Posted on 04/07/2006 9:16:57 AM PDT by pravknight
In regard to the doctrine of original sin as contained in the Old Testament and illuminated by the unique revelation of Christ in the New Testament, there continues to reign in the denominations of the West—especially since the development of scholastic presuppositions—a great confusion, which in the last few centuries seems to have gained much ground in the theological problematics of the Orthodox East. In some circles this problem has been dressed in a halo of mystifying vagueness to such an extent that even some Orthodox theologians seem to expect one to accept the doctrine of original sin simply as a great and profound mystery of faith (e.g., Androutsos, Dogmatike, pp. 161-162). This has certainly become a paradoxical attitude, especially since these Christians who cannot point their fingers at this enemy of mankind are the same people who illogically claim that in Christ there is remission of this unknown original sin. This is a far cry from the certitude of St. Paul, who, of the devil himself, claimed that "we are not ignorant of his thoughts" (noemata).[1]
If one is to vigorously and consistently maintain that Jesus Christ is the unique Savior Who has brought salvation to a world in need of salvation, one obviously must know what is the nature of the need which provoked this salvation.[2] It would, indeed, seem foolish to have medical doctors trained to heal sickness if there were no such thing as sickness in the world. Likewise, a savior who claims to save people in need of no salvation is a savior only unto himself.
(Excerpt) Read more at orthodoxinfo.com ...
Thanks for this marvelously Orthodox pov on the nature and consequences of the Sin of Adam and the meaning of "Salvation". Fr. John, of Blessed memory, can be "difficult" sometimes; he's hardly what one would call an ecumenist! But if one sticks with his purely theological writings, he is excellent.
A quick word about the site you linked to; it tends to be a "crazy convert" site so beware!
Ping on Original Sin (Fr. John Romanides).
Kolo,
I'm an Eastern-rite Catholic as you know, but it still has some good nuggets of truth on it.
,Prav
What does the Eastern Rite Catholic Church teach on this? I had always assumed that its theology was effectively identical with that of Orthodoxy, with the occassional bow to the "Immaculate Conception". I'm leaving the Maronites out of this for now.
Fr. John was very ecumenical and very concerned with the spread, love, and knowledge of the truth, and the unity of Christians. He was not at all irenic - willing to ignore certain truth for the sake of artificial harmony.
Ecumenism is a virtue connected with the love of all our fellow men, and the specific apostolic desire to enlighten those in error. Irenicism is a mortal sin connected with the denial and refusal to proselytize the knowledge of known truths among those in error.
Most persons called "ecumenical" today are really "irenicists", and much "ecumenical" activity is really sinful "irenicism".
We are identical to the Orthodox on this, although we view the Immaculate Conception as a development of the Orthodox doctrine of Mary as Panaghia (all-holy), therefore always holy. There are numerous ancient texts that refer to the Holy Spirit dwelling in Mary from her mother's womb, and if true it would mean that she was full of grace and illumination from the first moment of her existence.
I think though that many of us are uncomfortable with the 1854 definition placing the Immaculate Conception on the same theological plane as Christology, Triadology or Pneumatology.
We don't worry ourselves with the Latin definition of original sin. Even if the Theotokos was always holy, she still had free-will and could have chosen to turn away from God's plan for her life, just like everyone else.
St. Demetrios of Rostov taught the Immaculate Conception, and the Old Believers were rumored to believe in it. I would prefer to see it as a theological opinion rather than as a dogma, but I will leave that up to the Vatican authorities.
I stand corrected. Loose talk on my part. You are of course completely correct.
"I think though that many of us are uncomfortable with the 1854 definition placing the Immaculate Conception on the same theological plane as Christology, Triadology or Pneumatology."
Precise definitions can be troublesome. About two years ago I had a discussion of the Immaculate Conception/Original Sin with a Latin Rite deacon from England. His understanding of Original Sin and what may be meant by the IC was almost totally Orthodox. He pointed out that Aquinas himself rejected the idea, at least the idea as it developed into what the Pope proclaimed in 1854. Defining something like that seems assuredly to lead to contentions, which is why I agree that some sort of theologoumenon on the issue seems the better way to go. I can't help but think, however, that the IC is absolutely necessitated by the "traditional" Latin Rite concept of Original Sin. Its simply one of the many results of that Augustinian, or perhaps, distorted Augustinian view of the human condition.
>>>Precise definitions can be troublesome.
Indeed, the pronouncements of the Council of Trent, in certain cases are prime examples.
"Indeed, the pronouncements of the Council of Trent, in certain cases are prime examples."
As in the West, some of our Orthodox Local Councils have said some "troubling" things. :)
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.