Ortho-Anglo stumpers
1: Can someone explain the Eastern view of Sin to me? The Orthodox seem to take the non-inheritance of Sin to a level that renders Baptism irrelevant. One suspects that in their haste to toss the filioque bathwater out, all sorts of Augustinian babies went with it.
(Not that the filioque should be viewed as bathwater by right-thinking people. As a red herring, perhaps, but certainly not bathwater.)
However, I'm rather confused on the issue, and some assistance is needed here.
2: Regarding the recent Anglo-Catholic conference, The Pontificator wrote a piece on the possibility of a Western sui iuris Church being set up for returning Anglicans. Discussion here centers on how self-governing churches don't exist in the Western Church, save Rome, and that those areas "watered" by a certain strain of Catholicism are forever locked into that flavor.
This is said to be the ecclesiological formula accepted in the Ivory Tower. However, one must note that both Southern Italy and Poland, to name a few, changed from East to West or West to East. Thus from patriarch to pope or vice versa. It's happened multiple times in history.
Perhaps it is true that self-governing churches don't exist in the West. So what? Outside of priests, deacons, bishops, and the pope, no ecclesial jobs were instituted by God directly. Patriarchs, cardinals, mitred archpriests, monsignors, archimandrites, etcetera, owe their existence to human innovation, if perhaps guided by the Holy Spirit.
And indeed large swaths of Europe have in the past labored in various levels of de facto sui iuris status. The Gallican Rite comes to mind. This sort of situation in policy is in keeping with what could be the "legitimate diversity" that the smart set can't stop bandying about. The same set that will give away the store to Protestants.
Can someone convince me that this is anything other than power politics?
3: Related to both points one and two, why does the Church care about "Uniatism?" This is nonsense. So what if the remaining Orthodox, or perhaps the remaining Anglicans, flip out? Nip a church here, nip a region there, then they're all ours eventually. Renouncing "Uniatism" gives scandal by tacitly saying that people have full access to Truth in schismatic congregations.
I have much more respect for the Orthodox and Anglican traditions than I do for any others non-Catholic outfits. But wrong is wrong.
And Union works. This flip concept of "dialogue" fails. Just more politics. It's the Vatican making peace with The World.
Want to solve the divisions of Christianity? Let them all come back at sui iuris status. Take any parish that will come. Sign the "hands-off" agreement in blood, if need be. Only make them renounce whatever is obviously wrong. It can't get more generous than that.
Any straggling groups that won't take the bargain will be marginalized and irrelevant after a few generations of absorption.
(Not that the filioque should be viewed as bathwater by right-thinking people. As a red herring, perhaps, but certainly not bathwater.)
However, I'm rather confused on the issue, and some assistance is needed here.
2: Regarding the recent Anglo-Catholic conference, The Pontificator wrote a piece on the possibility of a Western sui iuris Church being set up for returning Anglicans. Discussion here centers on how self-governing churches don't exist in the Western Church, save Rome, and that those areas "watered" by a certain strain of Catholicism are forever locked into that flavor.
This is said to be the ecclesiological formula accepted in the Ivory Tower. However, one must note that both Southern Italy and Poland, to name a few, changed from East to West or West to East. Thus from patriarch to pope or vice versa. It's happened multiple times in history.
Perhaps it is true that self-governing churches don't exist in the West. So what? Outside of priests, deacons, bishops, and the pope, no ecclesial jobs were instituted by God directly. Patriarchs, cardinals, mitred archpriests, monsignors, archimandrites, etcetera, owe their existence to human innovation, if perhaps guided by the Holy Spirit.
And indeed large swaths of Europe have in the past labored in various levels of de facto sui iuris status. The Gallican Rite comes to mind. This sort of situation in policy is in keeping with what could be the "legitimate diversity" that the smart set can't stop bandying about. The same set that will give away the store to Protestants.
Can someone convince me that this is anything other than power politics?
3: Related to both points one and two, why does the Church care about "Uniatism?" This is nonsense. So what if the remaining Orthodox, or perhaps the remaining Anglicans, flip out? Nip a church here, nip a region there, then they're all ours eventually. Renouncing "Uniatism" gives scandal by tacitly saying that people have full access to Truth in schismatic congregations.
I have much more respect for the Orthodox and Anglican traditions than I do for any others non-Catholic outfits. But wrong is wrong.
And Union works. This flip concept of "dialogue" fails. Just more politics. It's the Vatican making peace with The World.
Want to solve the divisions of Christianity? Let them all come back at sui iuris status. Take any parish that will come. Sign the "hands-off" agreement in blood, if need be. Only make them renounce whatever is obviously wrong. It can't get more generous than that.
Any straggling groups that won't take the bargain will be marginalized and irrelevant after a few generations of absorption.
posted by Guy Haraldsson | Sunday, June 18, 2006
9 Comments:
The Orthodox view amounts to this: we inherit Adam's fallen nature, his proclivity to sin. We do not inherit his guilt. We believe that the notion of inherited guilt comes from a misinterpretation of Romans 5:12 exacerbated by Blessed Augustine reading it in Latin rather than in Greek.
As far as how this relates to the Mystery of Baptism--we still perform Baptism, Chrismation (what has become Confirmation in the West), and First Communion all at once, and serve as the manner in which one is united to the Church.
The text of the baptismal service would, I think, answer your question pretty fully. You might also give a look at this book.
Richard
ill never understand the orthodox. i think its their ecclesiology that is upside down?
You can view it that way if you like; from a Catholic perspective, that makes sense.
To understand it from our perspective, this is a decent enough examination.
Richard
"To be subject to the Roman Pontiff is absolutely necessary for salvation."
St. Thomas Aquinas, _Against the Errors of the Greeks_
"Can someone explain the Eastern view of Sin to me?"
Do not trouble yourself with the "Eastern view" of Sin. There is only one view: that of the Catholic Church: i.e. those Christians professing the complete, traditional Faith in union with the Holy See.
Pax domini sit semper vobiscum
Putting aside for the moment that Aquinas used as evidence texts that have since been documented as forgeries--strictly speaking, it's difficult for an Orthodox to disagree with his statement. Of course, the Orthodox assumption is that one must be under the Patriarchate of Rome to begin with in order to be subject to the authority of the Roman Patriarch. But, insofar as we're talking about faithful within the Roman See, Aquinas is absolutely correct. Obedience to and communion with one's bishop is a necessity.
Richard
...the Orthodox assumption is that one must be under the Patriarchate of Rome to begin with in order to be subject to the authority of the Roman Patriarch.
We're not speaking about the Pope as the Patriarch of the West (not of "Rome"); we're speaking of him as the spiritual head of all Christians, under whose authority all Christians are subject; a truth that the schismatic and heretical Orthodox refuse to accept.
Pax tecum
I have always wondered whether Latin Catholics can regard saints canonised in the Orthodox churches as saints. I suppose we (RCs) would regard them as schismatics, but as the Orthodox bishops are valid bishops, are they caonised validly, if illicitly???
Gaufridus: acknowledged that that's the Roman view. I was trying to provide the Orthodox perspective on how that statement might be true.
On the other hand, the Orthodox look to the very Roman Pope St. Gregory the Great for support of our point of view, cf. his various correspondences over the (mis)translation of the Patriarch of Constantinople's title into Latin as "Universal Patriarch".
Richard
There is no god/satan sooooooo there is no sin.
Stay on Groovin' Safari,
TOR
Post a Comment
<< Home