Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
The Orthodox Church certainly has a tradition that the Theotokos was sinless, but not that she was conceived without original sin or the effects of the ancestral sin.
On our feast of her conception, however, (which has been commemorated in the East longer than in the West) our services mention absolutely nothing about her being conceived without sin, or without the effects of the ancestral sin, or anything remotely resembling it. The emphasis is on the miraculous fact of her being born to very elderly parents beyond childbearing age.
And of course, like all Orthodox services, the service is a rather long one, with many, many chances to mention this belief. When we discussed this once before, I did some research, and the parts of the services that are attributed to a specific saint (most hymnology is anonymous) go back to the 12th century and 9th century, as I recall.
We know God's rule: no repentance, no forgiveness. Repentance must come from the heart, so yes it is in our hands. Very much so. We are free to cleave to God or to embrace satan." According to you, the ultimate determination of our destiny is in man's hands. At some point, someone has to make the final decision, and for you, that person is [a] man.
Why does that bother you - that man must ask God for forgiveness? Isn't the Bible very clear that man is told over and over to "Repent and believe"? I don't see how me making a decision (and it is God enabling me to do so) suddenly makes God ineffective in salvation! It is God's Spirit that enables me to choose Him.
LOL! OK, you go tell all your friends that you spent six months on a debate thread with real live Reformers, and this is your honest understanding of what they said about their beliefs. :)
While tongue-in-cheek, tell me, how am I wrong? You already assured me that you are saved. I presume that means no matter what you do. So party it up! WHOOPIE! Pick up your cross??? WHY?
Regards
Unless I misunderstand what you mean by the "one and the same Faith" I would respectfully disagree. With regards to the different view between Catholics and Orthodox on the Immaculate Conception (as one example) both are saying they are following tradition set down by the fathers. Yet, both hold different views. I'm sure the Catholics wouldn't minimize the Immaculate Conception. Their whole theology is practically built around it. Yet, the Orthodox do not believe in the Immaculate Conception and they say they're following tradition. Someone has to be wrong.
The isolation you rightfully suggest shows different doctrines based upon "tradition". How can that possibly be if God leads "one and the same catholic and Apostolic Church"? Moreover the Catholic website states that the Immaculate Conception was the Church's tradition for 1200 years. That would imply that the Orthodox have strayed from sound teachings.
Protestants here are constantly told by the Orthodox and Catholics that their doctrine is based upon tradition set down by the Church and these have always been part of the Church. We are chastised for NOT following tradition. The simple fact is that both groups review and develop doctrine and then find the writings that support that doctrine and reject the writings that don't. To be fair, the Orthodox makes no pretense of following this approach as I posted from the Orthodox website several posts back. Our Catholic friends, OTOH, would like us to believe that various RCC positions were always held by the Church. Doctrines such as the Immaculate Conceptions puts them squarely at odds with the Orthodox view and is a prime example.
I'm baffled how one can say the Orthodox and Catholic view are essentially the same and I have listed the doctrinal differences. But what is stranger is that each Church state they base their views upon the tradition of the fathers. Perhaps that was Luther error. Had he just provided a few snippets from early church fathers, it would have confused everyone for the next 500 years.
I don't know if there is a "trigger mechanism" as such, FK. You will perhaps remember this snip from the Athonite Archimandrite Sophrony:
Yes, I definitely do remember this, especially the key phrases:
"The Holy Spirit comes when we are receptive."
This sounds innocent enough :) but this is the "trigger mechanism" I was referring to. This sounds like man is receptive when he decides to be, whereas I would say that man is receptive when God decides it's time.
God respects and does not constrain man.
I know this was brought up before, but I can't remember in what way God can "respect" man, in the normal way we use the term. We are His full creation, so what is there to respect in us? Does this imply that we have grown into something more than His original creation? I can't imagine so.
It is amazing how God humbles Himself before us.
This one I really remember :) and I think I said something to the effect that God humbles Himself "in front of" man, but not "TO" man.
