An open respectful discussion of Marian Doctrine

[No Swansong]

There has been an ongoing discussion in another thread about Marian doctrine. I decided I would like an open thread so that those from outside of Anglicanism/Old Catholicism can share their knowledge with us.

Post away!!

[thereselittleflower]

Thank you jtbdad

In the other thread, the issue of original sin was brought up along with the "differences" between East and West in how it is viewed. The understanding that was being presented about how the East views original sin is that it denies original sin.

What I would like to do is show how the East views original sin when the EO is willing to admit to it and how it is not all that different at all from how the Catholic Church views it.

A while ago while trying to determine this for myself, I collected quotes from Catechisms of the EO Churches dealing with Original Sin . . I hope this helps you all have a better understanding of the issue as the argument frequently incountered when speaking of Mary's Immaculate Conception the rejection of SOME EO of our Doctrine/Dogma usually centers around the concept of Original Sin, with some EO actually denying it outright altogether.

The following is what the EO Churches say when they don't deny original sin.


Peace

[thereselittleflower]

The Greek Orthodox Church:

The following is from the Catechism Of The Greek Orthodox Church (http://www.bible.ca/cr-Orthodox.htm#catechism) by the Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D., Doctor of the Ecumenical Throne.


C A T E C H I S M
O F
THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH

WRITTEN BY
Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D.



This book was reprinted and condensed by permission of
Helen Nichols and Danny Demetry, daughter and son of the
late Rev. Constas H. Demetry.

Printed in the office of:
The Saint Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church
Fort Lauderdale, Florida


Q. What is that sin of disobedience, with all the evils which it brought, called?
A. The original sin.
Q. Are we responsible for the original sin?
A. Personally none; because we did not personally commit the sin of our First Parents; but we are charged with it by inheritance because we were in Adam and Eve when they sinned, and for this reason the Apostle Paul writes:
"..all have sinned." ...Book of Romans, Chapter 5, Verse 12.


Page 16


Q. Has anyone been exempted from the original sin?
A. Only Jesus Christ, because He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, which, being God, is without sin, and of the Virgin Mary after her cleansing of original sin by the Holy Spirit when the Angel announced to her the conception and birth of Christ


Q. Does man also carry the burden of other sins besides the original sin?

A. Assuredly; personal sins. (The personal sins are mortal and non-mortal. Mortal are those which destroy any hope of repentance, because they bring the death of the soul, namely, moral, eternal death. But every sin may be forgiven by since repentance.
Q. What do personal sins lead to?
A. Personal sins lead to passion.
Q. What is passion and what evils does it inflict?

A. Passion is a bad habit, acquired through the repetition of sin. It takes away freedom and inflicts the same evils as the original sin.
DIFFERENCES AS TO THE INCARNATION
Q. In what do the Churches differ with reference to the Dogma of the incarnation of Christ?
A. Whereas the Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant Churches accept that only Christ was conceived and born without Original sin, the Papal Church, since 1854, has dogmatically declared that the Mother of God also was conceived and born spotless; this is called the Immaculate Conception.

THE TRUTH AS TO THE INCARNATION

Q. Which Church is right as to the Dogma of the Incarnation of Christ?

A. The Orthodox and Protestant, because the Holy Scripture declares that:
"all have sinned," (Book of Romans, Chapter 3, Verse 23), except Jesus Christ (Book of Hebrews, Chapter 4, Verse 14),
while Holy Tradition knows nothing of any such teaching as that of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God.

Q. What is required for Baptism, and is it necessary for infants?

A. Faith in Christ. Baptism is necessary for infants also, because while they do not have personal sins, nevertheless they do have original sin of which they need to be cleansed.

Q. Is the Divine Eucharist simply a ceremony? And for whom is it performed?
A. No. It is a true propitiatory sacrifice because it is the same sacrifice of Golgotha, with this difference:
the sacrifice on Golgotha was offered once and with blood, that the Divine Justice might be satisfied for the original sin, while the sacrifice of the Divine Eucharist, while it is the same, is performed constantly and without blood, and for this reason is called bloodless sacrifice, and the Holy Table on which it is offered, an Altar and is offered, every time to glorify the supreme love and condescension of God to man and, in its other aspect, that Divine Justice might be satisfied for the personal sins of those for whom it is offered. It is offered in honour and in memory of the Saints, and for the forgiveness of the sins of the living and dead members of the Church.



