Posted on 12/26/2006 12:41:46 PM PST by sionnsar
"Is there a difference here between the Catholics and the Orthodox? I suspect the latter would replace "offend" with "separate us from", but I don't quite follow from there. Perhaps because I've heard little to nothing of "mortal vs venial sins" from the Orthodox here."
Ah, this is one of your arcane Western problems. Imputed or infused "righteousness" has little or no meaning in Orthodox theology. In fact, I can't think of an eastern Father, off hand, who spoke at all about this. Remember, our concept of ancestral sin is quite different from your Augustinian "Original Sin". The East has never had the view that mankind was utterly depraved after the Fall or perfect before the Fall. A Calvinist FRiend informed me some years back that we Orthodox ar "synergists", in other words, we cooperate with God's grace to advance in theosis...or we don't on both counts. In this we believe that by the Incarnation, the Crucifixtion and the Resurrection, Christ, by destroying the bonds of death, restored us to the original potential we had before the Fall, the possibility of becoming divinized, theosis. Justification and Righteousness are usually used only by Orthodox writers who are trying to put Orthodox theology and sotierology in terms Western Christians can understand. But they really don't fit. I suppose the best I can say is that Justication is a gift of the Holy Spirit to those who respond to the Gospel with Faith. God also helps those who cooperate with His grace to become righteous. Righteousness is similarly a gift of the Holy Spirit given to those who live a good, just and blameless life. But we can never earn any of this by our own merits. We can merely chose to cooperate or not. These gifts transform the Christian. As +Symeon the New Theologian wrote:
"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 (that is, purification of heart and acquisition of grace have attained their fullness and perfection), through grace a man becomes wholly a god."
And as +John Chrysostomos preached:
"The dispensation of our God and Saviour concerning man is a recall from the fall, and a return from the alienation caused by disobedience to close communion with God. This is the reason for the sojourn of Christ in the flesh, the pattern of life described in the Gospels, the sufferings, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection; so that the man who is being saved through imitation of Christ receives the old adoption. For perfection of life the imitation of Christ is necessary, not only in the example of gentleness, lowliness, and long suffering set us in His life, but also of His actual death. So Paul, the imitator of Christ, says, `being made conformable unto His death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.' How then are we made in the likeness of His death? In that we were buried with Him by baptism."
Oh, and we make no distinction between mortal and venial sins. Our purpose is to become like God and thus share in or come into communion with His uncreated energies (but not His essence). Not being like Christ is to "miss the mark (Christ)" which is what the Greek word "amartia", sin, means.
Thus, Sanders provides a sort of half answer. The issue must be addressed using a different set of assumptions for those Anglicans who were not in the camp of reformed theology.
SIMUL JUSTUS ET PECCATOR!!!
(always wanted a bumpter sticker that says that...seems especially appropriate while driving...)
I think you MUST have misread it, as the essay makes clear that the only place of safety to go, is into the saving arms of Christ alone...
You miss the point, classical Anglican doctrine has one FINAL authority, God's Word, the Scriptures. Roman doctrine has twin final authorities, authoritative Church teachings, AND the Scriptures. Liberal Anglicans/Episcopalians also have twin final authorities, Church speculations...(often never more than that...)and (supposedly) the scriptures.
You're right the nature of those "authorities" are completely different (the liberals make an ultimate claim of no ultimate authority....) however, both systems, liberal Protestant, and Roman Catholic, do not have the scriptures alone as final authority.
No, I did NOT miss the point. The author made a wholly illegitimate comparison and you are trying to rectify it by substituting one that is more palatible to you. But your "point" doesn't fit the context. The author suggested that papal infallibility could lead to the sort of lisenciousness found in the liberal Episcopal Church. You may not like papal infallibility but suggesting that it could be a mechanism for the acceptance of practicing homosexuals being elected bishop, or any of the other recent Episcopalian travesties is risible!
Contrary to the author's assertions, infallibility does not add to the Word of God; it is merely interpretation, and, with two exceptions, very literalist interpretations. But what it does is establish a set, authorized interpretation for all ages, so that once an ecumenical council or Pope denounces homosexuality, no liberals can later quibble, as they have in the Episcopalian church, over whether or not St. Paul merely meant temple prostitution when he condemned homosexuality; or whether the Old Testament proscriptions are still in effect.
And that is a protection AGAINST liberalism, not an oppportunity for it.
Actually, to speak of "universal" doctrines, as opposed to identifying those doctrines which were developed and approved officially by a certain body headed by a curia living in Rome, is less accurate, and already assumes Roman Catholic doctrine is universally Christian doctrine--when millions of Christians around the world do not acknowledge that. "Roman Catholic" is really the most accurate way to refer to things of the Church of Rome, however "Roman" is shorthand for that--and accurately reflects the opinions of those who do not acknowledge Roman dogma as universally authoritative over all Christians.
It seems pretty arrogant to expect Anglicans to refer to Roman doctrines with a shorthand of "universal."
(besides the Orthodox have at least as much claim to being as ancient and universal in their doctrines as Rome...but that's a different matter.)