This is a terrible, non-Biblical analogy... Over and over, the Bible tells us that the "Spirit gets off the bus" when we sin... And you again seem to believe that we are puppets who are no longer responsible for our actions. The back seat driver is not responsible for the driver's actions. Thus, who EXACTLY is the winner of the race? WHO is judged? The Spirit's driving skills? Please.
It is also a gift that the elect may not refuse.
Another non-Biblical concept. The bible tells us that man can refuse to Holy Spirit's graces, can grieve Him.
In both cases they were making comparisons, and in neither case did the water do the saving
You should read the Scriptures more before you make such comments...
"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. the like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us . (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" 1 Peter 3:20-21
Besides, we are already told in scripture of when Peter witnessed first hand the salvation of others BEFORE their Baptisms: Acts 10:44-48
Another non-Biblical concept. First, nowhere in Acts 10 does Peter say that the persons with the Spirit prior to Baptism were already SAVED! The Spirit existing within man does NOT mean He is saved... In Romans 2, the Spirit comes to EVERY PERSON and writes a Law onto them. Thus, He has entered EVERY PERSON. Does this mean EVERY PERSON are now saved?
You can't praise God and speak in tongues without being saved.
Define "saved". It is not just a one-time event. There is your confusion. Just like a person can get sick, and be healed and get sick again, a man also can be saved, sin, and be saved again...
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up" James 5:14-15
Hmmm. The saved are being saved again...
Regards
I'm not saying a tradition that Mary was sinless. I'm talking about the Immaculate Conception. New Advent states:
Now if this decree comes from "the chair of Peter", as it does, and if any ruling from the chair is infalible, then how can it be wrong? It means that original sin infects mankind and Mary was preserved from it. That's the "infalible" teaching from the Church. It also means that the Orthodox are wrong in their teaching of original sin which they claim tradition support their view.
BTW-While reading about the Immaculate Conception, it is interesting that the original Feast of the Immaculate Conception did not talk about Mary's sinlessness-only honor her for carrying our Lord.
It is clear here that St.Paul was unaware of the command Jesus gave the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost [Mat 28:19].
It is also evident from St.Luke's account of the Acts of the Apostles that St.Paul believed he was ordained to take the gospel (his gospel) to the Gentiles, yet it is clear that Jesus, Whom St.Paul did not know when He was on earth, gave the commandment to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations" [Mat 28:19]
Yet, reading St.Luke's account, who was following St.Paul, it seems that the Apostles were oblivious to this, as it fell upon St.Paul to evangelize the Gentiles.
Again, St.Paul's Epistles were written before the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which means that despite all the claims to the contrary, there was little communication between St.Paul and the Apostles. Otherwise, they would have told him of the Lord's commandment to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity and not in the name of Jesus Christ.
It is even more curious that the Gospels, being written after St.Paul's Epistles, make no reference to that, and in fact teach that Jesus specifically instructed St.Peter not to evangelize the Gentiles, but the 12 tribes of Israel, whom He had to have known would reject His teachings!
The message of St.Matthew is clear: the gospels and the judgment were understood to be for the 12 tribes of Israel and not all the nations of the world! [Mat 19:28]
It is also somewhat curious that St.Peter, who would have been aware of the Lord's commandment to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity would use St.Paul's "formula" [Act 2:38]
Or was the Trinitarian baptismal formula inserted into the 4th century copies we have? Judging from the rest of the NT, none was aware of that single commandment reported only by St.Matthew.
And were references to "all nations" also a "politically correct" insertion to the same time at a later date, when the Gospels otherwise seem to refer to only the 12 tribes of Israel being saved and judged?
That was my understanding, which is why I thought your answer was somewhat odd, but in the cotext in which you explain it is quite understandable.
Maybe HarleyD would grace us with the knowledge what Reformed catechis is all about. I promise I will have an open mind, at least for a while. :)
As I have said before, this is the Latin Catholic view of Tradition, their own tradition. As you point out, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is infallibly declared. But the Orthodox are not bound to this decision, since they are not part of the Latin Catholic Church. Thus, when you say they are wrong, that is like comparing apples and oranges. We have infallibly declared OUR Tradition. We don't answer for the Orthodox or their tradition or beliefs. It is clear that our Churches have taken different interpretative paths on some issues. That doesn't make either wrong when we say Mary was conceived sinless, and the Orthodox say she never sinned. As Kolo said, a Great Council would reconcile our positions and reaffirm our respective Traditions, which have gone in different directions in the last 1000 years.