Greek/Russian/SlavWhy Evil?


God made humans righteous by nature, but the original sin of Adam and Eve damaged that nature. All have been saved through Christ's death, but those not "in Christ," born to God, are vulnerable to being with the devil, born to the devil. Satan and his countless evil spirits work to lie and tempt those not filled with the Holy Spirit to commit wrongs.
"All have been saved through Christ's death"
(This appears to promote a form of universalism . . . I have seen this expressed by some EO here at CF)




In the period after 1453 the two events which most influenced the evolution of Orthodoxy were the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the division of Western Christianity. Termination of imperial patronage increased the autonomy of the episcopacy and promoted the Russian contribution to the Orthodox heritage; Reformation theology made it possible for Orthodoxy to select from several alternative expressions of Christian doctrine. To be sure, these developments tended to place Orthodoxy on the defensive and cast it in the role of respondent rather than actor, in which it frequently appeared to be the reactionary wing of Christendom. Nevertheless, that Orthodoxy's vigor remained was evidenced in the writings of several theologians, and the ecumenism of the twentieth century has opened new possibilities for an Orthodox contribution to theology.


Melanchthon made the initial Protestant overture to Orthodoxy when he sent a Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession to Patriarch Joasaph of Constantinople, requesting that the latter find it a faithful rendition of Christian truth. His successor, Jeremiah, responded over twenty years later, condemning numerous Protestant "errors," including justification by faith alone, sola Scriptura, rejection of icons and invocation of saints, Augustinian predestination, and filioque.


A quite different response to the Reformation came from the patriarch elected in 1620, Cyril Lucaris, who composed a confession which articulated an essentially Calvinist system. Cyril's work proved to be an aberration in the history of Orthodoxy; it was formally condemned after his death in 1638 by a synod in Jerusalem thirty - four years later. But it elicited two important statements of Orthodox doctrine. In the first, Russian leadership appeared when Metropolitan Peter Mogila of Kiev composed his confession, a thorough refutation of Cyril's, in affirmation of the received body of Orthodoxy. Mogila's work was approved, with amendments, by the Eastern patriarchs in 1643. The second was the confession of Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem, approved by the synod of 1672. These two documents remained the standard definition of Orthodoxy in the modern period. They aligned Orthodoxy with the Catholic side in most of its chief doctrinal disputes with Reformed theology, e.g., the relation of tradition to Scripture, veneration of saints and images, number and meaning of sacraments, faith and works in salvation. On only two questions did they sympathize with Protestants: papal authority and canon of Scripture. Orthodoxy continued to resist both Protestants and Catholics in their mutual agreement on filioque and the Augustinian understanding of original sin. Orthodoxy rejects original sin; man is born mortal and therefore sins, instead of the other way around, as the West commonly states the matter.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/orthodox.htm

[thereselittleflower]

The following is from Our Orthodox Christian Faith: A Handbook of Popular Dogmatics by Athanasios S. Frangopoulos, theologian and teacher. Published by The Brotherhood of Theologians, “O Sotir”, in Athens, Greece, 1984.Chapter 9, The Original Sin:4.d. Guilt. The original sin which brought about man’s depravity also brought about his guilt. Man, through his transgression, became guilty before God as a transgressor of the divine command, guilty and accused before the justice of God the Lawgiver. The transgression contained guilt within it. Both are simultaneous. As soon as he committed the transgression he sensed guilt. within him. His conscience thundered out and said: “Sinner, you are guilty and stand accused before God”. It was this sense of guilt that made the first couple realize that they were naked, and hasten to hide before the face of God. Thus, wherever sin is to be found, there, too, exists guilt. The sin that Adam committed in Paradise did not result only in the depravity and moral perversion of man. It ushered also guilt and then God’s sentence and condemnation. This is felt by every man who sins. Immediately, remorse and pangs of conscience set in: a clear proof and confirmation of guilt. And the consequence of guilt is condemnation and punishment.


