Roman/Orthodox Catholic: Unity (Jesus Christ, priests, ritual, testimony, reject)

[James the Persian]

Scott,

As I said at the beginning, being an ex-Lutheran, I find it easier to contrast Protestant and Orthodox soteriology than Orthodox and Roman Catholic. I never claimed to have a full understanding of the Roman Catholic position and asked you to correct me if what I said was wrong. In what way, then, am I misinformed? Uninformed, surely, would be a more appropriate term.
I'm glad to see that modern Roman Catholic teaching seems more in line with Orthodoxy, though I still see a difference in emphasis. No Roman Catholic lay person I have ever previously spoken to has had a clue about the idea of theosis (though it is apparent that you do) and so, as it is wholly absent from Lutheranism which was based on the Roman Catholic teachings of Luther's time, I don't feel it was too unreasonable of me to believe that the same was true for your church today. Personally, I'm glad to see that this impression is wrong (though it does make me wonder what the average Catholic lay person is being taught) and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop treating me like a hostile witness. I thought the purpose of this thread was to discuss differences and similarities with a view to see whether reunion is possible, not to alienate each other further? I am not, despite what you appear to believe, trying to tell you how wrong you are (for the nth time, I am not and have never been a Roman Catholic), but merely to point out what we believe and see if you believe similarly or not. You cannot expect me to know the answers ahead of time and it was you, not I, who suggested I start the ball rolling.
The one thing that we clearly disagree on from your answers is what hell is. You seem to believe that it is willful separation from God whereas we believe almost the exact opposite, but I don't believe that this is all that important. Hopefully neither of us will ever know the truth! I could probably find Fathers that supported your position and you could certainly find those that support ours. It seems to me, though, that the important point for both of us is that we punish ourselves by rejecting God (whatever effect that has) rather than that God punishes us. In essence, then, we are agreed and I, for one, would be happy to leave the details up to the individual believer.
I don't feel any desire to bring up the next topic of discussion, but would rather leave that up to you. What things do you feel we disagree/agree on? I will be happy to discuss them with you but I'm not going to set myself up as a target for you again. I don't claim to be an expert on Roman Catholicism and I realise we are closer to each other than Orthodoxy is to Protestantism, but several times now you have assumed that I am trying to teach you your own beliefs. It seems, therefore, like this discussion would be more fruitful if you started by telling me what you believe so that I can avoid inadvertently getting said beliefs wrong. I hope that you understand what I am getting at here and also, in fact, that I have misinterpreted your words and intentions in much the same way as you appear to have misinterpreted mine.

James

[Scott1]

James,
First of all.... I apologize if you have taken my posts as hostile.... you've been posting here for a while and I thought you knew me better than that. This is a difficult medium to express emotion (good or bad) and I know that sometimes things don't come off the way we intend it. I enjoy this discussion very much, and I pray you continue on.... just keep in mind that I'm just a goofball who enjoys talking and learning about faith.

Originally Posted by IacobPersul

Uninformed, surely, would be a more appropriate term.

Again, forgive my oversight...

No Roman Catholic lay person I have ever previously spoken to has had a clue about the idea of theosis (though it is apparent that you do)

Yeah.... unfortunately, it has been my experience (I'm a Protestant convert as well/2 years as a Catholic) that very few Catholics understand the basics of their faith, let alone any complex theology or the theology of other faiths. The emphasis of the "average" lay Catholic today is on "hot button" morality issues (i.e. abortion, cloning, gay marriage) ..... these things are easy to attack (I'm not saying that they are incorrect) and it avoids having to spend any real brain power learning. Most of the "devout" Catholics standing on abortion picket lines (again, I'm not saying they are wrong) could not explain to you the Trinity/have never read the Catechism/never read the writings of a Church Father/ etc etc....
The post-Vatican II Catholic Church is really quite remarkable.... the broad reaching theological/historical/ecumenical/social teachings that have been defined/illustrated in the last 40 years will take CENTURIES to fully learn and digest..... I pray that Catholics will be better educated in the future... it is what I intend to devote my life to.