Part of why we call Mary sinless has to do with very ancient writings - St. Justin, St. Ireneaus and Tertullian (c.150-220 AD) all wrote about Mary as the Second Eve. The Church also saw Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant, a pure vessel for carrying the Bread of Life, the New Law, and the High Priest, just as the original Ark carried the symbols of the reality of Jesus Christ. The idea that Mary was sinless is NOT a "new" concept in the Church.
Regards
Yes, the "tradition" is that both Churches hold Mary to be without sin. Just "how" it happened is a different story. The belief of the Church is one thing; the "explanation" is another.
The Orthodox could not have developed an Immaculate Conception hypothesis because it would be meaningless in terms of the Eastern understanding of our Fall. The West, which also acknowledges our Fall, nevertheless believes that we are born dead in sin (St.Augustine's innovation); the Church until that time, from the beginning by all accounts, considered our Fall to be spiritual sickness, a defect, disability, in need of a Healer, not spiritual death as is the case with fallen angels.
You are confusing mechanism with the beliefs. Thus, we both believe that the Eucharist is Real Presence, real Body and Blood of Christ. We believe that man has free will. We believe that God is Triune, that Christ has two distinct unconfused natures and will, one human the other divine. We believe in Mary's undefiled virginity, her assumption in body and soul, apostolic succession, priesthood, we believe Mary was without sin, etc.
We agree on all key beliefs. Our Liturgies are externally different but internally the same. The importance of the Liturgy is central in both Churches. We both consider the Church catholic. We have Saints among the popes, and they have saints among the Greeks.
You are creating a false dichotomy, HD, as Kolo already reminded you. We may not agree on the "mechanism" of how the Eucharist becomes Real Presence, but we believe equally that it does. We may not agree with the "mechanism" of Mary's sinlessness, but we believe in the same and venerate her in the same way.
Anyway, our differences did not result in 33,000 different "churches," as is the case with Protestants, but in two different outlooks and mindsets on the same Faith for reasons I outline briefly before.
Perhaps that was Luther error. Had he just provided a few snippets from early church fathers, it would have confused everyone for the next 500 years
Not really. Anyone who started to teach that one should sin boldly could not confuse anyone in the Church to consider it as Tradition, since no Church Father, as Kolokotronis repeatedly shows, even those who walked with Apostles, never, ever espoused any interpretation similar to Luther's heresy.
Luther would have welcomed a single bishop to give him the legitimacy of the apostolic succession, but he had none. Of all the Fathers through all these centuries, Luther was able to claim only St.Augustine, a distorted St.Augustine at that. Luther was not even happy with the Apostles. He hated the Book of James and wanted it removed form the NT. He was creating his own man-made "religion," HD, and his own man-made "church," IMHO.
I'm sorry, some of these conversations have been running but I haven't had much of a chance to view all.
To be up front I've never been involved with a Protestant church that provide "catechism" to my knowledge. Nor do I fully understand what precisely Protestant catechism is unless it means the leader reading a particular part of scripture and the congregation responding. I do know that it exists but I'm not sure what it is.
Perhaps, as our friend jokus pointed out it is instruction in the faith. There are some churches, such as the Baptists, that requires you to go through some classes prior to baptism to learn the fundamentals of the Baptists. The Baptists take baptism very seriously and if you are baptized by them you become a Baptist (while we support the church my wife and I have never joined). My son had to go through one of these classes, meet with the pastor, etc. They're certainly not to the extend of a 9-12 month course. I can understand why the Catholics would have a party when it was over.
Anyway, our differences did not result in 33,000 different "churches," as is the case with Protestants, but in two different outlooks and mindsets on the same Faith for reasons I outline briefly before.
