raise what are the theological opinions of the Greek Fathers to the level of divine revelation to exclusion to what the Church as a whole taught and believed, both East and West.

Good discussion! Indeed.

I fear that some among the Orthodox are attempting to raise what are the theological opinions of the Greek Fathers to the level of divine revelation to exclusion to what the Church as a whole taught and believed, both East and West

The East and West wings became separate linguistically and virtually isolated from each other in the 5th century, is there any wonder that each side should think that way?

Allow me to quote this and ask each of you if it is what we believe:

"Our God is a consuming fire. And if we, by love, become transformed into Him and burn as He burns, His fire will be our everlasting joy. But if we refuse His love and remain in the coldness of sin and opposition to Him and to other men then will His fire (by our own choice rather than His) become our everlasting enemy, and Love, instead of being our joy, will become our torment and our destruction." [Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation, "Hell and Hatred"]

The only problem I see with legalistic approach, and this may very well be my prejudice, is that it is what lead Jews to error. It was, after all, Christ Who came to fulfill the Law by redefining it in terms of Love.

My litmus test as to whether something is "orthodox" or not is by asking "where is Love in this?" If we can't reduce all our theological concepts to Love, they are not orthodox. The foundation of all Christian thought is love. Whether cataphatic or apophatic, our theology must be Love. God is a loving relationship that we must emulate on earth in order to be Christ-like.

Petrosius, your post #114 tells me that the Latins' understanding of God is as ours is.

" Allow me to quote this and ask each of you if it is what we believe:

"Our God is a consuming fire. And if we, by love, become transformed into Him and burn as He burns, His fire will be our everlasting joy. But if we refuse His love and remain in the coldness of sin and opposition to Him and to other men then will His fire (by our own choice rather than His) become our everlasting enemy, and Love, instead of being our joy, will become our torment and our destruction." [Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation, "Hell and Hatred"]"

Merton was well read! Merton got it, but I must admit I have been partial to Merton for more than 30 years. P, if you want to understand much about the way the Orthodox look at theosis, in Western words, read Merton.

"Can a man take fire into his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?' says the wise Solomon. And I say: can he, who has in his heart the Divine fire of the Holy Spirit burning naked, not be set on fire, not shine and glitter and not take on the radiance of the Deity in the degree of his purification and penetration by fire? For penetration by fire follows upon purification of the heart, and again purification of the heart follows upon penetration by fire, that is, inasmuch as the heart is purified, so it receives Divine grace, and again inasmuch as it receives grace, so it is purified. When this is completed, through grace a man becomes wholly a god." +Symeon the New Theologian

"We all receive God's blessings equally. But some of us, receiving God's fire, that is, His word, become soft like beeswax, while the others like clay become hard as stone. And if we do not want Him, He does not force any of us, but like the sun He sends His rays and illuminates the whole world, and he who wants to see Him, sees Him, whereas the one who does not want to see Him, is not forced by Him. And no one is responsible for this privation of light except the one who does not want to have it." +Peter of Damascus

P, in your post 122, you wrote:

"In the article that we have been discussing there is no indication that some penalty is owed to God, rather that order that He established requires the suffering because of sin."

Wouldn't it be better to make it clear as much as possible that this suffering, and it is indeed suffering, is correction born of God's love even if it can also be used "that others be afraid"?

"He who applies pedagogical punishments in order to give health, is punishing with love, but he who is looking for vengeance, is devoid of love. God punishes with love, not defending Himself, far be it, but He wants to heal His image, and He does not keep His wrath for long. This way of love is the way of uprightness, and it does not change with passion to a defense. A man who is just and wise is like God because he never chastises a man in revenge for wickedness, but only in order to correct him or that others be afraid" +isaac the Syrian, Homily 73.

"I must also express my annoyance at the constant attacks upon St. Augustine and his theology, as if he were the font of all error. His value as a Church Father is attested to by his ready acceptance in the Latin West. While he may express himself differently than the Greek Fathers he is completely orthodox in his teaching. I fear that some among the Orthodox are attempting to raise what are the theological opinions of the Greek Fathers to the level of divine revelation to exclusion to what the Church as a whole taught and believed, both East and West.'

I think you are being unfair in this comment. Blessed Augustine was certainly not the font of all errors, but from an Eastern Christian perspective, much of his work in the areas of Original Sin, free will and predestination were indeed in error. The West speaks of him almost as if he were the only Father. Because so very much of Western theology, especially in those areas where the East and West disagree, apparently springs from his thoughts, you shouldn't;t be surprised when we speak less than flatteringly of him. Most of us, frankly, think that his Manichean youth peeks through in a less than disguised manner.

