Talk:Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Augustine and the East

The Orthodox church does not use Augustine for theology. Period. IF there are exceptions post em. I bet they will be nothing but re-affirmations of others works. As for Augustine's theology again, it is not taught in the East. Individualism is completely rejected.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Cassian 2

It seems clear that there has been talking at cross-purposes. What I had in mind was, in line with the section heading, the supposed conflict between the EOC and RCC views on free will in relation to divine grace. On that the statements by the EOC council and catechism are very relevant and important. I presume that nobody objects to quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church as an authoritative source for what is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Or do they? On the other hand, what LoveMonkey had in mind was whether Cassian's teaching was accepted or rejected by one or other or both sides. On that narrow question, which is not what the heading put in my mind, I would accept that quoting the EOC council and catechism could be seen as original research. These EOC sources condemn a certain teaching, the teaching that Harris (Catholic Encyclopedia) and many others attribute to Cassian; but to say that they condemn Cassian's teaching requires a synthesis of what they say and of the general (though not universal) identification of the teaching that they reject with that of Cassian. From that point of view, LoveMonkey is right. From the point of view of an alleged EOC-RCC dispute about freedom of will, there is no solid evidence for its existence. It is a fallacious synthesis to put together two highly questionable premises to produce an even more questionable conclusion: 1) Augustine denied free will; 2) RCC teaching is the same as Augustine's; 3) ergo, RCC teaching denies free will. The opposite argument is at least as good: 1) RCC teaching upholds free will (easily sourced); 2) RCC teaching is the same as Augustine's (questionable); ergo Augustine upheld free will. Esoglou (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Then it is a fallacious synthesis taught by Orthodox theologians, not just Vladimir Lossky. If you pull up the page from Lossky's book it refutes even this position. Notice whom Lossky quotes as saying that Cassian's position is the Eastern position and not simply Cassian. As Lossky points out that what Cassian taught was nothing more then Eastern asceticism. Read the passage.[1] Click on page 198 expand the view and read it and page 199. I think it is safe to assert from what Richard has posted that Lossky addressed a good bit of the "needs to be clarified" as the "why or the Augustine of it". Or in light of pg 199 -death to the world.[2]LoveMonkey (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Again Esoglou/Lima does not speak for the Orthodox.

The error opposed to Pelagianism but equally ruinous was Augustine's teaching that after the fall, man was so corrupt that he could do nothing for his own salvation, and that God simply predestined some men to salvation and others to damnation. Saint John Cassian refuted this blasphemy in the thirteenth of his Conferences, with Abbot Chairemon, which eloquently sets forth, at length and with many citations from the Holy Scriptures, the Orthodox teaching of the balance between the grace of God on one hand, and man's efforts on the other, necessary for our salvation.[3]

In contrast to the Roman Catholic position.

The error of Cassian was to regard a purely natural act, proceeding from the exercise of free will, as the first step to salvation.

And

"Cassian had a little earlier expressed his views concerning the relation of grace and freedom in his "Conferences" (Collatio xxiv in P.L., XLIX, 477 sqq.). As a man of Eastern training and a trusted disciple of St. John Chrysostom, he had taught that the free will was to be accorded somewhat more initiative than he was accustomed to find in the writings of Augustine. With unmistakable reference to Hippo, he had endeavoured in his thirteenth conference to demonstrate from Biblical examples that God frequently awaits the good impulses of the natural will before coming to its assistance with His supernatural grace; while the grace often preceded the will, as in the case of Matthew and Peter, on the other hand the will frequently preceded the grace, as in the case of Zacchæus and the Good Thief on the cross. This view was no longer Augustinian; it was really "half Pelagianisin". To such a man and his adherents, among whom the monk Hilarius (already appointed Bishop of Arles in 428) was conspicuous, the last writings from Africa must have appeared a masked reproof and a downright contradiction."[4]

This clearly states that Cassian is indeed according to the Roman Catholic church called Semi-Pelagian. It is not up to people here to speculate on if the Roman Catholic church gets it right or wrong it is only to post it.

Again Cassian is accused of no errors of any kind in Orthodoxy. Cassian himself in the passage I added and that Esoglou removed twice (once from the East-West Schism and once from this article) clearly states by example that some are given grace by God to come to God and some come of their own free will. As the Orthodox position is divine grace and human free will must work together in salvation called synergy and that the foreknowledge of God is that God knows who will choose him and does not via grace instigate all people to seek God but only some people.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on what LoveMonkey has presented, I think this text most concisely captures the Orthodox position (i.e. that the West is wrong because it follows Augustine's principle of Total Depravity)

The error opposed to Pelagianism but equally ruinous was Augustine's teaching that after the fall, man was so corrupt that he could do nothing for his own salvation, and that God simply predestined some men to salvation and others to damnation. Saint John Cassian refuted this blasphemy in the thirteenth of his Conferences, with Abbot Chairemon, which eloquently sets forth, at length and with many citations from the Holy Scriptures, the Orthodox teaching of the balance between the grace of God on one hand, and man's efforts on the other, necessary for our salvation.[5]

What remains is to determine whether the Catholic position is one of Total Depravity or something closer to the Cassian position. If it is not one of Total Depravity, how then to reconcile that with the Council of Orange?

--Richard S (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you quote the words with which the Council of Orange adopted the doctrine of total depravity, a doctrine rejected by the Council of Trent? I suppose you have read the five sources given early in the section of the article that we are discussing, sources that indicate that the RCC rejects the doctrine of total depravity, instead of adopting it. I'll read your response tomorrow. Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, I readily admit to being a near-ignoramus in the field of theology. I have no theological training but I do have a rudimentary layperson's understanding of Catholic/Christian theology. Thus, I would assert that if I can't understand an exposition of Christian theology in a Wikipedia article, I would venture that it is likely inaccessible to most lay people.

I further confess that I am on even thinner ice when it comes to Catholic - Orthodox theological differences as what little I know of Orthodox theology I learned here at Wikipedia so I beg indulgence from both you and LoveMonkey and ask you to educate me.

That said, my understanding so far is that the Catholics reject both Pelagianism and SemiPelagianism. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Semipelagianism was finally condemned by the Council of Orange in 529. The framework that I am working with is from the Catholic Encyclopedia which presents three positions: Augustine, Cassian (SemiPelagianism), Pelagius (Pelagianism). If SemiPelagianism and Pelagianism are rejected by the Catholics, what are they left with, the Augustinian position? Is the Augustinian position that of Total Depravity? Apparently not, since the Protestants argue that the Catholics reject Total Depravity and thus are more SemiPelagian than they should be. On the other side, the Orthodox seem to argue that the Catholics reject Cassian and thus are not as SemiPelagian as they should be.

I suspect that much care needs to be taken around the use of the word "SemiPelagian" since it seems to be a derogatory term used to argue that one is too close to Pelagius theologically.