Very good points. As I have laboured to say before, this was clearly the Vatican 2 attitude regarding the East - that we view things complimentarily, rather than contradictorily. We approach the Trinity from different angles, but come to the same doctrinal positions. It is not surprising that two different cultures would approach theological issues from different points of views.
Luther would have welcomed a single bishop to give him the legitimacy of the apostolic succession, but he had none. Of all the Fathers through all these centuries, Luther was able to claim only St.Augustine, a distorted St.Augustine at that. Luther was not even happy with the Apostles. He hated the Book of James and wanted it removed form the NT. He was creating his own man-made "religion," HD, and his own man-made "church," IMHO.
Poor St. Augustine. What Protestants don't tell you (the ones who are aware of Patristics) is that St. Augustine was thoroughly Catholic. Veneration of saints and Mary, Real Presence of the Eucharist, Sacramentalism, Mass, primacy of the Papacy, and so forth, concepts that the Reformers, for some reason, do not consider when reading St. Augustine. Well, fortunately, we have Calvin to infallibly tell us where at least ONE Father sort of got it "right"...
Regards
Wow, this gets stranger and stranger. Let me see if I understand this correctly; the Catholic Church declares something to be an infallible teaching of the RCC but this doesn't make it right for someone else???? Infalibility defined by the Church is:
It is well further to explain:
that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly;
and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.
It's that and more. We live in a culture that is indifferent to many Christian ideals, such as giving of one's self, REAL love, and sacrifice. Many experience something within, a desire for something more from life, a hope for the future. Our technological world doesn't do it for them. Modern conveniences can only go so far in self-actualization. And when we get older and wiser, we come to realize that no matter what plans we lay, we do not have control of our fate. People then begin to take God more seriously.
Catechism, the knowledge of the faith, helps to put objective truths onto those experiences of God that the above people are having. There is a sense of searching for sprituality. People experience this spirituality, but it is subjective. Without the Church, who would know that this is the Triune God prompting conversion within one's heart? Without the Apostolic Tradition, who would know that God became man and died on the cross for the redemption of every man? Without the Scriptures given to the Church, who would have more than a limited idea of what God expects of us? Thus, to "know" God is to know Him in a personal way. Not only spending time with Him in prayer and worship, but having intellectual knowledge of His salvation plan and His work in bringing man to Him as detailed in Sacred Scriptures and in the Sacred Liturgy. Catechesis is akin to learning your girlfriend's favorite color or favorite food.
They're certainly not to the extend of a 9-12 month course. I can understand why the Catholics would have a party when it was over.
I think I understand what you are implying - and this is a possible reaction to such a "course". If you take the view that it is a class and you graduate upon receiving the sacraments, you certainly WILL be happy its over!! However, if you approach this teaching to catechumens as learning how to experience the Risen Christ through the teachings of the Church, through Scripture, through the Liturgy, through the sacaments, and through one's own private daily lives, these "classes" are the first steps for new Christians in learning how to contact He who saves. Most of the people I know desire to continue learning about Christ, albeit at a slower pace. Many desire to continue meeting as a group after their initiation.
It is a journey of faith, with RCIA being the first step in an ongoing deepening committment to Christ. We have found this approach to teaching the faith much more effective then memorizing questions and answers.
Regards
Infallible declarations do not exhaust every possible detail of a particular subject. For example, when Nicea in 325 declared that Jesus was "God from God, light from light, True God from True God", do you think that was the last time anyone discussed particular nuances of this relationship between God the Father and God the Son? No. Nicea laid out SOME of the future groundwork. The infallible teaching of the Immaculate Conception has laid the groundwork for future discussions about the Virgin Mary. They do not settle EVERYTHING, since it is the idea expressed by the words themselves that are infallible. Future generations may find that the written words used by the Pope were insufficiently nuanced to refute a future dilemna between Christians interpretating the Tradition expressed. Thus, as the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon were required to solidify the relationship between Jesus and the Father, another Ecumenical Council will likely be necessary when we try to consolidate our respective traditions between the East and the West regarding Mary and being sinless.