4.e. The inheritance of Original Sin. The saddest and ugliest aspect of Original sin is its transmission from the first man to his descendants and; from generation to generation to the entire human race: a hereditary transmission as a state and sickness of human nature and as a personal guilt of every man. That is to say, not only Adam sinned but in his person all his offsprings, all men who were to be descended from Adam. This means that Adam did not sin only as an individual but as progenitor and representative of the human race. For this reason God imputed upon all men the sin of the one. And to verify this Holy Scripture states: “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3, 23). These words of the holy Apostle while certainly presenting the universality of sin do not tell us whence came this universal unhappy legacy. This the Apostle clearly defines further along when he says that it springs from the fall of the first parents. “Wherefore,” says the divinely-inspired Apostle, “as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5, 12); that is, in the person of Adam all his descendants were included and all inherited the sin of Adam and the results of that sin which are guilt, corruption and the depravity of our nature, the tendency and inclination towards evil and finally death. Thus, as we have already said, “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”. In the psalms we find the verse that says: “For behold I was conceived in iniquities and in sins did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 50, 5), and which can be applied to each and every one of us. Job, aware of the weight of sin, asks, “Who is pure from uncleaness?” and gives the answer himself: “Not even one; if even his life should be but one day upon the earth” (Job 14, 4-5). Furthermore, the Evangelist St. John emphasizes that we all have need to be reborn in water and the Spirit, for through birth the pollution of sin is transmitted to all of us, for “that which is born of flesh is flesh” (John 3, 6), and every sinful man is by nature subject to divine wrath in accordance with the saying “we were by nature the children of wrath” (Eph. 2, 3).

The following is from The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church (http://tserkovnost.org/catechism_filaret/catechism_filaret-1.html), also known as the Catechism of Metr. St. Philaret of Moscow, Examined and Approved by the Most Holy Governing Synod, and Published for the Use of Schools, and of all Orthodox Christians, by Order of His Imperial Majesty. (Moscow, at the Synodical Press, 1830).

168. Why did not the first man only die, and not all, as now?Because all have come of Adam since his infection by sin, and all sin themselves. As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal.169. How is this spoken of in holy Scripture?By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Rom. v. 12.

The following is from Chapter VI of the Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem (http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html) (A.D. 1672).

THE CONFESSION OF DOSITHEUSDositheus, by the mercy of God, Patriarch of Jerusalem, to those that ask and inquire concerning the faith and worship of the Greeks, that is of the Eastern Church, how forsooth it thinketh concerning the Orthodox faith, in the common name of all Christians subject to our Apostolic Throne, and of the Orthodox worshippers that are sojourning in this holy and great city of Jerusalem (with whom the whole Catholic Church agreeth in all that concerneth the faith) publisheth this concise Confession, for a testimony both before God and before man, with a sincere conscience, and devoid of all dissimulation.DECREE VIWe believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world. But by these fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatsoever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature; for many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well of those under the shadow [of the Law], as under the truth [of the Gospel], such as the divine Precursor, and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, experienced not these, or such like faults; but only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labour, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, in fine, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death.The following is from the Orthodox Confession of Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church (http://esoptron.umd.edu/ugc/OCF.html) also known as the Confession of Metr. Peter Mohyla, ratified by the Council of Jassy, 1642.

Q. 23. What is the state of man’s innocence?R. The state of innocence is twofold, according to St. Basil. First of all, there is the detachment in mind and intention from all sins through the lengthy practice of good deeds. Secondly, there is the absence of the experience of evil, either because of age or other reasons. It is in this second way that Adam’s state of innocence before sin is taken, in all perfection and original justice as regards the intellect as well as the will. All knowledge is present in the intellect as is all goodness in the will. For since Adam knew God very well (to the degree that he was fittingly allowed), in knowing God he knew everything through him, this being a mark of the divine being. .......And so in this state of innocence, man was similar to the angels. As soon as he sinned, he became mortal that very instant through deception in the state of sin. For so says Sacred Scripture: “The wages of sin are death.” Then he immediately lost the perfection of reason and knowledge, his will becoming more inclined to evil than to good. Thus was the state of innocence changed, through the experience of evil, into the state of sin, and perfect man appeared so worthless that he could now say with the Psalmist: “I am a worm, not a man.”Q. 24. Are all men subject to the same sin of Adam?R. Just as all men were in the state of innocence with Adam, so when he sinned, all men sinned in him and have remained in that state of sin. They are subject, therefore, not only to sin but also the punishment for sin, which is expressed in God’s decree: “On whatever day you shall eat of it, you will die the death.” Repeating the same, the holy Apostle says: “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin - death, so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned.” For this reason we are conceived in the maternal womb and born even today in this sin, as the Psalmist says: “For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.” This sin is called original for these reasons: first, because before this time man was stained by no sin, although the devil sinned, through whose initiative the sin known as original arose in man. Adam, the perpetrator of the sin, is subject to it as also are we, his posterity. Secondly, it is called original because no man is conceived without it.
The following is from The Orthodox Catechism: Basic Teachings of the Orthodox Faith (http://orthodoxcatechism.org/) by Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios of The Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto, Canada, 1989.