That said, I think the most important thing to do is to put forth the three positions: Total Depravity, Pelagianism and SemiPelagianism and then define the positions of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

What I know is that the Catholic Church rejects both Pelagianism and SemiPelagianism but does not accept Total Depravity either and so this suggests that the Catholic Encyclopedia's trichotomy is deficient and that the dispute cannot be reduced to the trichotomy of Augustine, Cassian and Pelagius.

AFAICT, the Orthodox Church rejects Pelagius but, at the same time, criticizes the Catholic Church for rejecting the part of Cassian's writings which are characterized in the West as SemiPelagian.

There is further some debate among theologians as to whether Cassian was truly a "SemiPelagian" but the real question is whether Catholic doctrine is closer to Augustine or closer to Cassian or perhaps somewhere in between.

Have I summarize the situation accurately? If not, where did I get it wrong?

--Richard S (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are by no means an ignoramus on theology. In any case, your questioning attitude is far better than that of those who expound their theological ideas without - I had better say no more. You remind me of what Fabrice Hadjadj said in La foi des démons ou l'athéisme dépassée that the lack of faith of the disciples, on which the evangelist Mark insists so strongly, was worth much more than the faith of the demons that Mark presents as recognizing Jesus as the Son of God!

Is it really necessary in this article to say anything whatever about the (Protestant) doctrine of total depravity? It is not part of the teaching of either the EOC or the RCC. Is it necessary to say anything either about the equally Protestant doctrine of divine monergism (God does all, man nothing), accepted by neither EOC nor RCC? Protestants (in general) attribute divine monergism to Augustine. Even if they are right (and not everyone agrees that they are), his doctrine, thus interpreted, is not RCC or EOC teaching. So why include it in an article on supposed EOC-RCC theological differences? Human monergism (man does all, God nothing), known as Pelagianism, is rejected by both. Synergism (cooperation between God and man) is taught by both. The only apparent difference in this field is the claim that temporary human monergism (for an initial period, man can do all, while God does nothing) is EOC teaching and that this temporary human monergism was taught by Cassian. These are in fact two claims. The claim that Cassian taught this is questioned by some, but is generally accepted. (My own reading of his famous Conference XIII is that he raised the question of initial human monergism, but enunciated no statement. Have you read it yourself? In any case, what you or I think carries no weight for a Wikipedia article. So this remark is merely by the way.) So I have no objection to including the claim that the EOC accepts Cassian's doctrine, as long as this is all that is claimed. But if the claim by some that the EOC actually teaches temporary human monergism is also included, then the contrary view upheld by several authoritative EOC sources should be included too, for balance.

There seems to be no EOC-RCC adversarial labelling with the term "Semi-Pelagianism". This label is commonly applied by Protestants to the RCC (and to all who deny divine monergism, including therefore the EOC); but when did the RCC ever apply it to the EOC, or the EOC to the RCC? Esoglou (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Does Lossky really attribute - as has been suggested - temporary human monergism (the doctrine rejected by the Councils of Orange and Trent, and by ...) to Cassian? The Lossky passage LoveMonkey refers to above has Lossky say that Saint John Cassian "was not able to make himself correctly understood" and that it was the interpretation of his position as a semi-pelagianism that was condemned in the West. Elsewhere, if I remember right, Lossky says that Cassian's real position was synergy. Synergy, far from being condemned by either EOC or RCC, is the doctrinal position of both EOC and RCC. (By the way, it is unfortunate that, in a footnote, Lossky suggests that it was only in the past that the RCC classified John Cassian as a saint: John Cassian is in fact still included in the Martyrologium Romanum, the official list of saints recognized by the RCC.) Esoglou (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cassian 3

I will state again Esoglou does not speak for the Orthodox he is wrong been wrong been proven wrong and needs to speak for the Roman Catholic church and stop saying Lossky and or the Orthodx say this but really mean that. As in that Book by Lossky thhat is the only mention of Cassian. Esoglou needs to acknowledge as was clearly stated that the Orthodox say that some people have and can choose God with and by their own violation. The Roman Catholic church rejects that any man can be saved in this way and I have posted where in Roman Catholic statements that has been made clear. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

On the conrary, Love, the Roman Catholic Church, like the Eastern Orthodox Church, holds that people can and do choose God by their own volition; indeed that all who do choose God do so by their own volition, by an exercise of their free will in synergy, cooperation, with God's grace.

If that is all that Lossky says of Cassian in this connection, it is very poor grounds for claiming that he thought Cassian preferred the theory of temporary human monergy to the doctrine of synergy, which Lossky, elsewhere in the same book calls the co-operation of the created will with the idea-willings of God, not man doing his own thing independently of God, even for a while. Lossky insists on the (emphasis added) "simultaneity in the synergy of divine grace and human freedom", and does not support the idea of two successive acts, first that of the human being on his own, followed later by God's grace. Esoglou (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why can we not just simply say whats wrong? To post whats wrong so we can simply end all of this division? Why can it just not be stated as it is? By mudding up the process two things appear to be at play. 1. that esoglou is afraid that his position might actually come out being in the wrong and 2. that to try and work this out the proper way might just be to hard for esoglou so his frustration is then projected on others. As this article and this venue (wikipedia) isn't for working out anything at all but merely a repository of historical facts. I think that the positions should be posted as they are presented not through esoglou's opinion but as people actually find them from their respective sources. Or at least as best a condition of that objective that we can be hope for here. All that this is boiling down to is I will post another Roman Catholic source that will say what the one I already posted stated that no one is ever saved by their own initiative and esoglou will tell everyone that what their eyes are readings does not mean what they are reading it to mean.(even though it will be a second source saying the same as the first) And only esoglou and not the rest of us can actually understand what the source is saying. Esoglou just did this with Lossky. Esoglou just did this to the Orthodox Church. Esoglou just did this to a fellow Roman Catholic editor (Richard). When will this behavior finally be addressed.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

On this, no comment is best. Esoglou (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cassian 4

Answering my own question regarding the CE framework and Augustine's position regarding Total Depravity, I found the CE entry on Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo useful. I think I have misunderstood the trichotomy presented in the CE. It seems there are at least four positions: Total Depravity (John Calvin and the Reformed Tradition), Augustine (the Catholic position), Cassian (SemiPelagianism and the Orthodox position although Cassian may not be SemiPelagian and thus the Orthodox may or may not be SemiPelagian) and Pelagius (universally considered a heretic by all three traditions). The task then is to clarify for the reader what the Catholic position is and how it differs from Cassian. --Richard S (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying this but...It is not Richards or my place to needfully read primary sources due to the nature of the project. Its not going to change due to any objection by any of us. So for the sake of where this is lets keep it theologians and the like, at least for this section. As for semipelagian the Roman Catholic use the term not the Orthodox. Not wikipedias place to invent a new more PC term anymore then it is for the Uniat Catholics to complain about being called Uniat since the Roman Catholic church calls them that and has for a longtime.[6]Again the Orthodox calls Cassian's position synergy, meaning co-operation. There is no way it could be semipelagian to the East that a Roman Catholic and or Western term. And Augustine's teaching is no more compatible with Orthodoxy then Peligian's. The East simply does not use Augustine's theology. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that we run lots of risk in advancing primary sources as support for our arguments. We can cite the text of a primary document as saying literally what it says but the minute you use that primary text in support of a syllogism, you risk engaging in OR. Far better to cite a secondary source such as a theologian. This is a central tenet of Wikipedia.