In essence, then, we are agreed and I, for one, would be happy to leave the details up to the individual believer.

Amen.

It seems, therefore, like this discussion would be more fruitful if you started by telling me what you believe so that I can avoid inadvertently getting said beliefs wrong.

Again, I ask for forgiveness.... it is so rare that I encounter someone who does not profess to be an expert in all things (you know how forums are)... and I am grateful to God for the opportunity to chat with a "kindred" spirit.
I must admit though..... this conversation will die out without your input.... I don't have a problem with Orthodox theology (not saying you do! )... so it makes things difficult to suggest.

.... how about original sin? No*s (Kenneth) and I had a fruitful discussion about this topic (and its relation to the Incarnation) on another thread..... I don't know if you'd like to read it and jump over there.... whatever.

One more time = relax! I'm very likeable/lovable/good looking/intelligent and MODEST ...... don't read into my writing in a negative way.... I'm just Scott.

Peace in Christ

[Joannicius]

Excuse me you guys. I think the infalability of the Pope is an issue. And I realy don't understand this excathedra or how ever you spell it. Is this worth throwing in?

P.S. James, don't worry. From my observation over the time I've been here there is not a hostile bone in Scott's body, so that can be put to rest. His sense of humor is a little confusing at times though. Excuse me Scott

One more time = relax! I'm very likeable/lovable/good looking/intelligent and MODEST .......

Is that your Mom's opinion?

[James the Persian]

Scott,

Sorry about the mutual misunderstanding and I hope we can put it behind us.

As for further discussion, firstly I'd like to second Joannicius' request that we discuss Papal infallibility. To me this idea is simply untenable and an example of a difference between western, rational theology (what I'd call 'either, or' theology) and eastern mystical ('both, and' theology). The idea of any one person (or local church for that matter) being infallible is just nonsensical to me. In fact the whole thing reminds me of Torquemada (the famous one's uncle, I think) at the Council of Florence arguing with St. Mark of Ephesus over Bl. Augustine. Torquemada seemed to think that a Father must be infallible and therefore Augustine contained no errors, whereas St. Mark said that no man was infallible and that Augustine erring on some details of his theology in no way barred him from being a Father. I would hold to the latter view, and Popes would not be excluded from this. What do you think of this Roman Catholic doctrine?

For my own part, I'd like to discuss the Immaculate Conception rather than original sin - you've shown me that you don't believe too differently from us on the latter (though most RCs I've spoken to seem not to - it could just be a theological vocabulary issue, mind). I actually asked you a couple of long questions on this subject here, which you didn't reply to (maybe the discussion was in the wrong place?):

What is?

Anyway, to summarise, my questions are these: what problem is solved by the Immaculate Conception? Why is it necessary at all? And would you be willing to drop the dogma? The problem, as I see it, is that it smacks of Augustinian original sin and if you don't believe in that I can't understand its purpose. My objections to the dogma would be as follows:

1. Nobody is born guilty of Adam's sin, therefore why should Mary need an 'immaculate' conception to remain sinless?
2. If Mary was saved from sin, directly, by God, then she doesn't need the salvation provided by Christ.
3. If God was willing or able to preserve one person, arbitrarily, from sin, then the same could be true of all and the Incarnation becomes pointless.
4. It seems to go against Mary's free will, therefore making her less rather than more of an example of Christian holiness (it actually seems perrilously close to Calvinist style 'strong' pre-destination).
5. Mary clearly wasn't born free of the consequences of Adam's sin as she was mortal and died.

There are probably more problems than those above, but they'll do as a starting point. As you can probably see, I feel that this is one of the worst, most wrong-headed doctrines that the Roman Catholic church has come up with since the Schism. It seems like a purely philosophical answer to a non-existent theological issue, and I would never be able to accept it. This one doesn't bode well for reunion, I'm afraid, as many RCs seem very emotionally attached to the idea.