Your comment, though, set me to thinking about what other theological influences there might have been on the West which could have lead to what is at least a popular concept of "Sinners in the hands of an angry God". I remembered that I had read something by a Christian writer from the Ante Nicean period, one who wrote in Latin, which went on at length about the demonstrable fact of the anger of God towards men and that that anger, at least in part, resulted in a vengeful punishment. I did a bit of digging and found him, Lactantius, a North African and his De Ira Dei. Its quite a hair raising piece written to refute the claims of the Epicureans and pre-dates +Augustine. Here are a couple of snips from his work:

"But if we have discovered that these things which have been spoken are false, there remains that one last resource, in which alone the truth can be found, which has never been embraced by philosophers, nor at any time defended: that it follows that God is angry, since He is moved by kindness. This opinion is to be maintained and asserted by us; for this is the sum and turning-point on which the whole of piety and religion depend: and no honour can be due to God, if He affords nothing to His worshippers; and no fear, if He is not angry with him who does not worship Him."

And later:

"It is therefore the fear of God alone which guards the mutual society of men, by which life itself is sustained, protected, and governed. But that fear is taken away if man is persuaded that God is without anger; for that He is moved and indignant when unjust actions are done, not only the common advantage, but even reason itself, and truth, persuade us."

The entire piece paints a rather bleak picture of humanity unbound from a, in his opinion, justfied and well founded fear of the anger of God. After his death, he was considered, though not for De Ira Dei, to be possibly heretical, at least in the East, though his works were picked up by Western theologians in the Renaissance period. Given where he was from, what he wrote and the time he wrote them, one wonders what influence he might have had on +Augustine, or otherwise, whether the same forces which lead Lactantius to write what he did were the same ones which compelled +Augustine. Incidentally, Lactantius appears to have been influenced by the Manicheans too.

The East and West wings became separate linguistically and virtually isolated from each other in the 5th century, is there any wonder that each side should think that way?

Yes, but now it is time for us to meet one another again and realize that we are called to be one church, not two.

The quote from Merton is both beautiful and profound. We have spent some time discussing the place of justice in Western theology but we should be careful to avoid the idea that this is the only way that the West speaks. I would like to point out that the West also has its own tradition of mysticism exemplified by St. Francis, St. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross and others. It is within this tradition that Merton finds a home rather than being the odd man out. If we keep the scholastic and mystical traditions united I think that we can avoid the pitfalls that you so rightly point out. This is also why I think that it is so important that we break down the hostility that exists between our two churches so that we can learn from one another and help each other come closer to God.

Petrosius, your post #114 tells me that the Latins' understanding of God is as ours is.

Kosta, I cannot tell you with how much joy that I read this statement of yours. It is my sincere hope that at the end of the day we may discover that the theological differences that divide our two churches (with the one sad exception of the role of the papacy, but let us leave that discussion to another day) may turn out to be nothing more than the result of the imperfections that are necessarily present in all theological language. Does this mean that I think that we actually believe the exact same thing in every particular? No, but accepting the reality that the truth about God is a mystery I am comfortable with the idea that there must always be a certain imprecision in theological speculation provided, as I have said before, that we remain withing the bounds of orthodox teaching.

"The quote from Merton is both beautiful and profound. We have spent some time discussing the place of justice in Western theology but we should be careful to avoid the idea that this is the only way that the West speaks. I would like to point out that the West also has its own tradition of mysticism exemplified by St. Francis, St. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross and others."

+John of the Cross is spectacular! +Theresa of Avila is a bit over the top for me. The "extasies" she writes of have demonic overtones in my opinion. I would venture to say that Fr. Louis is more in the +John of the Cross mode than the other two and I think its safe to say that until he became so invested in Bhuddist thought, any Eastern hesychast would recognize in him a kindred spirit.

"It is my sincere hope that at the end of the day we may discover that the theological differences that divide our two churches (with the one sad exception of the role of the papacy, but let us leave that discussion to another day) may turn out to be nothing more than the result of the imperfections that are necessarily present in all theological language."

I am absolutely convinced that our theological differences can be resolved by a Great Council. But before there can be such a council, we must agree on an appropriate exercise of the Petrine Office. I was pleased recently (since September) to read the comments of the EP to the Orthodox delegation to the Orthodox/Catholic dialogue (just reinstituted at the end of last month) and those of the head of the EP's delegation to the October Synod in Rome, Met. John of Pergamum, concerning Petrine primacy. Met. John, speaking for the EP, opined that that primacy was clearly more than a simple primacy of honor, that it carried with it real authority. In any event, while it is tempting to think that theological convergence will result in unity, it is important to remember that The Church has a method for accomplishing that, an Ecumenical Council, and that the presidency of the Pope at such a gathering, is the sine qua non of a valid council.