The question is not whether or not the Orthodox use the term "SemiPelagian". The question is whether or not the Catholics apply that term to the Orthodox. Since SemiPelagianism is a heresy, considering the Orthodox to be SemiPelagians would be to brand them as heretics. I expect that this is not the Catholic view.

Instead, what I see is that, historically, some Catholics have viewed Cassian as the originator of the SemiPelagian heresy. However, a more modern view is to assert that Cassian was not a SemiPelagian despite his having been associated with the heresy in earlier times. There does not seem to be a definitive Catholic position on this except, of course, that the Catholics could not consider Cassian a saint if he held heretical views.

The Orthodox criticize the Catholics for rejecting Cassian. It seems apparent that the Catholics revere Augustine over Cassian but it's not obvious that this is equivalent to a rejection of Cassian. Rather than framing the debate as one of "Augustine vs. Cassian", the Catholic position might be to accept both Augustine and Cassian with a higher place being given to Augustine.

The Orthodox may reject Augustinian theology. That rejection should be presented in this article. If we choose to present Catholic rejection of Cassian, we should consider commenting that some Catholic theologians have suggested that Cassian's work should not be rejected in toto. The Catholic theologian that Esoglou mentioned argues that, when Cassian's work is considered as a whole, there is no way that the reader winds up with a SemiPelagian perspective. Thus, this theologian's argument seems to be that Cassian only appears to be a SemiPelagian when selected passages are quoted out of context.

--Richard S (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard I can not find where any Roman Catholic authoritative sources that state that the Roman Catholic Church, now, does not teach that Cassian was not in error. What is pointed out and sometimes referred to as Semi-pelagainsim is that some people can choose God by their own free will and with no instigation by God. Not all people, which is what it means to say that Cassian was misunderstood in that he is stated in the West mostly as saying all or most people choose God without any divine grace. Cassian stated that there were some exceptions some whom came out of their own violation. Cassian did not say all and he did not say most, he only stated some. THIS IS A VALIDATION OF THE CONCEPT OF FREE WILL OF THE OLD CHURCH FATHERS. Regardless of what title one wishes to label this position. It is 1. Cassian's and 2. Also the Eastern Position (it is actually Egyptian and it is the thing that we the Eastern Orthodox felt that the Copts had compromised in their rejection of the Council of Chaldean). Again Christianity is the position against Paganism called Free will versus fatalism (the providences are the planets and stars the old pagan Gods). We are war against the caste this is what the word catholic means. We do not as Christians state that people are born into being saved. Our ancesters (Adam and Eve) told God that we want to earn our salvation and God shook his head and let us have at it. And it is this (knowledge of) evil that we have now.

Salvation was offered by God without condition. For you as a Western Christian it is almost impossible to understand (the fact that your brain is poisoned by Augustine, Aquinas, scholasticism) that God is the food that we are supposed to eat. God LITERALLY is the tree of life), the cross is letting this idea of "without God", of letting this idea of this thing called the world go, and each of us returning to God. It is this that the old pagan guard was warring on in the early church and trying to superimpose pagan metaphysics (immanence, Emanationism, Pantheism, Panentheism) onto (i.e. Yahweh the Judeo-Christian God). Since philosophy started with Hesiod, Hesiod took the elementals and rationalized their relationships with one another. The uncreated parts of reality in paganism. That way of doing that is called philosophy. The early heretics where ecumenists whom sought to compromise the tenet of free will (Christianity) to the Pagan Philosophers of old. Only the old pagan Gods (men whom become Gods) are beyond Good and Evil and they don't like people tying them down with things like ethics or morality and decency or common sense.

These divisions of East and West happened while the East was shaking off the Paganism of old by way of Christianity (free will, freedom) just as the Jews (free will, freedom) had done. God made our reality to have free will because God is not a tyrant (i.e. Origin) BUT we chose our free will at the expense of ONE ANOTHER and our relationship with the God. Meaning in order for us to have this way, of going, and in order for free will to validate itself to us, reality must feed off of itself and contain randomness. And randomness by its very nature can not be something rationalized. The West has shamed itself by time and time again claiming that God is all of these things (theodicy, the God particle) only to have a random event contradict those positions. We can not rationalize existence we can not rationalize man and how dare man try to rationalize God (immanentize the transcendent). It is that simple. This is but the surface of the Eastern position.

If you go back and look at how the pagans mystics are attacking the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh you see that they are directing people to a "way of thinking about things" a knowledge and understanding for "special people" (the initiated). In that this reality is strictly immanent (immanentize) and that it feeds on itself (i.e. Ouroborus). Meaning this is the highest of all possible things and existences and there is no such thing as an infinite above and beyond this composite reality. It is justified in Greek (which is what pagans are called in the East) to teach the caste system to have slaves, for things to destroy one another to survive. Because that is the way that the "God" and or "Gods, Angels, energeia" created the cosmos for the elect. For to have winners and the glorified it must be at the expense of another. Eastern Christianity teaches that this is an illusion called the world. Eastern Christianity teaches that God was the food, that all beings lived off of, this was the relationship, reality all things had with God. Man changed that by rejecting it and thereby rejecting God. If you restore that to man (theosis), man becomes like the divinity that he consumes he may have a beginning (i.e. is created) but if he has communion with God his food (God) makes him live forever. The gnostics even distorted this. Because like God in this sense means only everlasting or without end. (i.e. nature physite not actual being or conscious perspective ontology, ousiology, ousia).

When man chose his free will over his relationship with God (ie Adam said he did not trust God in order to submit to God) this caused our reality to fall from God. Now things have to live off one another rather than God. And now We as Eastern Christians seek to re-establish the original relationship man had with God (theosis). Every change in our dogma marks a step backward from Christ for mankind in creating an understanding that restores his place as friend and relative to the God. God adopts us because we are by our own accord his enemy. This is very distorted and is not taught in the West and there is more, so much more. if you wish to understand this in a Western scientific way go buy Taleb's Black Swan it explains it freed from the fetters of twist and spin politic. These are the Econometrics that Dostoevsky was shooting for. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I also believe that the debates regarding Cassian and Augustine should be mentioned in this article, since they can help emphasize the influence that Augustine had in the west, which contributed to the theological differences discussed here. Probably, I'm not really saying anything new, but according to the following book, "This view (supported by Cassian) that man can choose God is known as synergism. It teaches that the human will can cooperate with the Holy Spirit and the grace of God in salvation. The church in the West, however, condemned this point of view in the Synod of Orange and remained closer to the Augustinian tradition.", and according to this other book, "(The council of) Vatican II appealed to the Second Council of Orange when insisting that, before human beings can exercise faith, they must 'have the grace of God to move and assist' them " (this suggests that the council of Vatican II accepted again the decisions made at the 2nd Council of Orange, which are against the theological view of Saint Cassian). The Second Council of Orange appears to also have been cited in the council of Vatican I, it can be checked here (that the 2nd council of Orange is cited at note 20). Cody7777777 (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cody, for that. Your quotation from the book by two Evangelical Protestant writers must be the source of my mistaken idea (already corrected by LoveMonkey) that Lossky (an Eastern Orthodox) had "elsewhere" declared Cassian's view to be that of synergy. So it was good of you to respond to LoveMonkey's appeal to you to help, by providing this source, which clearly affirms that Cassian taught synergism, not the "semi-Pelagian" idea that man can take the first steps to salvation monergetically.

