Likely Moscow patriarch stresses differences with Catholic belief
Vincentius Wrote:And there's the FILIOQUE.

The Filioque and other things here mentioned will be solved once they accept the Petrine Ministry.
SaintSebastian Wrote:Bonifacio, if you get a chance, check out St. Alphonsus Liguori's "Glories of Mary." In Discourse VII on the Assumption he does a good job of explaining why she died despite not having any stain of sin (which of course seems counter-intuitive on its face) [Image: waytogo.gif]
Not really, she desired to imitate her Divine Son. It's that simple. Love makes you do "crazy things" like die when you don't have to. You must remember that neither opinion is defined as divinely revealed truth, that is, it is not dogma and we are free to believe either way. I believe she freely chose to die as it is both pious belief and in private relevation.
SouthpawLink Wrote:This passage from Bishop Kallistos' The Orthodox Church may help shed light on the Orthodox position on Original Sin:

Quote:"Most Orthodox theologians reject the idea of 'original guilt', put forward by Augustine and still accepted (albeit in a mitigated form) by the Roman Catholic Church. Humans (Orthodox ususally teach) automatically inherit Adam's corruption and mortality, but not his guilt: they are only guilty in so far as by their own free choice they imitate Adam. Many western Christians used to believe that whatever a person does in the fallen and unredeemed state, since it is tained by original guilt, cannot possibly be pleasing to God: 'Works before Justification,' says the thirteenth of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, '. . . are not pleasant to God . . . but have the nature of sin.' Orthodox would hesitate to say this. And Orthodox have never held (as Augustine and many others in the west have done) that unbaptized babies, because tainted with original guilt, are consigned by the just God to the everlasting flames of hell.2 The Orthodox picture of fallen humanity is far less sombre than the Augustinian or Calvinist view.
"But although Orthodox maintain that humans after the fall still possessed free will and were still capable of good actions, yet they certainly agree with the west in believing that human sin had set up between humanity and God a barrier which humanity by its own efforts could never break down. Sin blocked the path to union with God. Since we could not come to God, He came to us" (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, New Edition, pp. 224-225).
It is Protestant Calvinist heresy that man is total depraved and corrupted after the Fall. It is de fide that men can do moral good without the grace of God but that has nothing to do with meriting Heaven by such good actions. Grace is necessary for salvation, not for doing good, but for doing Supernatural Good.

Quote:2. Thomas Aquinas, in his discussion of the fall, on the whole followed Augustine, and in particular retained the idea of original guilt; but as regards unbaptized babies, he maintained that they go not to Hell but to Limbo - a view now generally accepted by Roman theologians. So far as I can discover, Orthodox writers do not make use of the idea of Limbo.
It should be noted that an Augustinian view of the fall is found from time to time in Orthodox theological literature; but this is usually the result of western influence. The Orthodox Confession of Peter of Moghila is, as one might expect, strongly Augustinian; on the other hand the Confession of Dositheus is free from Augustinianism.
The guilt of original sin is compatable with men still being able to do good naturally. Even in the Church, a person can sin personally keeping the guilt and then do a good act a moment latter.

Quote:Certainly the Catholic Church agrees with the Orthodox in saying that man still possesses free will and can perform morally good actions.
As I said it a de fide teaching period. Catholics are obligated to believe it as dogma.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)