So, if I understand you and the definition correctly, the Church can make an "inerrent" decision but it is perfectly acceptable for someone else to make another "inerrent" decision. In other words, there could be multiple truths. Is that's what you're stating?
No. There will not be a defined teaching that says "Mary is Immaculately Conceived" followed by a defined teaching that says "Mary is NOT Immaculately Conceived", for the Spirit guides the Church. It may become necessary to clarify the nuances of this doctrine, but that doesn't nullify what went before. The East does not dogmatically declare that "Mary was not immaculately conceived". What needs to occur is for both sides to verbalize their respective beliefs and traditions, with the Spirit gently molding the Council, so as to come to a further refinement of the Catholic faith.
On this subject, it very well may come to the Orthodox accepting the dogma, though they will certainly discuss the concept of original sin that calls into question the need for being immaculately conceived. However, since the doctrine is not solely based on original sin, I would say that it would be accepted by the East.
Regards
Absolutely. In my (OCA) church, the catechumens have an hour of question and answer session before the Hours (preparatory prayers before the Divine Liturgy), during which all sorts of concepts are discussed and explained in line with the teachings of the Church. It includes theology, history, and praxis. So, there is no rote memory.
In the Orthodox Liturgy (as it used to be in the Latin as well), the Cathecumens are asked to leave after the readings of the Gospels (The doors! The doors!"). Of course, they don't have to leave as they used to, but sometimes stay for the Eucharistic part of the service, but they cannot partake of the of the Eucharist.
Well, are you saying that all these people were sinless like you think Mary was sinless? Is there a large group in that sinless category, headed presumably, by Mary? When you go on to say that God expects us to be sinless, that is, or else what?
Certainly you don't think that we can be alive in Christ if we are not sinless?
"Sinlessness" is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure I am clear on one thing. Do the Orthodox make the same distinction between venial and mortal sin as the Catholics?
No, Protestantism is easy because it requires nothing of you other than "Lord, Lord..." Once you accept Christ as your Savior, you are "in" [talk about you deciding rather than God!] and from there on nothing you do will get you "out."
No, EVERYONE here says that all the "Lord, Lord..." people are all toast, so it's not that simple. :) Further, no one becomes a member of the elect by saying the sinner's prayer. All of the elect were members from the beginning, the elect just become aware of what they already had at the point of belief. Finally, God's promises do tell the elect that none of them will be lost or snatched out of the hand of God. Just as the elect were moved to become aware of their election, so they will also be moved to persevere, willingly and lovingly.
It doesn't say that at all. Your interpretation is using Pauline teachings. Christ makes no reference to the "elect," and the Gospels make no reference to +Paul, even though they were written after his Epistles were written.
I was trying to think of how to bring passersby up to speed on what we're talking about here. Then I realized it doesn't matter. I think your statement clarifies for everyone what you think of the inerrancy of the scriptures, and to what degree you think they are inspired.
BTW, why would have any of the Gospels mentioned Paul? The Gospels all ended sometime around the death of Christ. Paul wasn't on the scene yet. Shame on Paul. :)
If you are destined to go into heaven, why would you have to change? Or how could you?
Apparently, in all matters concerning life, both physical and spiritual, our God has instilled the element of growth. I can't tell you why He did, but I can tell you that He did. Change is part of growth when it is directed toward Him. God decided that this is to be part of the human experience for His elect. The actual change itself is accomplished by God for the benefit of His elect.
"Rather I'm talking about those beliefs where there is considerable disagreement, like original sin, that has been established from the "chair of Peter"."
I could be wrong, but I don't think the Augustinian construct of "original sin" has been dogmatically defined by the Western Church. It goes without saying, however, that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, or so the West would have it, is necessitated by that concept.
Maybe so, but one church in Jackson, MS hardly qualifies as the Antiochian Orthodox Church in America.
I can't say much regarding the Diocese of Miami and the Southeast, but in the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America, kneeling on Sundays is prohibited for the exact reason you stated earlier. I would think that this practice is the norm elsewhere and that what you observed in Jackson was an exception, but I'm just guessing.
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.