FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 (/showthread.php?tid=51229)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Melkite - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 12:53 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: A practical consequence of Our Lady's immaculate conception was not, for example, that she was born without personal guilt, because that's true of all of us.  But she was also born free from concupiscence, which is not true of the rest of us!

The Orthodox would say that Mary could not be free from the temptation to sin, or else, she is not truly human.  Something is different about her, and thus, would be different about Christ.  Christ would then, in that sense, not be fully human, and if he's not fully human, can not die a truly human death.  If he can't die a truly human death, he is incapable of conquering the death that we are bound to.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Melkite - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 01:55 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Melkite, does this make sense to you at all:

I understand his line of thinking.  I think the error in the first part is where he says actual sin is more voluntary than original sin.  Original sin is not voluntary at all.  I also think he is in error where he talks about original justice, and says that it is that original justice that held us back from going after what is sinful.  This is an error, because it basically makes it that God created us as gravitating toward sin, as if that is the base nature of things to do, but it was his divine justice that tethered us to him, and by original sin, that tether was broken, freeing us to move towards our natural desire.  Rather, no such gravitation toward sin existed prior.  Before the original sin, everything was the way it was supposed to be.  Original sin does not make us an untethered evil thing, but rather, a good thing with a broken navigational system.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - TrentCath - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 01:42 PM)Parmandur Wrote: I have seen Easterners state that they don't believe in Original Sin, just the darkening of the intellect, weakening of the will and concupiscence.  :LOL:

I think y'all are talking past each other here, particularly when you start playing Doctors of the Church against each other as if they are n competition rather than agreement.

Melkite hasn't quoted a single doctor of the church or anyone else for that matter, so I cannot see how we are playing doctors of the Church against each other  :LOL:

As for your sentence, sadly that is exactly what Melkite appears to be stating.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - newyorkcatholic - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 02:09 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 12:53 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: A practical consequence of Our Lady's immaculate conception was not, for example, that she was born without personal guilt, because that's true of all of us.  But she was also born free from concupiscence, which is not true of the rest of us!

The Orthodox would say that Mary could not be free from the temptation to sin, or else, she is not truly human.  Something is different about her, and thus, would be different about Christ.  Christ would then, in that sense, not be fully human, and if he's not fully human, can not die a truly human death.  If he can't die a truly human death, he is incapable of conquering the death that we are bound to.

But in Eden our parents did not have concupiscence and they were human.

Concupiscence is not part of our true human nature, it's part of the fallenness we have inherited.

Didn't you say something similar yourself about what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote?  That we have a broken navig. system, we not attracted to sin by our own nature.

Our Lord most certainly did not have a broken anything (by nature) and neither did Our Lady (by grace).


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Parmandur - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 02:22 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 01:55 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Melkite, does this make sense to you at all:

I understand his line of thinking.  I think the error in the first part is where he says actual sin is more voluntary than original sin.  Original sin is not voluntary at all.  I also think he is in error where he talks about original justice, and says that it is that original justice that held us back from going after what is sinful.  This is an error, because it basically makes it that God created us as gravitating toward sin, as if that is the base nature of things to do, but it was his divine justice that tethered us to him, and by original sin, that tether was broken, freeing us to move towards our natural desire.  Rather, no such gravitation toward sin existed prior.  Before the original sin, everything was the way it was supposed to be.  Original sin does not make us an untethered evil thing, but rather, a good thing with a broken navigational system.

With all due respect,  Melkite, I don't think you do understand.  It isn't that original justice was a veneer over a sinful nature.  Original justice is the natural state, the state that Our Lord and his Blessed Mother have.  Original sin is a state of sickness, where justice in the soul is broken.  The point of justification is the restoration of this original state in the soul, as part of theosis.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Crusading Philologist - 02-03-2012

By the way, here is St. Maximus on original sin:
Quote:What I am saying is that in the beginning sin seduced Adam and persuaded him to transgress God's commandment, whereby sin gave rise to pleasure and, by means of this pleasure, nailed itself in Adam to the very depths of our nature, thus condemning our whole human nature to death and, via humanity, pressing the nature of (all) created beings toward mortal extinction.

This strikes me as a good example of how the Eastern and Western views on the subject can go together fairly easily.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Melkite - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 02:44 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: But in Eden our parents did not have concupiscence and they were human.

Concupiscence is not part of our true human nature, it's part of the fallenness we have inherited.

Didn't you say something similar yourself about what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote?  That we have a broken navig. system, we not attracted to sin by our own nature.

Our Lord most certainly did not have a broken anything (by nature) and neither did Our Lady (by grace).

I didn't say I necessarily agree with it, just that's what the Orthodox would say.  Obviously, Adam and Eve would not have had concupiscence, so it can't be something intrinsic to human nature.  That is an interesting counter-point that I had forgotten about.  Jesus and Mary have to be perfect, if they are the new Adam and Eve, from the Latin point of view.  Although, from the Byzantine perspective, Jesus could not fix what he did not take on.  So, he conquered death by his death, baptism can be the means of salvation for us because he redeemed water by being baptized in it.  Likewise, he could not defeat our fallen nature and save us from it without being incarnated into it himself.  He was just like us in everything but sin.  So it would seem that the body he was born into was a fallen body in some sense, yet he perfected it and made it possible for us to be perfect. 


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Melkite - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 05:35 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: By the way, here is St. Maximus on original sin:
Quote:What I am saying is that in the beginning sin seduced Adam and persuaded him to transgress God's commandment, whereby sin gave rise to pleasure and, by means of this pleasure, nailed itself in Adam to the very depths of our nature, thus condemning our whole human nature to death and, via humanity, pressing the nature of (all) created beings toward mortal extinction.

This strikes me as a good example of how the Eastern and Western views on the subject can go together fairly easily.

Sin gave rise to pleasure?  What?  So, pleasure is intrinsically bad?


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - TrentCath - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 02:09 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 12:53 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: A practical consequence of Our Lady's immaculate conception was not, for example, that she was born without personal guilt, because that's true of all of us.  But she was also born free from concupiscence, which is not true of the rest of us!

The Orthodox would say that Mary could not be free from the temptation to sin, or else, she is not truly human.  Something is different about her, and thus, would be different about Christ.  Christ would then, in that sense, not be fully human, and if he's not fully human, can not die a truly human death.  If he can't die a truly human death, he is incapable of conquering the death that we are bound to.

I've heard this before, the problem is it presupposes concupiscence is an inherent part of human nature, its not, neither Adam nor Eve suffered from it, it is part of original sin and as such both Our Lady and Our Lord were free from it.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Parmandur - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 09:28 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 05:35 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: By the way, here is St. Maximus on original sin:
Quote:What I am saying is that in the beginning sin seduced Adam and persuaded him to transgress God's commandment, whereby sin gave rise to pleasure and, by means of this pleasure, nailed itself in Adam to the very depths of our nature, thus condemning our whole human nature to death and, via humanity, pressing the nature of (all) created beings toward mortal extinction.

This strikes me as a good example of how the Eastern and Western views on the subject can go together fairly easily.

Sin gave rise to pleasure?  What?  So, pleasure is intrinsically bad?

Pleasure in what is evil is intrinsically bad.  And that is what concupiscence is, disordered pleasure.