Born Into Mortal Sin?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i would suspect that if and i suppose they do, the catholic church recognizes the Melkite church as being in full communion, then the melkite church doesn't officially teach things that are opposed by catholic teaching? for example, if trent says as it did that you have to believe in original sin the way the west understands it, i'd suppose the melkites don't teach otherwise? if they do, how do they remain in full communion?

 

if it's just Apo who is falling out of line with the catholic church... then woudln't it be that his church is in communion with Rome, but he himself is not?

isn't that something that should be troubling to someone who wants to be in commuion with Rome?

 

i've personally toyed with funky orthodox slash catholic hybrid ideas, so i can appreciate where apo is coming from. i heard there's been councils with east and west, even, it's jsut that the east didn't recognize the pope as being final the way the catholic church does... just that he was the first among equals. they could still have councils with that unspoken assumption being between them.

[Apotheoun]

Melkites don't need to teach in opposition to Roman teachings, because we don't teach those things at all; instead, we teach what our Church has always taught (e.g., that the effect of the original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, i.e., a return to non-being; that grace is uncreated; that salvation is theosis; that essence and energy are distinct in God; that icons contain divinity; etc.).

 

This was all - rather exhaustively - discussed in the thread I linked to above entitled:  Melkites

Edited January 10, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Melkites

[Apotheoun]

From an interview with Melkite Catholic Patriach Gregory III Laham in "30 Days magazine":

 

30 DAYS QUESTION: You once said: "With all respect for the Petrine office, the patriarchal office is equal to it."

 

GREGORY III's RESPONSE: Really I always say: I am cum Petro but not sub Petro. If I were sub Petro, I would be in submission, and I couldn't have a true frank, sincere, strong and free communion with the Pope. When you embrace a friend, you are not 'below'. You embrace him from the same height, if not it wouldn't be a true embrace. Unita manent, united things last.

 

 

Taken from the thread:  Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?

Edited January 10, 2013 by Apotheoun

[dairygirl4u2c]

seeing as how Apo said this in the link he just cited, i wonder if saying the Melkites and Romans are in communion, is fully, truly warranted. it sounds like Apo himself has some doubts...

 

"as is clear from the recent visit to the Holy Land by Pope Benedict, he did not break communion with Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham, even though he had every opportunity to do so, since he met with him both publicly and privately, but for whatever reason the pope choose to reaffirm our existing communion instead of breaking it asunder."

 

typically it's said that if you don't follow every doctrine of the romans, you are not in communion with them. i don't see how the melkites are in communion, then, given things like the rejection of western ideas of original sins that are said to be dogmatic. it sounds like the pope just overlooked it, given he'd rather say there's some way to formulate being "in communion" than stick to traditional ideas of who's in communion and who's not, when they are rejecting roman doctrines. overlooking differences for the sake of unity etc.
a poster in that link said other eastern orthodox could hold similar beliefs.... i dont see why they couldn't, if the melkites do.

[Apotheoun]

seeing as how Apo said this in the link he just cited, i wonder if saying the Melkites and Romans are in communion, is fully, truly warranted. it sounds like Apo himself has some doubts...

 

"as is clear from the recent visit to the Holy Land by Pope Benedict, he did not break communion with Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham, even though he had every opportunity to do so, since he met with him both publicly and privately, but for whatever reason the pope choose to reaffirm our existing communion instead of breaking it asunder."

 

typically it's said that if you don't follow every doctrine of the romans, you are not in communion with them. i don't see how the melkites are in communion, then, given things like the rejection of western ideas of original sins that are said to be dogmatic. it sounds like the pope just overlooked it, given he'd rather say there's some way to formulate being "in communion" than stick to traditional ideas of who's in communion and who's not, when they are rejecting roman doctrines. overlooking differences for the sake of unity etc.
a poster in that link said other eastern orthodox could hold similar beliefs.... i dont see why they couldn't, if the melkites do.

 

It is not really important that you see how the Roman Church is in communion with the Melkite Church, what is important is that the patriarchs of the two Churches see it.  As I have said before, there are many people (even many Roman Catholics) who believe that communion with the Roman Church requires becoming Latin, but that simply is not the case.  The teachings of the Eastern Fathers are in most cases much older than the teachings promoted by the Roman Church of the late Medieval period, and what has been believed once as part of the faith is always valid.

[Fidei Defensor]

Saying you are in communion and being in communion are two different things. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how a group can believe and profess something that is fundamentally different than what the Church has said and not be considered heretics.