One final, brief, question. Does Roman Catholicism still teach that unbaptised infants cannot go to heaven? I know this was once the case (and resulted in some strange concept of 'limbo' or whatever it was called). I'm interested because this would be another pointer to a belief in Augustinian style original sin (though not a conclusive one I concede) and the idea that baptism washes us of Adam's stain. The more I find out about modern RC teachings on original sin, the Immaculate Conception and baptism, the more confused I get - it seems so inconsistent. Maybe you can clarify things for me?

James

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by IacobPersul

Sorry about the mutual misunderstanding and I hope we can put it behind us.

Consider it forgotten..... and thank you Joannicius for the kind words.

(Papal Infallibility)To me this idea is simply untenable and an example of a difference between western, rational theology (what I'd call 'either, or' theology) and eastern mystical ('both, and' theology). The idea of any one person (or local church for that matter) being infallible is just nonsensical to me. What do you think of this Roman Catholic doctrine?

I am quite sure that you consider the Ecumenical Councils infallible... and I doubt you consider the Ecumenical Councils a good example of "eastern mystical" theology.... so I'm confused why this subject is so "nonsensical" to you. That the Office of the Papacy is infallible seems just as sensible (to me) that the Church in a Council can collectively be infallible. The Holy Spirit has power. The Holy Spirit (we believe) will not lead the Roman Pontiff to teach error when he proclaims, in an absolute decision, a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. This same Holy Spirit guards the E.Councils from similar error, and is not "bound by numbers"... what I mean is that the Holy Spirit does not need 10 people, 20, or 5,000 people together in Council to be "effective".

The Holy Spirit can just as easily guide the Roman Pontiff as guide a group of Church men in an Ecumenical Council.

I am writing this with the assumption that you have a basic understanding of what Infallibility means to a Catholic.... if this is not the case.... I will follow up after your reply.

Anyway, to summarise, my questions are these: what problem is solved by the Immaculate Conception?

I confused as to why you think a problem needs to be "solved"?

Why is it necessary at all? And would you be willing to drop the dogma?

It is "necessary" in the sense that it was revealed and properly understood to be part of the deposit of faith..... again, I'm confused as to your questions, but I'll wait for you follow up so as to ensure I don't make any unfounded conclusions.
I would not be willing to "drop" this or any dogma of the Church..... that has never happened and it never will.

Nobody is born guilty of Adam's sin, therefore why should Mary need an 'immaculate' conception to remain sinless?

So.... it is possible for any human being to be free on sin for their entire lifetime? I don't believe that is possible.... and the Scriptures seem pretty clear to me about the subject: (Rom 3:23)..... the only way for Mary to be without sin and live a life without sin is to be "full of grace".... to "speak your language" = Mary would have to be one with the Uncreated Light... Mary would have to be more in touch with divine energy than any human ever born.... this is a singular event in the history of man.

If Mary was saved from sin, directly, by God, then she doesn't need the salvation provided by Christ.

To understand this dogma, it is necessary to understand the source of Mary's glory..... Mary's glory is wholly FROM CHRIST.... as the moon's glory is wholly from the sun..... "(Mary) is redeemed....by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492).
Mary, too, needed Christ for her salvation, just as we do, but she was saved before she sinned, while we were saved after we sinned. It is like one person being saved from a disease by an innoculation to prevent it - and another person being saved from the same disease by an operation to cure it - by the same Doctor (Christ).

If God was willing or able to preserve one person, arbitrarily, from sin, then the same could be true of all and the Incarnation becomes pointless.

So...... God's power is limited????? I'm trying really hard to not read into this, but it seems pretty clear that you may have misspoke.... God could have saved us all with just His will.... God can do ANYTHING.... I really doubt that you don't believe God is not all-powerful.

It seems to go against Mary's free will, therefore making her less rather than more of an example of Christian holiness (it actually seems perrilously close to Calvinist style 'strong' pre-destination).