I agree with you on the need of a council. Even if agreement could be made at a sub-councilar level it would have to be ratified by one. These theological discussion are important, however, because they can help to break down the hostility between us. I get the impression, at least from some among the Orthodox, that any reconciliation would perforce be a betrayal of Orthodoxy.

As for the question of the Petrine office I wonder if any progress could be made by distinguishing his roles as pope and as patriarch.

Regarding my earlier comments about Orthodox treatment of St. Augustine, I guess that what I was really responding to is what seems to me to be a global rejection of Western theological thought. St. Augustine, although an important Father of the Church, is hardly infallible and immune from criticism. I think, however, that it would be more useful to seek correction and refinement of his thought that to reject it as a false start. It should also be remembered that the Catholic Church itself has gone beyond the bare statements of St. Augustine, incorporating much theological reflection down through the ages. Catholic teaching is greater than the teaching of St. Augustine.

" I get the impression, at least from some among the Orthodox, that any reconciliation would perforce be a betrayal of Orthodoxy."

There are groups in Orthodoxy, who, for various reasons, espouse that view. Some are just nuts. Others border on our version of the SSPX or are outright schismatics who are as likely to condemn the EP as the Devil's own spawn as they would the Pope. Still others, especially in the West, are converts who carry a baggage of distinctly Western anti-Catholicism with them into some of the jurisdictions they enter. Some of these jurisdictions, for historical reasons among others, have a high degree of suspicion of the Latin Church. That "anti-Catholicism", if one can call it that, is of a completely different nature and quality from that found being preached in the West. But I think that "ethnic, cradle Orthodox" prejudice is viewed by some converts as being the same thing as their own "Jack Chick" style prejudice (its not) and they take that as a green light to fulminate about any conversation between Rome and the Orthodox. For some of us, this unfortunate behavior is one of the reasons we are against an autocephallous American Orthodox Church. In other instances, some Westerners end up in schismatic groups calling themselves Orthodox whose raison d'etre seems to be little more that despising everyone else, especially Jews.

In fairness, however, you must admit to your own group of Latin absolutists who demand submission to the Roman Church and have and continue to insist that all Orthodox who do not submit to the Pope are damned.

"As for the question of the Petrine office I wonder if any progress could be made by distinguishing his roles as pope and as patriarch.'

Well, our theologians are discussing this even as write this post. We'll see what they come up with. There is a unity of purpose among the Orthodox and the Latins that this question must be answered now. The theological discussions have gone about as far as they can without a council and have produced a number of "agreed statements" which have had a major impact at least at the theological and hierarchial levels. These agreed statements have formed a foundation for final determination at a Great Council of a number of issues. The issues we haven't tackled, Original Sin, Purgatory, Indulgences, that sort of doctrine, are all readily amenable to council resolution. Issues like essence and energies are classic council type issues.

The big issue, P, will be the primacy of the Pope, or better put, what it is and how it is exercised. Many Orthodox believe that Rome since the schism has boxed itself, and by extension the rest of The Church, by its innovative concept of the professed ecumenical nature of its local councils and the unfortunate formulations of Vatican I. Perhaps there is a way to deal with this situation. I know our Melkite brothers claim they have successfully dealt with Vatican I in a manner consistent with the rights of the Eastern Patriarchs and Churches. I think they might have come close.

"Regarding my earlier comments about Orthodox treatment of St. Augustine, I guess that what I was really responding to is what seems to me to be a global rejection of Western theological thought. St. Augustine, although an important Father of the Church, is hardly infallible and immune from criticism. I think, however, that it would be more useful to seek correction and refinement of his thought that to reject it as a false start."