As Evangelical Protestants, the authors of the book you quote can be supposed to be supporters of divine monergism, like Luther and Calvin, and opponents of synergism, which they define as the view that "the human will can cooperate with the Holy Spirit and the grace of God in salvation", a doctrine upheld by EOC and RRC against Protestantism. And they do indeed, like Protestants in general, hold that "the church in the West condemned this point of view (synergy) in the Synod of Orange". You can get many other statements by Protestants that interpret the 529 Council of Orange in that way. Take this, for instance. The RCC itself does not interpret that Council as condemning the Church's teaching of synergy. As you yourself have noted, it quotes the Council of Orange in support of its teaching that to all the Holy Spirit gives facility in accepting and believing the truth. All have the facility, but not all use it. Their human will must "cooperate with the Holy Spirit and the grace of God" so as to accept the truth and salvation. Esoglou (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am glad I could be of some help. However, I have to say that, it still seems to me, that the western Church has considered Cassian's view of synergy as semi-pelagian, according to this book (which speaks about the doctrines of the RCC), "St John Cassian of Marseilles (d. 435) and St Vincent of Lerins (d , before 450), developed the view that human beings can make their first step towards God without the help of divine grace." and it claims that this was semi-pelagianism which was condemned by the West at 2nd Council of Orange in 529, and that it was also rejected at the 1st and 2nd councils of Vatican. There might be be other definitions of semi-pelagianism, but there are sources which claim that semi-pelagianism also referred to synergy). The quote from the 1st council of Vatican, claims that "no one can accept the gospel preaching in the way that is necessary for achieving salvation without the inspiration and illumination of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all facility in accepting and believing the truth", this still seems to suggest that before man's cooperation (and acceptance of the gospel) can take place, there must be an action of the Holy Spirit to illuminate the human will, even if all have the facility given by the Holy Spirit, however, I could have misunderstood the text of Vatican I, and anyway my interpretation of a primary source is not important. The secondary source mentioned regarding the 2nd council of Vatican, claims explicitly that "...before human beings can exercise faith, they must 'have the grace of God to move and assist' them ", this also seems to imply some intervention by divine grace on the human will, before the "synergy" can start (but, from an Orthodox point of view, this can no longer be called synergy, since it is no longer done entirely from free will). To be honest, I think that from an Orthodox view, this seems nearly like saying that, before we can freely accept the medicine (which cures), we must first be cured (against our will). The following article from the website of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, claims that "Orthodox believe that, despite the curse of sin, humans still possess a free will and can respond positively to God’s invitation to receive His divine grace." (it does not claim that they need divine grace to accept this invitation), the article also talks about how the EOC views synergy. Perhaps, the RCC understands synergy in a different way than the EOC. I think, this difference in the understanding of synergy is also illustrated in the fact that the EOC teaches that the Holy Virgin Mary has chosen freely to give birth to Christ (God did not force her to accept this, "Among all God's creatures, she is the supreme example of synergy or cooperation between the purpose of the deity and the free will of man. God, Who always respects human liberty, did not Wish to become incarnate without the free consent of His Mother. He waited for her voluntary response..."), however, the RCC adopted the teaching of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary (which implies that God had chosen her from the beginning to follow His plan). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right, Cody, in thinking it is common for RC writers to attribute semi-Pelagianism to John Cassian. I suppose it is especially so among those who are content to copy what others have written. But, especially today, that is not at all a universal view among Catholic scholars.

Now that LoveMonkey has returned to editing this article, I think it would be good if I were to incorporate in it the information that you have provided and also the information about Lossky's view to which LoveMonkey has directed greater attention on my part.

As for the Theotokos freely choosing to give birth to Christ, that is a recurrent theme also in Western tradition. God had prepared her for this position from the first moment of her existence, but it was in full freedom that she chose. Saint Bernard paints a touching picture of all mankind waiting with bated breath for her response to the angel's message: "Adam asks this of you, O loving Virgin, poor Adam, exiled as he is from paradise with all his poor wretched children; Abraham begs this of you, and David; this all the holy fathers implore, even your fathers, who themselves are dwelling in the valley of the shadow of death; this the whole world is waiting for, kneeling at your feet ..." The whole plan of salvation hung on the consent of a woman. Esoglou (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Cody. It seems that no matter how common or at least how much with sources you validate that the Roman Catholic church teach (even after Vatican II) that Cassians' teachings are in error and wrong (whatever label the Roman Catholic church want to give it [7]). Well Cody you see. Anyhow its quote obvious that no matter how many sources or much logic or reason or clarification after repeated distortions Esoglou will not accept that which is laid out before him. Good to know that Esoglou is tracking my postings though it might lead me to believe I am getting a bit of the old WP:Stalking but hey maybe he can go back and find where we have both work on this stuff before, I mean it's not like Richard can validate that. Again the Eastern position is man chose this reality with all of its consequences. It was not by God that our existence was flawed it was by our own accord our free will. Every bad thing that happens is so that we can have our free will.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Also... [8] as what Orthodoxy actually is, is..The maintenance of the spiritual original core of Christianity, with its concern for illuminating and healing the inner life of the individual. All the world of men is nothing but a giant machine that pulverizes and shreds the human being from the inside out.{soul}LoveMonkey (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

esoglou adding in statements about Lossky again

There has been no consensus reached on the talkpage for Esoglou to make the radical and completely incorrect statements that Esoglou added to this article.[9] It is beyond outragious to state the Lossky made any kind of statement to the effect that Esoglou has twisted and attributed to Lossky. Lossky did say that Cassian is embraced by the West. Esoglou took from Lossky's passage exactly the opposite of what it stated.

---

Esoglou posted.
Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky has stated that the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the teachings of John Cassian, when this was interpreted as a semi-pelagianism.