Mary being born full of God's grace means that she is more human than anyone that ever lived. Mary is human perfection.... and it is our (humanity in general)vocation to be one with God, to be Holy.... to be TRULY human means that free will is still there, but divine energy/grace fills the soul and orders all thought and deeds. When we are one with God in Heaven we will still have free will....nothing "Calvinist" about that.... Mary is just graced by that ideal state while on this earth.

Mary clearly wasn't born free of the consequences of Adam's sin as she was mortal and died.

Catholics believe that "when the course of her earthly life was finished, (Mary) was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory." Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950)

It seems like a purely philosophical answer to a non-existent theological issue, and I would never be able to accept it. This one doesn't bode well for reunion, I'm afraid, as many RCs seem very emotionally attached to the idea.

The Orthodox Church is not and would never be "required" to accept it.... unification does not mean that we have to agree on everything.

One final, brief, question. Does Roman Catholicism still teach that unbaptised infants cannot go to heaven?

NO. The Church teaches, in #1261 of the CCC, that children who have died without Baptism, we entrust them to the mercy of God and hope that there is a way for salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

[Joannicius]

I just thought you should see this Scott, since you said you wasn't familiar with St. Mark of Ephesus.......

Don't underestimate the power of the Laity on the Orthodox Church and what the Holy Spirit can accomplish through them.

The Council of Florence (in 1438-39)? The Byzantine Empire was under heavy pressure from the Turks and a number of Bishops, along with the Emperor (John VIII) met with leaders from Rome and asked for their military help.

The Pope said he would offer assistance if they would sign a document recognizing Papal Power, Purgatory and the Filioque clause in the Creed. Everyone signed except one Bishop. Do you remember who that was?

Mark of Ephesus was the only Bishop who refused to sign. However, when all of the other Bishops eventually announced (what they assumed was good news) back in Constantinople- the Laity were so furious with the Bishops that they refused to attend Church all throughout Lent. Can you imagine the Churches virtually empty in that Holy Season?

This forced the new Emperor and the Bishops to rescind their signatures on what Bishop Mark of Ephesus called the “Unrighteous Union.” The Church eventually canonized him- St. Mark of Ephesus.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Joannicius

I just thought you should see this Scott, since you said you wasn't familiar with St. Mark of Ephesus.......

Thanks for the info.....

** MOD POST **

Just a reminder, this is a Same Faith Debate Forum.... if you are not a member of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox faith, YOU MAY NOT POST IN THIS THREAD.

.... Joannicius, just wanted to let you know that I deleted your reply to the member who posted in the incorrect forum.

[Montalban]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Like I said, I personally would not care to change anything about the Eastern Church....
Scott

Someone else may have answered you (I'm new to this whole forum and have only just started reading this thread).

Your posts to this point seem to lack knowledge of the Orthodox faith. We're not just another form of Catholicism, only without a Pope.

Our views on Salvation differ from the Catholic/Protestant notions (we don't have "Original Sin", but "Original Guilt"). Most people think that the split between our churches was soley one of papal power. This is not so. Even on this issue, we believe that the structure of the Church is a proper reflection of the unity in diversity of the triune God. We can't just lob a Pope ontop of our organisation any more than we can change the nature of God.

As to the nature of the Trinity, you changed your ideas on God when you added the filioque to the Nicene Creed. This created a 'double procession' of the Holy Spirit that is not a part of the Orthodox knowing of God.

We don't share the idea of 'development of dogma' that you do. Sure we believe that dogma can be better expressed, but there is no change to dogma. Thus there is no debate over whether or not Mary should be deemed a 'co-redepmtress' (or as I've seen it elsewhere 'co-redemptrix').

The very reason you have movements for 'gay priests' and 'women priests' is, I believe, in a sense a product of your stance on doctrine. For Orthodox, there's no change so it's not really an issue. For you, your doctrines have changed, and therefore these people believe that your doctrine can (and should) change for them as well.

I strongly recommend "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church (Faith Catechism)" by Clark Carlton which was written expressly to discuss how Catholicism differs from Orthodoxy.