Orthodoxy doesn't reject Western theological thought. It does reject much of it post 1054 since it is not fundamentally patristic. It tends to be far more philosophical and influenced by, say, Plato and Aristotle than we feel is healthy or appropriate. Its one thing to use the words of Greek philosophy, its quite another to use its methods and adopt any of its conclusions. As for +Augustine, your suggestion that we seek to refine and correct his thought is a fine one, but it comes 1500 years too late. I am convinced that had Blessed Augustine the benefit of the Eastern Fathers, and had the Eastern Fathers ready and detailed access to his works before the middle to late 14th century, that refinement would have taken place then. Now the horse has definitely left the barn. Beyond +Augustine, the Western Fathers are venerated by the Eastern Church, +Ambrose, +Benedict of Nursia, +Hippolytus, +Hilary, +Cyprian and earlier +Irenaeous and +Clement. Who defended us against the Iconoclasts? +Leo! Who held firm to the Orthodox Faith throughout the early centuries of The Church against the almost endless line of heresies which sprang up in the East? The Popes of Rome. All Orthodox know these things. But when we discuss our doctrinal differences, we always are, except for the now almost passe filioque, discussing dogmatic pronouncements of the post schism Latin Church and the ex post facto patristic justifications Rome has advanced to support innovations unknown at the time of the quoted Fathers, except usually with +Augustine. You say that the Latin Church has incorporated "much theological reflection" since the days of Blessed Augustine. Indeed the Latin Church has, and since 1054 it has done so without the East. To the extent that the result of those theological reflections are theologoumena or disciplinary canons applicable to the Latin Church, that's fine. But Rome didn't stop there. Rome presumed to do something which the East has never done, to call its counciliar pronouncements the dogmatic pronouncements of ecumenical councils, to abrogate to itself alone, sua sponte, the style of "The Church". That's a serious matter for Orthodoxy, P and hardly one that can be glossed over or nuanced away. Luckily for all of us, that is not the apparent style of +BXVI and since these are historical problems rooted more in ecclesiology rather than pure theology, there is at least a glimmer of hope that they can be resolved. In fact, since the election of +BXVI, I am coming to believe that I will see them resolved...and I am older than Campion!

I think its safe to say that until he became so invested in Bhuddist thought, any Eastern hesychast would recognize in him a kindred spirit

Merton recognized in Buddhism the sporoi , or "seeds," of truth and even large "chunks" of truth -- and love about God. Where non-Christian religions fall short, where they are deficient, is in their inability to know God personally and therefore to love Him as we love Him through that medium of a perfect Man and a perfect God, our Lord Jesus Christ. They can only bow to an unknown and distant power that is no more personal than the Sun or a volcano.

I don't think Merton ever embraced syncretism. Even his last works seem to focus exclusively on Christian prayer and contemplation. If he recognized that God inscribed himself in everyone's hearts and that all the people can be saved, certainly that is not heresy.

In the six years I spent in Asia of the last 15, I have come across some very intriguing revelations from non-Christians. The monastics of the East know that chanting, for example, is not an arbitrary discipline, but that exact breathing and vibration of the chants and the bells are not found in Buddhist and Christian monasteries by accident. Our own liturgical discipline of singing the Divine Liturgy is also not an accident of the Church, and was present also in the Catholic West until not so long ago.

On the comment of Met. John, the majority of Orthodox Christians do not share his opinion that there is more to Papal supremacy than just honor. It was primarily the primacy of the city of Rome that elevated the Petrine Office to prominence, just as it was the same imperial clout that elevated the Bishop of Constantinople to equal privileges and second only in honor to the Pope of Rome.

Antioch was +Peter's original Church, and Rome was ministered by +Paul as much as by +Peter, yet Antioch did not become the Vatican. Met. John made it clear that his (and EP's) opinion was anything but universally accepted by the Orthodox world. With over 80% of Orthodox being Russian and even more than that when all the Slavic Ortodox are counted, who are generally less compromising than the EP, to imply that Met. John's views were anything but a minority view is not very convincing.

What is important to understand is that the Papal supremacy is perfectly accepted by all Patriarchs within the boundaries of his Patriarchate (i.e. the Latin Church), but his primacy is not accepted as territorial and jurisdictional authority over other Patriarchs, either historically or biblically.

That being said, an Ecumenical Synod is not an Ecumenical Synod without the Pope of Rome presiding, or without his legate presiding in is stead. This is a decision of the past Synods and they are binding. However, let's not forget that this was not always so. The Council of Nicea was presided by the Bishop of Alexandria, seconded by the Bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem in that order. The Pope of Rome, as far as I know, did not sent his legate nor was the Latin participation at that Synod of any numerical significance. Yet, the Synod is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as valid and as one of the Seven infallible councils of the first millennium.

How do we get out of what appears to be a Catch-22?

By agreeing, for now, what the extent of Papal jurisdiction is. To the Latins, his jurisdiction and his primacy are one and the same for the entire Church. To the Orthodox, and to the First Millennium Church, it is not. I am willing to predict that a "working model" will have to reflect the pre-schism role.