[Apotheoun]

Saying you are in communion and being in communion are two different things. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how a group can believe and profess something that is fundamentally different than what the Church has said and not be considered heretics.

 

The arbiter of communion in my case is my bishop and my parish priest.  I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and the Church of Rome has chosen to be in communion with the Melkites.  Go figure.

[Fidei Defensor]

The arbiter of communion in my case is my bishop and my parish priest.  I am in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, and the Church of Rome has chosen to be in communion with the Melkites.  Go figure.

 

I accept that. But it doesn't change my desire to understand how heretical beliefs and communion go hand-in-hand.

[Apotheoun]

I accept that. But it doesn't change my desire to understand how heretical beliefs and communion go hand-in-hand.

 

Eastern Catholic beliefs are not heretical, nor are Western beliefs - that is, unless either side tries to claim their theologoumena are dogmas binding upon all.  Do I mind if Western Catholics believe in the Augustinian theory of the original sin?  Not really.  In fact, that theory has had no real impact on the Eastern Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) Churches, and so it does not affect my liturgical or spiritual life at all.  

 

What I reject is the notion that theological theories peculiar to the West, i.e., theories that for various historical, political, or religious reasons arose in the Latin Church, are somehow also binding upon the East.  The West should be the West, and the East should be the East, and as long as both accept the two dogmas from which all else flows (i.e., the Trinity and the Incarnation), I see no reason for the two sides to reject communion with each other.  Now if only the Eastern Orthodox could be convinced of that, because if that happened the whole of ancient Apostolic Christendom would be in communion.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Fidei Defensor]

Eastern Catholic beliefs are not heretical, nor are Western beliefs - that is, unless either side tries to claim their theologoumena are dogmas binding upon all.  Do I mind if Western Catholics believe in the Augustinian theory of the original sin?  Not really.  In fact, that theory has had no real impact on the Eastern Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) Churches.  

 

What I reject is the notion that theological theories peculiar to the West, i.e., theories that for various historical, political, or religious reasons arose in the Latin Church, are somehow also binding upon the East.  The West should be the West, and the East should be the East, and as long as we accept the two dogmas from which all else flows (i.e., the Trinity and the Incarnation), I see no reason for the two side to reject communion with each other.  Now if only the Eastern Orthodox could be convinced of that, because if that happened the whole of ancient Apostolic Christendom would be in communion.

 

I respect and accept that and I agree to disagree.

[Apotheoun]

. . . and I agree to disagree.

 

Agree to disagree about what precisely? The nature of the original sin and the presuppositions that each side has in connection with that theological idea? Or do you mean that you support imposing Western ideas on Eastern Christians?

 

If all you mean by your comment is that the West has been heavily influenced by one man, i.e., St. Augustine, and his view of fallen humanity; while in the East St. Athansios, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. John Damascene, St. Maximos the Confessor, and St. Gregory Palamas have been the sources to look to when speaking about the ancestral sin, I can accept that.

 

But if by "agree to disagree" you mean that Westerners should try to impose their viewpoint on Eastern Christians, I respectfully reject that notion as a form of ecclesial imperialism.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Fidei Defensor]

Agree to disagree about what precisely? The nature of the original sin and the presuppositions that each side has in connection with that theological idea? Or do you mean that you support imposing Western ideas on Eastern Christians?

 

If all you mean by your comment is that the West has been heavily influenced by one man, i.e., St. Augustine, and his view of fallen humanity; while in the East St. Athansios, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. John Damascene, St. Maximos the Confessor, and St. Gregory Palamas have been the sources to look to when speaking about the ancestral sin, I can accept that.

 

But if by "agree to disagree" you mean that Westerners should try to impose their viewpoint on Eastern Christians, I respectfully reject that notion as a form of ecclesial imperialism.

 

The original sin thing, not the other. I don't think any Church ought to impose ideas on the other.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"The original sin thing, not the other. I don't think any Church ought to impose ideas on the other."

why do you seem to think easterners should be considered heretics in one post... and then in a post soon after, say one church shouldn't impose its beliefs on other churches?
 

[Fidei Defensor]

"The original sin thing, not the other. I don't think any Church ought to impose ideas on the other."

why do you seem to think easterners should be considered heretics in one post... and then in a post soon after, say one church shouldn't impose its beliefs on other churches?
 

 

I was exploring for an answer. If the Church says it's fine, I can't argue. I just don't understand it. But I don't necessarily believe anyone should force anyone else to submit.