---

The passage from Lossky
It is not, in the circumstances, surprising that a representative of the Eastern tradition-St. John Cassian-who took part in this debate and was opposed both to the Pelagians and to St Augustine, was not able to make himself correctly understood. His position of seeming to stand 'above' the conflict, was interpreted, on the rational plane, as a semi-pelagianism, and was condemned in the West. The Eastern Church, on the other hand, has always considered him as a witness to tradition. The mystical theology of the Eastern Church By Vladimir Lossky Publisher: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press; Edition Not Stated edition Language: English ISBN 978-0913836316

---

Let me see by the same mode of reasoning, having someone's head cut off is OK to be depicted as a flesh wound. i.e. Marie Antoinette died of a flesh wound. This type of editing is very beyond unethical. Talk about relativising something to the point of meaningless. Lossky does not say at all that Cassian is no longer condemned by the Roman Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic church has yet to change it's dogma and state that Cassian's teaching under whatever name they wish to call it is not condemned. According to sources I and Cody have posted Roman Catholicism states the teachings of Cassian ARE WRONG. Posting various opinions about that does not dispense with the Roman Catholic church's dogma. The Roman Catholic church's teaching is Cassian was in error. The best Esoglou has and what Esoglou appears to be implying is an Orthodox understanding of the Council of Orange and again Lossky points out that it is the Roman Catholic church that defaults to Augustine over and above Cassian on the matter as of now.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting more than a little worried here that attempts to edit this article in a civil manner are breaking down again. If this situation were to be classified as an edit war, it appears to me that LoveMonkey would probably be seen as trying to WP:OWN the article (since virtually all recent edits are by him/her, including reverts of other editors' contributions). Further, calling someone else's editing "very beyond unethical" doesn't sound very civil to me. Criticize material offered by someone else if you must, but please keep it calm and don't use language that makes people wonder how you feel about the other person. Actually, I would strongly recommend that both LoveMonkey and Esoglou consider taking a break and allow other people to try working on the article for a while. Remember, your only real hope of salvaging this page is to get more people involved (so that a meaningful consensus process can happen) — and that's unlikely to happen as long as it appears that there are only two active participants and that additional input is likely to get shot down. Richwales (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It was posted above that I needed to rewrite and source the sections I am working on or the sections would be deleted. As for esoglou so are we (all of the editors here on the talkpage) looking to get consensus with at least Richard and Cody and possibly DGG or not? If we are then why is Esoglou added content that he has requested consensus on OK. And why am I wrong and edit warring for taking it out? Are we supposed to wait on consensus for that section (as I have been) or should we just dive back in. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(I would respectfully point out that my edit was made after LoveMonkey had himself made a couple of edits to the section here and here.)

LoveMonkey has again block-reverted my sourced changes on no other grounds than his own lack of consent, yet has voiced objection to only one of them: the addition of the words "when this was interpreted as a semi-pelagianism". This addition was based on the quoted words, "His (Cassian's) position of seeming to stand 'above' the conflict, was interpreted, on the rational plane, as a semi-pelagianism". LoveMonkey hasn't really explained on what grounds he thinks that these quoted words of Lossky are no basis for the addition to the account of Lossky's statement. The addition is in fact necessary in order to present correctly Lossky's statement about what exactly was condemned in the West. Suppression of this phrase falsifies the presentation of Lossky's statement.

I am more than willing to edit this article in a civil manner. I have limited myself to editing one section only and have raised no objection to LoveMonkey's multitudinous changes to the article as a whole (changes which in general I see as further disimprovements by him), in order to avoid giving the impression of being opposed to the editor rather than to his edits. Richard and Cody on the one hand and I on the other can have a civil discussion, but a LoveMonkey-Esoglou civil discussion appears unattainable. Esoglou (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If the Roman Catholic church is in error on Cassian

Then were is the official statement of restoration of Cassian's teachings? Where is the official statement of OOPS we were wrong and now officially condemn what we the Roman Catholic church taught about Cassian's teachings. Where?LoveMonkey (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No comment by me is needed. Esoglou (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Esoglou believes that Esoglou can argue against what is available online as a source for Roman Catholic teaching even when it contradicts official Roman Catholic sources. What Esoglou won't do is go and get those sources corrected, but rather ask us to ignore them (we're crazy for believing them) and see in Esoglou the only truth.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My take on all this long discussion is that LoveMonkey wishes to argue that the RCC has rejected Cassian's teachings without having rejected Cassian (since he is revered as a saint). There is no official pronouncement by the RCC on this question despite an assertion in the Catholic Encyclopedia which seems to indicate this. What seems clear is that the Council of Orange rejected semi-pelagianism but the question is whether Cassian was the originator of semi-pelagianism. The difficulty here is that some of Cassian's writings are considered to have been the inspiration of semi-pelagianism but he died before the controversy came to full flower and his writings were more seminal than expressing semi-pelagianism in its full form. I surmise that it was not deemed necessary to brand a man who had otherwise lived a saintly life as a heretic.

This is more speculation on my part but I think it was decided not to officially blame Cassian for the heretical conclusions that others later drew from his writings. However, many Catholics did, in fact, associate Cassian with semi-pelagianism (cf. the Catholic Encyclopedia). However, there has been a recent effort by some Catholic theologians to rehabilitate Cassian by reinterpreting his writings as describing synergism rather than monergistic semi-pelagianism.

Much of the above detailed discussion would be appropriately placed in the article on John Cassian. In this article, I suspect that it is excessive attention to an issue which is not clearly a bone of contention between the EOC and the RCC.

It has been asserted that the EOC does not call itself semi-pelagian nor does the RCC call the EOC semi-pelagian. The EOC does not embrace semi-pelagianism as such and the RCC does not separate itself from the EOC on the grounds of semi-pelagianism. The primary users of the term are the Protestants who reject both the RCC and the EOC positions on this question.

We have been engaging in much OR regarding "synergism" vs. "monergism" as there are (AFAICT) no official pronouncements of the Catholic Church regarding this doctrinal issue vis-a-vis the EOC. I think we should state that what the Orthodox position is on grace/free-will. If the EOC uses semi-pelagian to describe its own position, we can use the term but we should not use the syllogism "EOC accepts Cassian, RCC brands Cassian as semi-pelagian therefore the EOC is semi-pelagian". It is this sort of logical looseness that is the core of our problem. Another faulty syllogism is "Cassian is the originator of semi-pelagianism, RCC rejects semi-pelagianis therefore the RCC rejects Cassian and differs from the EOC in this regard". It may very well be that the RCC and EOC have differing views of the operation of grace and free will. I suspect that the two are not identical although whether they are incompatible with each other is a matter for theologians to debate. Lossky seems to think that they are incompatible. However, it seems that Lossky and Romanides have an agenda of proving that the RCC is incompatible with the EOC. RCC theologians don't tend to have this agenda and thus are less likely to see the EOC and RCC as incompatible on any issue. In fact, they tend to look for ways to make EOC theology compatible with RCC theology. I concede that they may not always do so to the satisfaction of the Orthodox but at least they strive to demonstrate the orthodoxy of the EOC theology to the satisfaction of the Catholic Church.