Original Sin And Its ConsequencesThe disobedience and transgression of Adam and Eve is called Original Sin. What happened? As we have previously said, God gave Adam and Eve permission to eat the fruit of all trees except the fruit of the tree “of the knowledge of good and evil.” .....what shall we say is the original sin? It is the denunciation of God. If you will, it is the attempt of man to disenthrone God and to enthrone himself in His place, to become God in the place of God. It is not merely that he ate fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. St. John Chrysostom says about Eve, “She was filled with grandiose imaginings, hoping to be equal to God.” Hoping to be equal to God, she lost her senses.That is original sin. And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the “image.” That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then “the imagination of man’s heart is evil “(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man. Of course, this is unexplainable and belongs to the realm of mystery, but we can give one example to make it somewhat better understood. Let us say that you have a wild orange tree, from which you make a graft. You will get domesticated oranges, but the root will still be that of the wild orange tree. To have wild oranges again, you must regraft the tree. This is what Christ came for and achieved for fallen man, as we shall see in the following sections.Our Creator and Maker, ours is the fault. Adam and Eve, listening to Satan, blasphemed. Out of egotism, they allowed themselves to be misled. They distorted the “image.” They darkened the beauty of the soul. They weakened the nature of mankind. Because of them, we became unrecognizable. “The imagination of our heart is evil.” We constantly think of evil. We feel so guilty. We are so far away from You. We have been grafted to evil. We have lost our self-control and our free will to do good. We thank You for Your love, and for sending Your Only-begotten Son to regraft us to goodness. For giving us the possibility of returning to You. You, Lord “want every man to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Do not deprive us of this. Do not deprive anyone of salvation. We thank You Lord.

[thereselittleflower]

The following is from An Online Orthodox Catechism (http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx), adopted from The Mystery of Faith: An Introduction to the Teaching and Spirituality of the Orthodox Church, by Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev), of Vienna and Austria, 2002.


Sin was not ingrained in human nature. Yet the possibility to sin was rooted in the free will given to humans. It was indeed freedom that rendered the human being as an image of the Maker; but it was also freedom that from the very beginning contained within itself the possibility to fall away from God.......What constituted the sin of the first people? St Augustine believes it to be disobedience. On the other hand, the majority of early church writers say that Adam fell as a result of pride. Pride is the wall that separates humans from God. The root of pride is egocenticity, the state of being turned in on oneself, self-love, lust for oneself. Before the Fall, God was the only object of the humans’ love; but then there appeared a value outside of God: the tree was suddenly seen to be ‘good for food’, ‘a delight to the eyes’, and something ‘to be desired’ (Gen.3:6). Thus the entire hierarchy of values collapsed: my own ‘I’ occupied the first place while the second was taken by the object of ‘my’ lust. No place has remained for God: He has been forgotten, driven from my life........

