www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Original sin

Dear Alice,

I don't know about the "Dad" part, but thank you. I am very thankful for them all. May God grant you many years and the desires of your heart.

your brother in Christ,
Ghazar

Alex,

I need to contact you privately. You can email me at derghazar@yahoo.com Thanks.

Ghazar,

I don't deny differences in theology between East and West. The Catholic Church has been emphasizing in the past century that the Catholic Church is much bigger than the Latin Church or its theology.

Yes, the Latin Church has traditionally emphasized the timing of the eucharistic change to the Words of Institution. My point was that the Latin Church as part of the Catholic Church now accepts the Eucharist of the Assyrian Church which does not have the Words of Institution in its Liturgy.

Similarly with the papal definition of the Immaculate Conception. Just because it's formulated with Western concepts on Original Sin does not make those Western concepts the official teaching of the entire Catholic Church.

Dear DTBrown,

I understand your point, but I think you misunderstood mine, i.e., that it is the Latin Tradition to speak of the exact moment of consecration. This is not our Tradition in the East. This was my simple point as it relates to the Mother of God.

As for the Papal definition of the Immaculate Conception not being the official teaching of the entire Church, this is news to me. So what would you say is the official teaching of the Catholic Church regarding St. Mariam's conception? Or even where would one find the official Eastern Catholic one? Or where would one even find Eastern Catholic theologians going on record as saying the Latin definition is not binding on the East? I'd be interested in reading some of these.

Dear Alice,

This innoncence - such in the kingdom. How fortunate!


Ghazar,
Like DTB, I also do not for a moment deny difference s between East and West; and between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. At some level every statement that is not a copy must exhibit some differences from other statements. The differences may apply ultimately even to constructs and categories - the philosophical language used in having idea and putting them into statements.

But this is trivial. Such differences are immediately manifest. The question, however, is not are there any differences at all. (There must be). The question, ISTM, is: are there grave differences on essential matters that pose insurmountable obstacles to communion? As Augustini points out - and you appear to agree - discernment at this deeper level requires a serious effort to sincerely hear the meaning of others in the words they use to convey it.

This would be an excellent place to start.

Dear Djs,

I couldn't disagree with you less.

Ghazar wrote:

In general I would agree with you. However, there are some Orthodox who insist the eucharistic change is connected to the epiklesis.

My point is to point out that even though Latin theology points to the Words of Institution, the Catholic Church recognizes other theologies just as valid--as I mentioned the Assyrian Church which quite often does not have the Words of Institution in its Liturgy. Such a plurality of understandings in the Catholic Church is a good thing, I believe.

That's not what I said. I said:

Just because it's formulated with Western concepts on Original Sin does not make those Western concepts the official teaching of the entire Catholic Church.

The Western concepts (as opposed to the Eastern view) of Original Sin are not the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Eastern Catholics accept the substance of that definition. The scholastic theology that goes along with that definition is no more required belief than it is with the doctrine of transubstantiation (as I noted with the quote from Paul VI.)

One Eastern Catholic writer (I would class him as one of our theologians) has written on this. See:

http://www.east2west.org/discus/messages/10/47.html?1025118443

http://www.east2west.org/discus/messages/10/46.html?1025118222

These articles originally appeared on the EWTN site.

Dear DTBrown,

I think we are beginning to go in circles here. I have already spoken to the issue of the Epiclesis, etc. I never denied that the Latin Catholics recognize other approaches. I only spoke of our differnce in approach. I always enjoy reading Anthony's research as I do yours. Thanks for the dialogue and excellent insights.

Wm. D.G.

Spiritual Journey:

Here's one from about Page 158 in the archives.

BOB

This is a very interesting discussion.
The Hebrew understanding of original sin is that mans relationship to God was broken because the affects of sin entered into the very fiber of mans flesh, this is why the flesh cannot inherit spiritual things 1 Cor 15:50.
Man must be born again just as Yeshua-Jesus proclaimed to Nicodemus John 3:4-6 to correct the issue of sin.

I respectfully disagree with the idea that Mary was indwelled with the Holy Spirit in order to be obedient to the will of the Lord. the Holy Spirit was not poured out on the Jewish people until Acts Ch 1-7 the Sameritains Ch 8-12 and the Gentiles Ch 13-28 as a seal and promise of our Salvation.
Just as the rainbow was the seal of Gods promise of the Noahic Covenant, and Circumcision was the seal of the Abrahamic Covenant
And the Shabbat was the seal for the Mosaic Covenant, so the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the seal for the New Covenant.


Blessings,
Chana

thanks Bob

SJ:

I started with the date I'd first come to this forum and worked toward today. I know there are other threads, but this will give you some starting point to winnow down the possibilities.


BOB

Interesting to give a verse from the NT to illustrate a Hebrew understanding of original sin. I have said that to understand Paul one must read him as what he is, a Jew and one-time Pharisee.

As for Mary's obedience, one can be sure of her response, Luke 1:38: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your saying.

And, what the angel Gabriel said, Luke 1:35: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you..."

Hi ajk :)

Daniel 12:2&3 defines the ultamate consequence of mans response to the issue of sin.
As verse 1 points out all who are written in the Book will be rescued. Revelation 20:11-15

I agree, Paul was a brilliant Pharisee, he was tanacious, and he was just as tenacious when he realized how wrong he was in his Pharisaic view, he repented and turned towards the Lord and ran his race to the best of his potential.

I admire Miriam's courage, To think of the consequences she faced of being pregnant before the marriage, and the awesomeness of carrying the Messiah, there could be no greater joy of human servantude to the God of the universe wow.

I find it most interesting that throughout human history the times the Lord spoke to key women, were over the subject of male sons that would be born to them, perhaps this ran through Miriams mind at some point that she would be known in the select group of women who share this favor.
Eve the mother of all, Sarah the mother of the Jews, Miriam the mother of the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world, to open the small gate for all who would believe and be saved, and thereby live!
I can only imagine how Sarah must have felt facing motherhood at such an old age, I wonder how the news spread in the region and how that would have made her feel...would she have been made fun of? would she have been revered? certainly it would elevate the God of Israel.

Blessings,
Chana