--Richard S (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Source this above. It's that simple. Source from a source that is valid what you have posted. It's that simple. Source it. And if it is the stance of the Roman Catholic church then it should have multiple sources as I and Cody have provided not just one but many sources that as far as I can tell are valid by wikipedia standards. That state explicitly to contrary including Lossky. So provided multiple sources stating that Lossky and the rest of use whom agree with him are wrong. POST A SOURCE STATING THIS. If it is required of me it is also required of you.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I confess that I have not read all that Cody wrote and even now, I have not read it closely nor have I read the sources presented closely. I did read the first source which does make the linkage

I think it is sufficient to state in the article that, via its acceptance of the Council of Orange, the RCC rejects Semi-pelagianism and, to the extent that Cassian's writings support semi-pelagianism, those are also rejected. However, it should be noted that the Council of Orange makes no explicit mention of Cassian or semi-pelagianism (a term developed in the sixteenth century to describe a line of reasoning that was condemned by the Council of Orange). Thus, although it is not the official position of the Church (which, AFAICT, has no official position on Cassian's teaching), it has been the generally accepted mainstream interpretation that Cassian and St. Vincent of Lerins were the originators of Semi-Pelagianism. Recently, there have been proposals to rethink the extent to which Cassian's writings are semi-pelagian as opposed to supporting synergism. (cf. Esoglou's sources). Whether this dispute will win over Catholic theologians remains to be seen.

In juxtaposition to the above, we can assert that the Orthodox church accepts Cassian's teaching and views the RCC as erroneously rejecting some of Cassian's teaching. We have to be careful here because Orthodox refusal to accept the Council of Orange does not necessarily mean embracing Semi-Pelagianism because we would have to be really careful to define what Semi-Pelagianism was and what the Orthodox Church accepted. Those might not be one and the same. Refusal to accept the Council of Orange's canons in their entirety does not imply acceptance of their antithesis. From what I have read of the TLDR discussion above, it seems that Lossky asserts that Cassian's writings are orthodox in their entirety and that the RCC's failure to accept them as such is an error. Let's stick to what we can clearly support and stop with the armchair theology which is OR and synthesis.

I think it is also important to put things into context. If we put acceptance/rejection of Cassian's "semi-pelagian" writings up against the Filoque, are we talking about disputes of the same order of importance or is one more important than the other? If you were to poll the members of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, where would they put this question on their list of priorities? I honestly don't know the answer but I suspect it would not be high on the list. The Filoque is widely known to be a bone of contention. I'm not convinced that this question of accepting/rejecting Cassian is nearly so widely known nor given nearly as much importance. Furthermore, I suspect that you could put a bunch of Catholic and Orthodox theologians in a room and find some who are more semi-pelagian than the Orthodox and some who are more Augustinian (i.e. the Orthodox view would be well within the range of "acceptable" Catholic views).

From our article on Semipelagianism,

The pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes is seen by its critics as Semipelagian. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) accused parts of it of using "downright Pelagian terminology" in its discussion of free will.

This leads me to believe that one might find room for Cassian's "semi-pelagian" writings to be compatible with Gaudium et Spes. I don't assert that I have analyzed either of these and established the compatibility. I'm just saying that the Catholic Church has a big umbrella and there is a wide range of acceptable belief under that umbrella. (Although Pope Benedict XVI might seek to tighten up that range to be not quite so all-encompassing.)

--Richard S (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard I have valid sourcing stating that the Roman Catholic church considers semi-pelagianism heresy and that the Roman Catholic church do not see Cassian as a saint. And that the Roman Catholic church condemns the teachings of Cassian to this effect, which the Roman Catholic church calls semipelagian, and that the Roman Catholic church condemns that as heresy. As Cody to has posted here. Esoglu is wrong. Esoglou has posted no sources making any clarification on the Roman Catholic position on this from a Roman Catholic source. I am asking you to post sources stating that these specific statements about the Roman Catholic church are incorrect. Esoglou took the passage that Lossky stated that Cassian was misunderstood and then stretched it out to mean that the Roman Catholic church no longer condemns semi-pelagaianism let alone Cassian because of something the Orthodox theologian Lossky stated. Oh BTW Richard I have Roman Catholic sources stating that the Roman Catholic church teaches that Cassian was the originator of Semipelagianism.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to be very careful about understanding what is "official Church teaching" and what various (even most) Catholics have taught at specific points in time:

• the Roman Catholic church considers semi-pelagianism heresy

• Careful, AFAIK, semi-pelagianism is not clearly defined but is used to characterize "that which the Council of Orange condemned" despite the fact that the Council of Orange never mentioned Cassian or semi-pelagianism. Nonetheless, there are many sources which make this asertion so I will grant it.

• the Roman Catholic church do not see Cassian as a saint

• Really? What's the source for this?

• the Roman Catholic church condemns the teachings of Cassian to this effect, which the Roman Catholic church calls semipelagian,

• Again, careful. The Catholic Church does not condemn all the teachings of Cassian, nor does it ever explicitly condemn any specific teachings of Cassian, nor does it (officially) characterize Cassian's teachings as semipelagian. It is true that many Catholics have taught that Cassian is the originator of semipelagianism but that does not make it official Church teaching. It is easier to state what the Church explicitly teaches and condemns than to construct chains of logic to prove that the Church condemns something implicitly which it has not condemned explicitly.

• the Roman Catholic church condemns that as heresy.

• The Church condemns what as heresy? Semipelagianism or Cassian's specific teachings or all of Cassian's teaching?
• Reconsider my discussion of "loose logic" which uses sloppy syllogisms to reach an unwarranted conclusion

LoveMonkey wrote: "Esoglou took the passage that Lossky stated that Cassian was misunderstood and then stretched it out to mean that the Roman Catholic church no longer condemns semi-pelagaianism let alone Cassian because of something the Orthodox theologian Lossky stated."

Nobody said the "Catholic Church no longer condemns semi-pelagianism. If Esoglou said this, he is wrong. The Church has never explicitly named Cassian as a heretic but has considered him the originator of ideas that were later condemned. Given that these writings do not constitute the primary thesis of his writings, it is difficult to brand him as a heretic because others took his ideas to a conclusion that was condemned."

It is reasonable to assert that the Catholic Church teaches something with more free will than Total Depravity and something with less human initiative towards salvation than Semi-Pelagianism. The task of defining what exactly this "in between" position consists of is a task best left to the theologians.