The forbidden fruit failed to bring happiness to the first people. On the contrary, they began to sense their own nakedness: they were ashamed and tried to hide from God. This awareness of one’s nakedness denotes the privation of the divine light-bearing garment that cloaked humans and defended them from the ‘knowledge of evil’. Adam’s first reaction after committing sin was burning sensation of shame. The second reaction was his desire to hide from the Creator. This shows that he had lost all notion of God’s omnipresence and would search for any place where God was ‘absent’.However, this was not a total rupture with God. The Fall was not a complete abandonment: humans could repent and regain their former dignity. God goes out to find the fallen Adam; between the trees of Paradise He seeks him out asking ‘Where are you?’ (Gen.3:9). This humble wandering of God through Paradise prefigures Christ’s humility as revealed to us in the New Testament, the humility with which the Shepherd seeks the lost sheep. God has no need to go forth and look for Adam: He can call down from the heavens with a voice of thunder or shake the foundations of the earth. Yet He does not wish to be Adam’s judge, or his prosecutor. He still wants to count him as an equal and puts His hope in Adam’s repentance. But instead of repenting, Adam utters words of self-justification, laying the blame for everything on his wife: ‘The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate’ (Gen.3:12). In other words, ‘It was You who gave me a wife; it is You who is to blame’. In turn, Eve lays the blame for everything on the serpent.The consequences of the Fall for the first humans were catastrophic. They were not only deprived of the bliss and sweetness of Paradise, but their whole nature was changed and disfigured. In sinning they fell away from their natural condition and entered an unnatural state of being. All elements of their spiritual and corporeal make-up were damaged: their spirit, instead of striving for God, became engrossed in the passions; their soul entered the sphere of bodily instincts; while their body lost its original lightness and was transformed into heavy sinful flesh. After the Fall the human person ‘became deaf, blind, naked, insensitive to the good things from which he had fallen away, and above all became mortal, corruptible and without sense of purpose’ (St Symeon the New Theologian). Disease, suffering and pain entered human life. Humans became mortal for they had lost the opportunity of tasting from the tree of life.Not only humanity but also the entire world changed as a result of the Fall. The original harmony between people and nature had been broken; the elements had become hostile; storms, earthquakes and floods could destroy life. The earth would no longer provide everything of its own accord; it would have to be tilled ‘in the sweat of your face’, and would produce ‘thorns and thistles’. Even the animals would become the human being’s enemy: the serpent would ‘bruise his heel’ and other predators would attack him (Gen.3:14-19). All of creation would be subject to the ‘bondage of decay’. Together with humans it would now ‘wait for freedom’ from this bondage, since it did not submit to vanity voluntarily but through the fault of humanity (Rom.8:19-21).CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM’S SIN

After Adam and Eve sin spread rapidly throughout the human race. They were guilty of pride and disobedience, while their son Cain committed fratricide. Cain’s descendants soon forgot about God and set about organizing their earthly existence. Cain himself ‘built a city’. One of his closest descendants was ‘the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle’; another was ‘the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe’; yet another was ‘the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron’ (Gen.4:17-22). The establishment of cities, cattle-breeding, music and other arts were thus passed onto humankind by Cain’s descendants as a surrogate of the lost happiness of Paradise.The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race. This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom.5:12). This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘original sin’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘original sin’ means.If we accept the first translation, this means that each person is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Here, Adam is merely the prototype of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins. Adam’s sin is not the cause of our sinfulness; we do not participate in his sin and his guilt cannot be passed onto us.However, if we read the text to mean ‘in whom all have sinned’, this can be understood as the passing on of Adam’s sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal. As St Cyril of Alexandria states, human nature itself has ‘fallen ill with sin’; thus we all share Adam’s sin as we all share his nature. St Macarius of Egypt speaks of ‘a leaven of evil passions’ and of ‘secret impurity and the abiding darkness of passions’, which have entered into our nature in spite of our original purity. Sin has become so deeply rooted in human nature that not a single descendant of Adam has been spared from a hereditary predisposition toward sin......From a rational point of view, to punish the entire human race for Adam’s sin is an injustice. But not a single Christian dogma has ever been fully comprehended by reason. Religion within the bounds of reason is not religion but naked rationalism, for religion is supra-rational, supra-logical. The doctrine of original sin is disclosed in the light of divine revelation and acquires meaning with reference to the dogma of the atonement of humanity through the New Adam, Christ: ‘…As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous… so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Rom.5:18-21).The following is from the Catechism Of The Greek Orthodox Church (http://www.bible.ca/cr-Orthodox.htm#catechism) by the Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D., Doctor of the Ecumenical Throne.


http://www.bensusan.net/razilazenje/2006/03/24/orthodoxy-and-original-sin/





From The 7 Ecumenical Councils: We all know that the Eastern Orthodox are stalwart defenders of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church. However, two of these Ecumeical Councils (Ephesus in 430 and Nicea II in 787) received the explicitly Augustinian conciliar canons of the Council of Carthage in AD 418.



