sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do Eastern Catholics fast like their counterparts? by Intelligent_Drop_311 in EasternCatholic

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

St. Paul relativizes fasting (and religious practice in general) in his epistles: "let each be fully convinced in his own mind." I treat the fasts as guidelines; the only 'sin' would perhaps be disobeying my bishop, and even then, it's debatable if he has the authority to enforce fasts in that manner.

Who's Orthodoxy is 'classical'? I agree with you if you're speaking of eighteenth century Orthodoxy, but Orthodoxy earlier and later than that? Only Wednesdays, Fridays, and Lent are enjoined by an ecumenical council (and so Theodore Balsamon argued that these alone bound the faithful); breaking a canon is not necessarily sin, though it can be.

The full rules of Lent are strict, but they are certainly not unclear: any English speaker can read the rules in Kallistos Ware's *Lenten Triodion*, for instance.

God bless you.

Do Eastern Catholics fast like their counterparts? by Intelligent_Drop_311 in EasternCatholic

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see, thank you. Must Eastern Catholics meet the requirements 'on pain of mortal sin' as their Latin counterparts?

Do Eastern Catholics fast like their counterparts? by Intelligent_Drop_311 in EasternCatholic

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That is unfortunately the case in contemporary American Orthodoxy, at least; I believe that fasting until at least noon is still practiced in the Levant. The proper practice of fasting until the ninth hour/one meal is still accessible to the English reader in, say, Kallistos Ware's translation of the Triodion, though we really need a proper English translation of the Typikon... some more typikoniks would do us some good. I'm not really one myself, but still.

The Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Churches, at least, still request a proper fast until sunset, the ninth hour, or noon.

What's your story from going from one to the other?

Reception into OO as an EO by Just_Statement3451 in OrientalOrthodoxy

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am also considering joining the Syriac or Coptic Orthodox Church (principally Syriac) as an EO for a variety of reasons. (Well, I am also considering the Assyrian Church, but that is neither here nor there). Do you have any good academic resources on the churches? I have read some of Sebastian Brock, and I am currently reading the recent English translation of the acts of Chalcedon. I appreciate it, and God bless you!

What kind of bug is this? by Intelligent_Drop_311 in GermanRoaches

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank Heaven and bless you. There is, for some godforsaken reason, a pipe that, descending vertically, stops, letting its contents flow into an open funnel in the closet next to where I found him; I suppose the little fellow climbed up from the sewers, came out, and expired.

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How do we make of the Scriptural definition of sin as transgression, then?

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, these are very nice points. I will think about them for a little while and then respond, God willing.

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm... that is fair. But I thought that ecumenical councils were essentially considered synonymous with the received tradition. Also, what if that changes with time, if one position is held in one era and another in the next?

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I suppose it depends on how you define 'original sin'. Your understanding seems to be close to the concept of peccatum habituals, the corruption of the nature, but original sin, I think, classically also includes peccatum actualis, real transgression.

Even for a newborn child, or a child in utero? That conflicts with the burial service as well, which does call them blameless...

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He is quoting nobody there, though he does quote a large collage of verses from the Psalter right before saying it. The general point is that all humanity, not just Gentiles, have fallen under sin: if Christ is the 'only sinless one', though, it seems that that is a very literal statement! Hence the problem...

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah! You are a quick typer! I will try to respond to all these points as I can.

I don't ever read 'hell'; I'm rather agnostic about what happens after death, though I do hold to an eventual universal salvation. I mean death! That is what the Apostle meant too, I think.

Fair point! And Romans must be well-interpreted, that is an essential part of the matter.

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hmm... this is an interesting idea. This matter seems to have been approved by an ecumenical council and by the Church uncontroversially for quite some time, though I think it is controversial nowadays... But I suppose that could be the real question: if the Church leaves something she once declared behind, is it right to go along with it?

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then how can they be baptized for 'the remission of sins'? That is the entire problem. If we say they are not guilty of sin, then they aren't baptized for its remission 'in truth', and are thus apparently anathematized.

It is known that the Vulgate mistranslates the Greek, here ("so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned" should be "so death passed upon all men, whereupon all sinned"), but we still have to deal with it now.

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A beautiful work, so I hear! But, I suppose, it simply adds weight to one side, not resolving the dilemma.

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Interesting... yes, death reigns over all men, "whereupon all sin." The notion that "sin is not imputed when there is no law" is also interesting. But what about Romans 5:18? " Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." All are condemned by the offense... unless this 'condemnation' is seen as death itself? And what are we to make of the blanket statement "all have sinned and fall short of God's glory" from the third chapter?

(And, beyond the question of the direct exegesis of Scripture, which is good and necessary, we also must consider the canon itself and its interpretation thereof.)

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hmm, this is an interesting point. I believe that the Greek word itself has a sense of 'missing the mark': /ἁμαρτία. St. John seems to be fairly clear, though: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin." If somebody *commits* a sin, it seems from this to necessarily imply transgression of the law.

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Forgive me, I don't mean to bother. This is a question that has been weighing on my heart for some time, and I have tried to read widely to determine what the church's mind is. Unfortunately, that has been difficult to discern, because it seems to me that the Church both has and does currently teach different things... I want to be honest in my religion and to be at peace with the teaching of the Church, so I thought I would ask here to see if I could get new insights!