--Richard S (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Click on and expand page 190. Read last paragraph of Cassia article section on page 191.[10][11][12]LoveMonkey (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard, Matthew Brunson is indeed considered a valid source for the Roman Catholic church.[13][14] From the above two thing are clear 1) you can not source your statements 2) you are not able to be objective. I do not say this lightly. You have attempted to make sourcing completely subjective and that has no place in the project. I have more sources and at this point you and esoglou are not following policy WP:RS. In this I mean we should be posting what the sources say not speculation on what they might mean.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And another valid but not strictly RCC but 3rd party source[15] stating Cassian was an exponent of the heresy semipeligianism.[16]LoveMonkey (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How many sources do I need? To validate that the West holds that Cassian taught or was an exponent of semipelagianism and that the teaching, idea is considered a heresy in the West. [17]

• Another theological system, since known as Semi-Pelagianism, found strenuous supporters before the death of Augustine. Its chief champion was Cassian — a monk who had travelled from the East and settled at Marseilles in France.[18]
• Semi-Pelagianism " 1 The attempt to mediate between the two extremes — to express, that is, a theory of human ... was made by John Cassian and Faustus of Rhegium,[19]
• The most important representative of Semipelagianism after Cassian was undoubtedly the celebrated Bishop Faustus of Riez. [20]
• The views of Cassian and his followers in southern France were eventually condemned as semi-Pelagianism, a term not coined until the end of the sixteenth century. They owed nothing to the earlier heretic Pelagius[21]
• understand John Casian. As a semi-pelagian he held no belief at all with the Pelagianism.[22]
• Of course, given these ideas, Cassian disputed Augustine's idea that the number of souls in heaven was predetermined. Cassian's views are known to history under the name Semi-Pelagianism. [23] this Roman Catholic one is very specific and one I have been using in which it explicitly states the Council of Orange condemned Cassian.
• He was convinced of the perfect orthodoxy of Cassian's spiritual doctrine as well as of the fact that the roots of the so-called Semipelagianism should be retraced in pre- Cassian history of ascesis and theology[24]
• Their leader was John Cassian, a monk of uncertain nationality, but who became quite celebrated for sanctity and erudition, ... Semipelagianism was no longer tenable by a Catholic. Pope Gelasius condemned the books of Cassian[25]

LoveMonkey (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I confess that I have been arguing based primarily on my understanding of Esoglou's argument and assuming that he was on solid ground in his arguments. Reading LoveMonkey's sources, I am less inclined now to argue that the Church did not condemn Cassian's Semi-pelagianism. I am convinced in part by the assertion that "Pope Gelasius condemned the books of Cassian". That is the first place I've seen an explicit linkage of Cassian with official censure by the Church.

I am also concerned by the source that states that "Cassian was never canonized". Our article on John Cassian states "The Roman Catholic Church also recognizes John Cassian as a saint, including him in the Roman Martyrology with a feastday on 23 July." I am not sure which source to trust. Perhaps it is possible to be in the Roman Martyrology without having been canonized a saint. My knowledge of these things is weak.

I will leave it to Esoglou to carry on his argument.

--Richard S (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Saint John Cassian was never canonized. Neither was Saint Augustine, nor Saint John Chrysostom, nor Saint Peter. But the RCC recognizes them as saints and lists them in the Roman Martyrology.

LoveMonkey quotes from a 1906 book: "Pope Gelasius condemned the books of Cassian" I would have liked to see the context of that statement; unfortunately, Google Books does not give, at least to Internet users in the country where I live, this quotation among the snippets it provides. But that is of no real importance: the reference is obviously to the Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis. An English translation of the decree can be consulted here. May I quote from a more recent book: "In its present form the decree confirms the writings of Augustine and Prosper but rejects those of Cassian and Faustus. Evidence suggests that the names of Cassian and Faustus were not in the original decree but were added at some later date. Two points might be noted here. When nearly two decades later the African Bishop Possessor questioned Pope Hormisdas about the views of Faustus, the pope indicated no awareness that Faustus had ever been condemned. Furthermore, nearly three decades later the Council of Orange rejected the tenets of Semi-Pelagianism without indicating any awareness of a prior condemnation of the two most significant formulators of these doctrines. It seems improbable that both the pope and the council would have failed to cite such a condemnation had it existed" (Rebecca Harden Weaver, Divine Grace and Human Agency: A Study of the Semi-Pelagian Controversy, Mercer University Press 1996 ISBN 0-86554-619-3, pp. 180-181).

I have no quarrel with any of the sources LoveMonkey lists. Neither I nor anyone else demand that these sources and the view that they propound be excluded from the article. But I think the rest of us disagree with LoveMonkey's exclusion from the article of other views and the sources that propound them.

If you search Google Books for "Cassian's own beliefs", you will find several books by serious scholars who question whether the attribution to Cassian of the semi-Pelagian thesis is justified. Whatever our personal views on this attribution, if indeed we have formed any (for my part I have an open or agnostic mind on the matter), LoveMonkey has failed to justify his reversal of all the edits listed above. For more than half of them he has not even made an attempt. Is the time approaching for undoing his reverting? Esoglou (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have and will continue to point out that we do not have consensus to justify any of the edits that Esoglou put in the article. I reverted them. He made one giant edit without consensus and I reverted it. I think it is again obvious that the phrase "lots of scholars" and "just look it up on Google". Is not the same thing as posting Roman Catholic sources. RCC sources stating that Cassian taught Semipelagianism and the Roman Catholic Church condemns the teachings of Cassian as Semipelagianism and as a heresy. I have more sources. What I think I have shown is that the Roman Catholic Church in Roman Catholic (by name) sources states that was Esoglou put in the article is misleading to say the least.

Eastern Orthodox Church holds a view different from the "western" Calvinist, Arminian, and Lutheran ones on free will, but not from the Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox ones.

If what we as the Orthodox Church teach is reaffirmed through Cassian on the subject of free will. And even part of Cassian teachings, which the EO embrace without reservation, is labeled heresy then what the Orthodox believe about free will is not the same as what the Roman Catholic Church does. This Esoglou passage is wrong.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As for Professor Weaver, I commend her on her clarifying our attack on determinism (i.e. fatalism, i.e. gnosticism, pagan metaphysics) for that she is most in the know. I do not find that what she states about this issue you can use as you berated Cody for using a Protestant source before and I find that you are trying to use one now hypocritical.[26]LoveMonkey (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Love, you seem not to have presented justification for your action in reverting even one of the edits listed above. As far as I can see, you alone are withholding what you call "consensus" (your individual consent) from those well-sourced edits. Why not admit them to the article, and then we can discuss what you want to add or modify in them? Esoglou (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have answered you if you can not comprehend then ask an administrator here to explain it. I would like to focus on Columba Stewart's[27] book for a moment Richard. Stewart states again that Cassian is not a Roman Catholic saint. He states that Semipelagianism is condemned but that the actual Confession 13 that the EOC embraces is what is actually called heresy by the West.. Please look over the passage here.

• [28]
• Other sources to consider..

Here's the original passage in away that should be access for anyone read. Since Esoglou stated that he was unable to access it from his location.

• [29]

Heres Phillip Schaff though not RCC stating much the same thing.

• [30]

Does anybody know if Samuel Dill is RCC? [31] Sir Dill states that Pope Gelasius condemned Cassian's works. Here again is a collective source stating [32] [33] Here's Encyclopedia Brittanica stating The Council of Orange condemned Semitpelagianism.