This Council of Carthage canonized nine beliefs to be received the Church. These nine statments were put forth to deny the errors of Pelagius. They are as follows:1. Death came from sin, not man's physical nature.2. Infants must be baptized to be cleansed from original sin.3. Justifying grace covers past sins and helps avoid future sins.4. The grace of Christ imparts strength and will to act out God's commandments.5. No good works can come without God's grace.6. We confess we are sinners because it is true, not from humility.7. The saints ask for forgiveness for their own sins.8. The saints also confess to be sinners because they are.9. Children dying without baptism are excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life.Every canon was accepted as a universal belief of the Church and banished all Pelagians from Italy. These Carthaginian canons were accepted by the Church at the Ecumenical Council in AD 431. There were received yet again at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (the Second Council of Nicea) in AD 787.This occurred when the Seventh Council ratified the Canons of Trullo (also called the Quinsext Council), which had received the Canons of the African Code which include those of the Carthaginian conciliar condemnations of AD 418.

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2006/02/must-eastern-orthodox-believe-in.html

Orthodox responses to the above: I like this approach, and I think it's faithful to the Orthodox Catholic Tradition of both East and West. However, as an Orthodox Christian, I can't tell you how many times I've heard that "The Orthodox don't believe in Original Sin." I've even heard a couple of Orthodox, always keen on trashing Saint Augustine, hold up the heresiarch Pelagius as a great Orthodox Saint (in some cases, this also has to do with an unhealthy exaltation with all things Celtic, Pelagius having been a monk from Britain).



Would it be fair to say that this is another example of an extreme contemporary Eastern Orthodox over-reaction to "The Western Captivity"?http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2006/02/eastern-orthodoxy-and-original-sin.html
An interesting comparison of East and West theologies, even though it takes positions similar to what we hear from some EO's at CF that are contradicted by catechism above:

http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm

[thereselittleflower]

Orthodox Wiki . . Original Sin . . lots of links and information regarding the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION tied to Original sin, including Bartholomew Ecumenical Patriarch

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page

[thereselittleflower]

Examples of Original Sin in Eastern Theology and Practice:



Baptism:WELCOME TO THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IN THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH


THE WATER

Water is used for cleansing. In baptism it expresses the fact that through this sacrament, Christ cleanses us from original and personal sin
http://www.stgeorgegreenville.org/topics/Orthodox%20Traditions/sacraments_baptism.pdf

Orthodox Confession of Faith
Peter Mohila, Metropolitan of Kiev (1633-47)


Q. 102. Which is the first mystery? R. Baptism is the removal and annulment of original sin

http://esoptron.umd.edu/ugc/ocf1d.html

(full confession:
http://esoptron.umd.edu/ugc/ocfi.html )

[thereselittleflower]

I hope this helps all gives you some food for thought. :)

When the EO are willing to admit to Original Sin, there is actually little difference between the teachings of East and West. :) It is the same Tradition, simply expressed in somewhat different ways.



Peace

[SumTinWong]

" When the EO are not afraid to admit to Original Sin"

God, I hope this does not start a feud, but I have a feeling it will, so i will just this one thing and step out of here.

When I was an inquirer in the Orthodox church, my priest and the bishop did not agree with what you have pointed out here. Now it very well may be that some are "afraid" to admit original sin but it could very well and probably is the case that many are not taught what you have presented. I can attest to this.

So prhaps you would like to reword that and perhaps give the EO who say this the benefit of the doubt?

[thereselittleflower]

Unclebud, I reworded it. . . :) Thanks for pointing that out. :)



Peace

[Fairbairn]

Is there an Anglican doctrine about Mary? Other than the obvious - what it says in Scripture.

[higgs2]

um. I think there is an agenda here. I don't know enough about the sources of these documents but it seems they are selectively chosen to support a particular point of view. I would rather hear about the EO view of original sin from an EO.

[higgs2]

Is there an Anglican doctrine about Mary? Other than the obvious - what it says in Scripture.

I don't believe so.

[higgs2]

" When the EO are not afraid to admit to Original Sin"

God, I hope this does not start a feud, but I have a feeling it will, so i will just this one thing and step out of here.

When I was an inquirer in the Orthodox church, my priest and the bishop did not agree with what you have pointed out here. Now it very well may be that some are "afraid" to admit original sin but it could very well and probably is the case that many are not taught what you have presented. I can attest to this.

So prhaps you would like to reword that and perhaps give the EO who say this the benefit of the doubt?
Well, "admit to" implies they believe in it but don't want to say so. :(

[BBAS 64]

Is there an Anglican doctrine about Mary? Other than the obvious - what it says in Scripture.