"Roman" too, being shorthand for Roman Catholic, is a neutral term too, and not associated with terms considered by some pejorative, like "papist" or "popish" which some Anglican writers (C. S. Lewis, for example...following Oxford usage of his day) of generations past used.
But please, do not expect non-Roman Catholic Christian scholars to use the term "Catholic" in referring to the distinctive teachings of the Church of Rome.
No, of course not...but can you say that several (if not many?) of the popes of that era were not utterly corrupted (even sexually) by the enormous power the doctrine of infallibility (as they understood it...) rendered them? Even the most conservative Roman Catholic historians today will admit there were some pretty horrendous popes in the late medieval (and most powerful) period--otherwise Luther, or before him Hus, would have had no following (and most of the monastic orders would never have needed founding...).
Lord Acton's aphorism on power applies...even (or especially?) in the Church.
Aren't you confusing infallibility with impeccability? The office does not impart holiness to the individual.
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
Now, if we could locate one of these sinful individuals that proposed for belief by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals that was contradictory to Revelation, infallibility would certainly be considered doubtful by any rational person.
Roman is NOT a neutral term. The word is used to conjure up images of Babylon, Caligulus, and allegations of Constantine's supposed corruption of Catholicism. The Vatican isn't even IN Rome.
Actually, I think the use of the terminology, "offend God" is a bow to Protestant misunderstandings of some supreme notion of being "separated" from God.
The Orthodox, AFAIK, do not distinguish between mortal and venial sins; and the distinction is even a dangerous one for modern times. A better distinction would be between "grave" sins and "venial" sins; a "grave" sin being one with the severity to be mortal, but not necessarily the requisite deliberateness or knowledge to be mortal.
The Catholic distinction is based on the notion that certain sins, if deliberate, chosen of free will, and with full understanding of their severity, signify a refusal of grace.
>> but can you say that several (if not many?) of the popes of that era were not utterly corrupted (even sexually) by the enormous power the doctrine of infallibility (as they understood it...) rendered them? <<
No; their corruption lay in their TEMPORAL power, of the political influence of their office, not in the ETERNAL power, of their magisterial power to discern infallible dogma.
>> Even the most conservative Roman Catholic historians today will admit there were some pretty horrendous popes <<
Actually, that helps establish the virtue of the infallible office: that the sinfulness of certain popes did NOT stain the infallibility of the office.
>> otherwise Luther, or before him Hus, would have had no following <<
Well, Luther gave witness to a great many horrors in Rome, without seeming to notice the basic geography. It is possible Luther slandered, isn't it? I would say Luther's success depended a far greater deal on the unwillingness of German aristicracy to pay to fend off the Muslim invasion. (Did not in modern days Democrats lie about scandals to attack Reagan so as to weaken the defense budget so as to soften anti-commmunism?) Plus the horrors (famine, etc.) brought about by the sudden cooling of Protestant lands (you'll notice the warmer regions remained Catholic) made people believe SOMEBODY had to be doing SOMETHING very evil, which Luther capitalized on, claiming that the plague and the famines were the fulfillment of Apocalyptic prophecies of vengesnce against the Whore Babylon.
I suppose that depends upon your definition of "in".
Dangus points up another distinction between Orthodox and Western ideas about sin. As the priest says in confession, our sins are forgiven whether known or unknown. Missing the mark does not require a conscious effort on our part.This is consistent with Orthodox theology on how we are judged at the Final Judgment, not whether we have fasted, done good deeds or failed to fast or committed evil deeds but rather we are scrutinized to determine of we have any similitude to Christ. God loves all of us and his grace falls on the good and the evil alike. But in the end, it is that divine love which scourges those how have rejected God and becomes a torment to them, just as that same love creates Paradise for those who have approached or attained theosis.
Maybe some reasons as pointed out on:
http://www.chnetwork.org/converts.htm
http://www.chnetwork.org/trconv.htm
"O Lord, blot out my sins
O Master, pardon my iniquities,
O Holy One, visit and heal my infirmities
For Your Name's sake."
To my mind, that addresses three different aspects of sin: the way my sins wound others (please blot the harm I've done to my fellow man), the way they hurt my relationship with God (please forgive me and let me approach You again), and the way they weaken and sick my own heart and make me "infirm" (please heal my inmost heart.)
I also believe that God does NOT simply cover our inner dung-heap with a mantle of snow, but actually gets into us and makes us beautiful. He plants love in us; then when He looks, He finds it blossoming there.
So we can say, not "I am disgusting, but he loves me because he loves disgusting things," but "He sees something lovable in me! He looks at me and is delighted! I am actually lovable!"
Beautifully said, Mrs. Dono. And I greatly appreciate your comments, too, Kolokotronis.
Trackback Pontifications: http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=2124
Welcome to Free Republic!
I knew there were problems with the reasoning, but it was late at night, I was tired (I am "vacationing" with three teenagers and two Labrador Retrievers), so I let it go to see what the resident FR Catholics would come up with.
Lots of good stuff, as it turns out, and a new FR Catholic.
Welcome aboard from a former nosebleed-High Anglican, now happily a member of a great Catholic parish!
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.