next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182
#11
(02-02-2012, 06:18 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote: On another thread, I explain a recent exchange I'm currently engaged in on a blog that I frequent. 

It seems I need to know some specific history about the Eastern Orthodox, for citation purposes. 

1. I need to know how the split happened, and
2. I need to know any/all doctrinal differences. 

I know a few, but I like to be specific in a discussion like this, and I find I don't have any good sources. 

Recommendations?

Who better to inform than the greatest doctor of the Church?  Smile St Thomas Aquinas, in 'Against the errors of the greeks' has much to say about several of these issues, it can be read here http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm
Reply
#12
(02-02-2012, 07:20 PM)TrentCath Wrote: There are several serious differences:
ii)Original Sin

Of all of the points of controversy between Catholics and Orthodox, this one has to be the most pointless. The Orthodox and Catholic views are basically two sides of the same coin, and people who try to make the differences here into some sort of irresolvable conflict are speaking nonsense. East and West have ended up emphasizing different parts of original sin, but the two views are easily reconciled. Much of the problem came about only because Western theologians moved more toward an exclusively moral view during the Counter-Reformation, while some recent Orthodox theologians have rejected the more moral elements handed down to them out of a need to rid themselves of anything that seems too "Augustinian."However, it is very easy to incorporate both sides into one integrated definition of original sin and this was in fact done by many of the Fathers before the split.
Reply
#13
(02-02-2012, 04:31 PM)Laetare Wrote: Ironically the main differences were reconciled both at II Lyons and Florence, in 1274 and 1439 respectively. Both times, all the Orthodox episcopal representatives present celebrated Mass with the Pope/Catholic bishops, with filioque added to the Creed. Both times, a dissident or dissident intent on retaining the state of schism went back to Constantinople and stirred up a furor amidst the proud Greeks. Both times, the enemies of unity were canonized by the schismatics. >sad They have no ground to stand on - they wanted the schism to remain.

This.

Really, the Orthodox remaining in schism after Florence is due to one bishop - Mark of Ephesus, who is now called a pillar of orthodoxy.  Though other bishops not present would've likely been for schism, he was the only one at the council to be against reconciliation, and eventually pushed all to reject Florence.  Following the opinion of one bishop, which as seen as Papism to them, has never been championed by the Orthodox, yet this is precisely what happened.  What also is more interesting is that Latins and Orthodox were in communion on a local basis up until the mid 1400s (depending on location); this was the case in Russia, and somewhat is still the case in the Holy Land (more like cooperation).  Why did this stop?  Mark of Ephesus.  Now, the Orthodox generally hold that Roman Catholics stopped being "orthodox" by 1204, and many (and all old-calendarists) hold the Latins lost sacramental grace by then as well.  This simply flies right in the face  of history.

At any rate, it is a complex issue that probably isn't worth wasting internet rants over.
Reply
#14
(02-02-2012, 03:19 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: what is Adam's Curse if not original sin?

Death.
Reply
#15
(02-02-2012, 07:22 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Who better to inform than the greatest doctor of the ChurchSmile St Thomas Aquinas

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Reply
#16
(02-03-2012, 12:15 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-02-2012, 07:22 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Who better to inform than the greatest doctor of the ChurchSmile St Thomas Aquinas

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Scratching head

Are you suggesting there is someone better?

I cannot imagine that anyone is so foolish as to insult St Thomas Aquinas and if so I have no interest in discussing this with such a one, who in mocking St Thomas Aquinas has placed themselves outside the pale of the discussion so far as I am concerned.

If one does not believes The Angelic Doctor is the greatest of all the church doctors, I'll grant that it is commonly accepted either to be him or St Augustine but I think him the greater.
Reply
#17
(02-02-2012, 07:44 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(02-02-2012, 07:20 PM)TrentCath Wrote: There are several serious differences:
ii)Original Sin

Of all of the points of controversy between Catholics and Orthodox, this one has to be the most pointless. The Orthodox and Catholic views are basically two sides of the same coin, and people who try to make the differences here into some sort of irresolvable conflict are speaking nonsense. East and West have ended up emphasizing different parts of original sin, but the two views are easily reconciled. Much of the problem came about only because Western theologians moved more toward an exclusively moral view during the Counter-Reformation, while some recent Orthodox theologians have rejected the more moral elements handed down to them out of a need to rid themselves of anything that seems too "Augustinian."However, it is very easy to incorporate both sides into one integrated definition of original sin and this was in fact done by many of the Fathers before the split.

That really depends on which theologian you speak to, some eastern theologians outright reject the de fide view of the Church, again the fact is the Orthodox churches do not have doctrinal unity either  amongst themselves or over time no matter how much they like to claim they do.
Reply
#18
Let's not be ridiculous.
Reply
#19
(02-03-2012, 06:25 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Let's not be ridiculous.

Huh?
Reply
#20
(02-03-2012, 12:13 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-02-2012, 03:19 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: what is Adam's Curse if not original sin?

Death.

A view that is thoroughly rejected by The Catholic Church, '2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.' Council of Trent, Decree on original sin

One can say that death is on of the consequences of sin but to say it is the only one defies the reality of sin. It is clear that man also has an inclination to sin, that his will is gravely weakened and that man can no longer possess original justice and indeed does not. Death may be the result of original sin, but it cannot be original sin per se.

If death was original sin, then what would be the punishment for original sin? Surely God cannot have let it gone unpunished? Further how do we deal with the question of mans original justice or will? Do we deny that man had original justice in the first place or deny that mans will was stronger before than after the fall? If we do not do we say that these are merely consequences of death? Neither are these statements are supported by the tradition of the church or scripture and the second is simply illogical, mans loss of original justice occurred because of Adams sin not death, it is therefore clear that original sin cannot be death.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)