Good Day, Fairburn

Given the writtings of the 39 articles of religion, I would think you would be hard pressed to find one out side of Scripture that Anglicans would be forced into believing as nesessary.

PART II: The Rule of Faith (Articles 6-8)
6. The Sufficiency of Scripture for salvation
Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation. Consequently whatever is not read in Scripture nor can be proved from Scripture cannot be demanded from any person to believe it as an article of the faith. Nor is any such thing to be thought necessary or required for salvation. By holy scripture is meant those canonical books of the Old and New Testaments whose authority has never been doubted within the church. Listing of 66 canonical books of the Old and New Testaments.


Peace to u,

Bill

[No Swansong]

Edited as content is not applicable to this forum.

[No Swansong]

Edited as the content is not relevant to this particular forum.

[thereselittleflower]

um. I think there is an agenda here. I don't know enough about the sources of these documents but it seems they are selectively chosen to support a particular point of view. I would rather hear about the EO view of original sin from an EO.


Ummm . . higgs, there is no agenda. . I did a search on original sin in the EO and these sources came up. I presented them to show that the way original sin is presented to us by many EO's here at CF is not the only way the EO view original sin.

If you look carefully, I quoted from one of the sources that is foundational for EO thought today.

One is from Chapter VI of the Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem (A.D. 1672).

THE CONFESSION OF DOSITHEUS

The other is from the Orthodox Confession of Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church also known as the Confession of Metr. Peter Mohyla, ratified by the Council of Jassy, 1642.
These are both in post:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=27902857&postcount=4

And in this post I provided information as to their strong importance to the EO Church today:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=27902770&postcount=3

Again:
two important statements of Orthodox doctrine. In the first, Russian leadership appeared when Metropolitan Peter Mogila of Kiev composed his confession, a thorough refutation of Cyril's, in affirmation of the received body of Orthodoxy. Mogila's work was approved, with amendments, by the Eastern patriarchs in 1643. The second was the confession of Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem, approved by the synod of 1672. These two documents remained the standard definition of Orthodoxy in the modern period. They aligned Orthodoxy with the Catholic side in most of its chief doctrinal disputes with Reformed theology, e.g., the relation of tradition to Scripture, veneration of saints and images, number and meaning of sacraments, faith and works in salvation. On only two questions did they sympathize with Protestants: papal authority and canon of Scripture.

I also included links to the EO wiki and to a comparison of East and West in which the views expressed by many of the EO's here are found expressed there as well.

Honestly, there is no "agenda" here . .but simply to show a side of EO theology that does not often get much exposure here at CF.



Peace

[thereselittleflower]

jtb . . I was in the middle of that last post this mornng when I had to leave suddenly . . when I came back I was still on the submit post page, and I just submitted it and then read your modhat post . .

May the post stand? I offer it only as information as well as clarifcation of my motives and not as debate. :)



Peace

[CSMR]

A bit perplexed as to why this Catholic discussion of Orthodoxy is taking place over here in the Anglican forum, but I wish you the best Therese in persuading the Orthodox of this dogma. (Especially if no exemptions are made, but that would be a debate wouldn't it!)

[No Swansong]

I am not sure how this can not be a debate thread. The only option there is is to send it to Denominational Formal Debate. There will be no violations given for the debate as it is the result of my giving misinformation on the board.
Again I apologize to all for any confusion I may have caused.

[ChessCastle]

I really do not see what the debate is here, respectfully posting information on a topic that is being discussed is not debate in my opinion.

[pilgrimgal]

jtb,Thanks for moving this to here. Seems to be a better place for the conversation.

And thanks for the information, thereselittleflower, I found it very informative.

And, Uncle Bud, You are right in that it does happen that what is written doctrine and what is praxis differ in various denominations.

Having said that then I go back to my original post on the thread on STR regarding Mary and see her mainly from a scriptural point of view.

Surely this means that respect and honor is given her and should be given her. Like I said a couple of times on the other thread:

I call Mary "Blessed".

I am also thinking right now of the wedding feast of Cana and how Mary said to the servants when they had run out of wine..."Do what he(Jesus) tells you."

Closing with the words of Mary from scripture:

Luke 1:46-55.

