www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Questions from a possible convert

My impression, from many discussions between Alex and Andrew Rubis Jr., is that Andrew - a fine and knowledgable Orthodox soul - would nevertheless disagree with your categorical remarks on Orthodox teaching about Mary being sinless.

Dear djs,

Yes, you said it yourself, sir - confusion about the IC is about confusion concerning Original Sin!

And I think Andrew Rubis, when he speaks about Original Sin, is talking about what all Orthodox mean when they say "Original Sin" - the experience of death.

(On the other hand, sir, Andrew Rubis has admitted he believes in a form of "consubstantiation" - if you believe that is mainstream Orthodox teaching, then you've led an overly sheltered EC life! )

And the Mother of God did die according to our shared liturgical tradition.

Was the Mother of God conceived without THIS view of Original Sin? No, she was not.

She was SANCTIFIED in the womb of her mother, St Anne from her Conception, at her Conception, in view of her exalted role as Mother of the Word Incarnate.

This mitigated greatly her experience of giving birth to Christ where she felt no pain and her experience of death - a "falling asleep."

The precision of what East and West talk about when they discuss Original Sin is so fine that even the EP was seen to have got it slightly confused when he talked about it in an interview recently.

But here is what I think is the shared East/West tradition concerning Original Sin:

1) It is NOT the inherited actual sin of Adam passed on to all of us;

2) It IS the inherited weakened human condition derived from Adam's sin of disobedience/rebellion against God;

3) This weakend human condition is manifested in the universal human experience of death, concupiscence and a darkening of the mind re: moral determination;

4) Only the Grace of God through Christ be means of the Holy Spirit constantly working in us through the Life in Christ can leads us to the experience of Theosis by which we are transformed and become a new creation in the Lord.

Alex

"I would wonder why if the Catholic teaching is consistent and optimal, the Popes themselves are saying the way the exercise of the Papacy needs to be rethought in order to come in to line with the norms of the first millennium as a way of rejoining Orthodoxy." I also wonder about this, Rilian.

Although I am uncertain of the specifics or necessities. I do believe that the role of the Pope has changed in some way over the centuries, knowing for instance that the all the lay people of the parishes and priests in Rome elected the Bishop before 1150 A.D. is a good example of this. The Cardinals gained sole power to elect him after the nobility started to corrupt and bribe the will of the common people and priests.

Pontiff
1. a bishop
2. a pontifex (A man on the highest council of priests in ancient Rome) pl, pontifices

Supreme:
1. Greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant.
2. Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement.
3. Ultimate; final

As for natural family planning, I don't think enough people in any church in the entire world have enough understanding on it, or knowledge of it's existence, Including myself. Being the celibate virgin that I am (though certainly still a sinner with other lustful thoughts and actions) I have not devled deeply into understanding NFP's proper use, so much as I have been involved in condeming the biologically and psychologically destructive affects of "the pill".

I quote from an article by Brian W. Harrison of Libing Tradition magazine:

From what I have seen and read in my years as a priest, I agree with such critics that, among those promoting NFP, there is sometimes a one-sidedness or lack of balance. Married or engaged couples are often taught the legitimacy and the technique of the ovulation or sympto-thermal methods of NFP, but with little or no mention of that other part of the Church's teaching which insists that couples need "just reasons" (Humanae Vitae, 16; Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], #2368) for using NFP if they wish to be free from blame before God. (Indeed, quite frankly, I think we really need now from the Magisterium some less vague and more specific guidelines as to what actually constitutes a "just reason".) Very often, such couples hear nothing at all of the fact that "Sacred Scripture and the Church's teaching see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents'generosity" (CCC no. 2373). Still less frequently are they informed that, according to the Magisterium, merely temporal or worldly considerations are in themselves inadequate criteria for deciding when NFP can be justified: "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny" (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, no. 51, cited in CCC no. 2371). Taking into account the whole spectrum of biblical and Church teaching in this area, I personally think that we need to bring back the word "grave" into the discourse about family planning. That is, we should be teaching that the temporal or worldly problems to be anticipated by another pregnancy and birth (mainly of health or poverty) need to be really grave in character before a married couple is entitled to conclude that they have a "just reason" for them to use NFP. (I said "bring back" above, because, as I shall show in this article, that key adjective, "grave", has in fact been used by the Magisterium in this context, in certain decisions that have been generally forgotten, but by no means repudiated.)