In order to call a General Council to which both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox will come, it is absolutely necessary that there be an unambiguous agreement as to what are the boundaries of Papal jurisdiction; his primacy has never been disputed, only his jurisdiction.

It is also understood that such a Council will tackle all and every dogma that has been invented and added to the Faith since the Great Schism, and that includes, as Kolo enumerates, several very sticky topics (including the Immaculate Conception), but I think the hardest nut to crack will be accepting the decision of the Vatican I by the East. Other issues, including the Original Sin, Immaculate Conception (which is closely derived from it), and the Purgatory, are all seeds planted by +Augustine, so do not be annoyed or wonder why the Orhtodox seem to single him out among others -- it is because we disagree with him on almost all key issues that divide us!

"With over 80% of Orthodox being Russian and even more than that when all the Slavic Ortodox are counted, who are generally less compromising than the EP, to imply that Met. John's views were anything but a minority view is not very convincing." Kosta, did I imply that the opinion of the EP or Met. John represented the majority Orthodox thought? Read what I wrote. I said "I" was pleased at the remarks. Of course, I am Greek and thus it is not uncommon that my declarations are confused with those of worldwide Orthodoxy! :) " In the six years I spent in Asia of the last 15, I have come across some very intriguing revelations from non-Christians." I've had the exact same experience. In fact, I was wondering about the idea of "sporoi" out there long before I ever heard that others had arrived at the same conclusion. As for Fr. Louis, I sincerely believe he had gotten into syncretism by the end of his life. I know his superiors thought he had. On the other hand, Kosta, I have never experienced the "dark night of the soul" so its not unlikely that Merton knew alot more than I do. "What is important to understand is that the Papal supremacy is perfectly accepted by all Patriarchs within the boundaries of his Patriarchate (i.e. the Latin Church), but his primacy is not accepted as territorial and jurisdictional authority over other Patriarchs, either historically or biblically." I think there is a fundamental difference between supremacy and primacy. For example, I wouldn't subscribe to the notion that a patriarch is supreme in his territorial jurisdiction, whether he is the Pope of Rome, the EP or the Patriarch of Bulgaria. Primacy is a different matter and the historical fact is that bishops throughout Christendom appealed to the Pope over the heads of the local patriarchs and those pre schism popes usually properly exercised their authority to resolve issues...and a good thing for us that they did in most instances. That's more than a primacy of honor, or perhaps better said, that's more than simply presiding at an ecumenical council. It necessarily carries with it a sort of jurisdiction which extended beyond the territorial limits of his patriarchate. Could it extend to such matters as ecclesastical structure, appointments or local discipline, I doubt it. Could it extend to the declaration of Orthodoxy in the face of heresy by another patriarch or bishop. I think so (but then again that is the authority of any bishop teaching the Orthodox Faith). Does it mean that he can declare dogma that which The Church has not spoken on? Absolutely not. So what we need to find is a role which is more than chairman of the occassional ecumenical council, but less than that laid out in the Dictatus Papae or, I'm sorry, P, Vatican I as it has been interpreted and put into practice. That's a very broad range. By the way, appeals to the "keys" and rocks doesn't advance the discussion one bit. " The Pope of Rome, as far as I know, did not sent his legate[to Nicea]." I never knew that.

I had hoped that our discussion on Purgatory had shown that when Western ideas are properly understood on their own term, and not made to conform to Greek theological methods, that we are not really as far apart as one would originally think

On some issues. Others won't be as easy because they are much more fundamental to the Faith. Whether the Ever-Virgin Theotokos was conceived free of Ancestral Sin is not even an issue -- we do not accept that we are born with Ancestral Sin.

It is Scripturally indefensible. We cannot be held accountable for the crimes of our fathers. Our fate hinges on the basis of what we have done. No one else, no man and no animal, can atone for another man's sins.

And Original Sin is the pillar of Roman Catholic dogma. Of course, when you begin to shed some of that philosophical and other linguistic baggage, it turns out that the Original Sin is really a stain (macula) of the Sin in question, and that we are only born with the consequences of that Sin -- which is death. Well, since our beloved Theotokos died as all humans are destined to die, she was no different than other humans, but she simply chose to not sin. She achieved theosis from the beginning, but if it was all God's doing, then what's her merit?

Perhaps there is something lost in translation again, but I can tell you that +Augustine made some serious errors in his tranlsations from Greek, which he did not know very well. If he was corrected, as you say, his theology still reprsents the bulwark of Western Christian thinking, both Catholic and Protestant, and that is a serious issue.

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.