Luke.1 (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4782454) Verses 46 to 55

[46] And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord,
[47] and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
[48] for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
[49] for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
[50] And his mercy is on those who fear him
from generation to generation.
[51] He has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
[52] he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
[53] he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
[54] He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,

[55] as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his posterity for ever."

pilgrimgal...who is listening and open to hearing more. :pray: although not checking in until next week. Company is comin...:wave:

[thereselittleflower]

A bit perplexed as to why this Catholic discussion of Orthodoxy is taking place over here in the Anglican forum, but I wish you the best Therese in persuading the Orthodox of this dogma. (Especially if no exemptions are made, but that would be a debate wouldn't it!)

Hi CSMR, well, it is no longer in the Anglican forum, but even then, it was not offered as debate but as information.

And it might help you to know that I was raised Eastern Orthodox, so though I am Catholic now, my background of being raised in Eastern Orthodoxy gives me a fairly unique perspective that most Catholics and Protestants do not have.


Peace

[kamikat]

.

[drpepper101]

In the lack of the presence of Orthodox posters, I would say that Flower is a bit mistaken. The Orthodox teaching on original sin varies quite a bit from Roman Catholic teaching. As it relates specifically to this topic the Orthodox teach that Mary had to be conceived by normal means to pass on a fully human nature to Jesus. I do believe in the Orthodox Church the issue of Mary's sinlessness is also open to debate, but of those that do believe she was sinless it is because of the extention of divine grace inspite of having a fallen nature. I agree with the Roman Catholic position of course, but to say that the two teachings are basically the same things stated different ways isn't correct.

[thereselittleflower]

In the lack of the presence of Orthodox posters, I would say that Flower is a bit mistaken.

I am mistaken? Excuse me, but if you look again, all I did was present information.

Are you saying that the orthodox sources I provided are mistaken? Even from the councils the modern EO look to?


The Orthodox teaching on original sin varies quite a bit from Roman Catholic teaching.


The teaching and understanding of Original Sin varies quite a bit within Orthodoxy itself!

Eastern Orthodoxy has no unified teaching or understanding of Original sin, with some holding much closer to the Catholic understandig and some denying its existance altogether, and those who fall somewhere in between.

That is the state today within Orthodoxy. . . .

It is a sad state IMHO. :(


As it relates specifically to this topic the Orthodox teach that Mary had to be conceived by normal means to pass on a fully human nature to Jesus.

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was conceived by normal means too drpepper.


I do believe in the Orthodox Church the issue of Mary's sinlessness is also open to debate,

It most definitely IS open to debate . . TODAY!

But it was not so in the Early Church, for in fact the EAST championed the immacualte state of Mary from her conception through her whole life.

The shift started after the Protestant reformation when protestant ideas began to inflitrate the Orthodoxy Church, specifically that Mary was made immacuate at the annunciation, rather than her conception. . . this would mean she was sinful up to the annunciation.


This was something new. . . :(



but of those that do believe she was sinless it is because of the extention of divine grace inspite of having a fallen nature.

And yet, when Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, said that Mary was not immaculate concieved, for at her conception she was not yet ensouled in her body, but was immaculate by the time of her birth, the GREEK Orthodox took GREAT EXCEPTION to his denial of her Immaculate Conception.

We believe that she was immaculate and sinless because of an extention of divine sanctifying grace despite the fact she was conceive of fallen human parents, thus healing the wounded human nature, also called the sin nature, in Mary which would otherwise have pre-disposed her to affinity for sin and satan. . . This is in fulfilment of God's promise to put enmity between the sertpent and "the Woman" (Gen 3:15) whose seed would be the Messiah.

There is not a whole lot of difference between the two understandings.

But there is a world of difference between these two understandings and that of those EO's who deny original sin and Mary's immaculate state from the momment of her conception.


I agree with the Roman Catholic position of course, but to say that the two teachings are basically the same things stated different ways isn't correct.

I disagree . . they are, with different emphasis . . and this is true of other doctrines as well.



In order to understand where the EO are today with some of their doctrines, one has to understand where they have been.

The EAST championed Mary's immaculate conception in the Early Church. Today, they don't. :(



Peace

[thereselittleflower]

kami, I did not start this thread, neither did I ask for discussion on this topic. I was merely offering to post some informational posts to another thread. A mod decided it would be best to start a new thread, and then it got confusing and ended up here.

I never start debates on such topics and it was not my intent to do so now.


Peace