• [34]LoveMonkey (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The passage on Cassian in the article right now

Eastern Orthodox Church holds a view different from the "western" Calvinist, Arminian, and Lutheran ones on free will, but not from the Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox ones. The difference is in the interpretation of the Original sin, where the Eastern Orthodox rejects Total depravity, as the Roman Catholic and the Oriental Orthodox Churches also do, a position that some Protestant theologians sometimes denote as Semipelagianism. The Orthodox, Eastern and Oriental, and the Roman Catholics do however not accept the Pelagian view that the original sin did not damage human nature, they accept that the human nature is depraved, but not totally, and they avoid calling it "depraved" preferring "fallen nature". Meaning that mankind inherits (when born) a fallen away or separated from God, existence (hypostasis).

Orthodox teaching

Orthodox Church holds to the teaching of synergy (συνεργός, meaning working together), which says that man has the freedom to, and must if he wants to be saved, choose to accept and work with the grace of God. Once baptised the experience of his salvation and relationship with God is called theosis. Mankind has free will to accept or reject the grace of God. Rejection of the gifts of God is called blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (gifts of grace, faith, life). The first who defined this teaching was John Cassian, 4th-centuty Church Father, and a pupil of John Chrysostom, and all Eastern Fathers accept it. He taught that "Divine grace is necessary to enable a sinner to return unto God and live, yet man must first, of himself, desire and attempt to choose and obey God", and that "Divine grace is indispensable for salvation, but it does not necessarily need to precede a free human choice, because, despite the weakness of human volition, the will can take the initiative toward God.".

Some Orthodox use the parabole of a drowning man to plainly illustrate the teaching of synergy: God from the ship throws a rope to a drowning man, pulls him up, saving him, and the man, if he wants to be saved, must hold on tightly to the rope; explaining both that salvation is a gift from God and man cannot save himself, that man must co-work (syn-ergo) with God in the process of salvation, and that the human part in salvation, represented by holding tightly to the rope, must be preceded and accompanied by grace, represented by the throwing and pulling up of the rope.

---

• 1)As I have shown the Orthodox church teaches that some people can chose God without the grace of God instigating their first steps. Is there a source that states that the Roman Catholic church now accepts this as a valid church teaching? As my Roman Catholic sources that it is rejected heres one [35].

• 2)The Protestant references need to be removed and the article is not called Catholic Orthodox theological common ground. Esoglou can write that article. This one is about a specific subject and the introduction passage is too wide and needs to be narrowed down.

• 3)Also I do not see the need in addressing the Protestant teaching of Total Depravity it is off subject and distracting.

• 4)Where is Cassian in the actual article body? Why is he removed?

• 5)I believe that Esoglou is confusing the article and causing and excessive amount of debate that is causing this article to suffer. I say this because Esoglou has already started to take the article off subject and is still here on the talkpage arguing that the Roman Catholic Church does not condemn Cassian's works. Esoglou has almost completely removed Cassian from the article.

• 6)The article at some point should reflect that Augustine is not considered a theologian in the East Augustine's work is not considered to be the foundation for correct or Orthodox Christianity at all and that his works are not considered part of the theological tradition of the East at all. By some Eastern accounts Augustine is considered a heretic, by others his works are completely rejected out of hand and none consider Augustine to be a valid source for any teaching of Christianity at all. The East has made a hard stance against Augustianism in general and he is to be rejected. He is not held in high esteem in the East as he is in the West and if this is to be an article about the differences between East and West this must be stated and stressed.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: using Weaver vs. using a Protestant source. I think the issue here is not whether the Protestant source is Protestant but whether it is biased in the sense of engaging in anti-Catholic polemic. I don't believe that only Orthodox sources can describe the Orthodox Church or that only Catholic sources can describe the Catholic Church. In fact, in some instances, Catholic sources might provide a biased perspective. (This was at the crux of a series of disputes over at the Catholic Church article).

Re: the general discussion of the Catholic Church's view of Cassian. I would like to see Esoglou present here a single unified piece of proposed article text that includes the edits that LoveMonkey reverted. If this can be provided via diff, that would be fine. It may be, however, that he would like to rewrite the text and include additional sources so let's have a proposal that we can evaluate. Similarly, I would like to see LoveMonkey's proposed text. Once again, a diff will do if such is available.

My point here is that I haven't followed every single edit to the article and it's unclear to me exactly what is being proposed and what is being disputed.

I will make some comments about the discussion so far.

1) It seems clear that at least one major Orthodox theologian (Lossky) sees the issue of acceptance/rejection of Cassian as a major point of theological difference between the Orthodox and the Catholic churches

2) It seems clear that, over the centuries, many Catholics have considered Cassian to be one of the originators of Semi-Pelagianism even though it is not clear that he was ever condemned by name (his saintly life and the fact that he was no longer alive to defend his position or recant it may have played a part in this).

3) While the Orthodox Church does not describe what it believes as "Semi-Pelagianism", it appears that Lossky is arguing that the theory that the Catholic Church rejects in Cassian is entirely orthodox from the POV of the Orthodox Church.

4) It is unclear what the Catholic Church thinks of the Cassian issue vis-a-vis the Orthodox. A good indication would be a Catholic theologian who directly addresses the issue, ideally while citing and responding to Lossky. Since no one has provided such a source, I am inclined to believe that it doesn't exist. As I've said, Catholic theologians don't seem to be interested in engaging in adversarial dispute with the Orthodox. The trend is towards finding points of commonality, not points of difference. I was so imbued with this mindset that I reacted quite viscerally when I came to understand that some Orthodox theologians such as Lossky and Romanides consider Catholics to be heretics.

5) Despite the Catholic Church's rejection of some of Cassian's writings as Semi-Pelagian, there seems to be no desire to brand the Orthodox Church as Semi-Pelagian. The term "Semi-Pelagian" is problematic here because some Protestants want to brand the Catholic Church as Semi-Pelagian; the Catholic Church rejects the label Semi-Pelagian and condemns Semi-Pelagianism and although Cassian himself is revered as a martyr, many Catholics teach that Cassian is an originator of the Semi-Pelagian heresy; the Orthodox accept Cassian's writings as fully orthodox; however, they do not characterize themselves as Semi-Pelagian. I hope this constitutes an accurate summary of the situation and, if everybody agrees, I think it should serve as a starting point for any text that we insert in the article. All that remains to be added is that some Catholic theologians are attempting to rehabilitate Cassian by interpreting his writings as not being equivalent to Semi-Pelagianism.

6) In summary, we have clear evidence that the Orthodox see a point of theological difference. We have no evidence that the Catholics see a theological difference (i.e. we have no Catholic source that says the Orthodox are wrong for accepting Cassian although we also have no Catholic source that says they are right in this either). In this case, the best thing to do is to say just that: The Orthodox accept Cassian as fully orthodox and criticize the Catholics for not accepting Cassian; the Catholics consider Cassian to be the originator of the Semi-Pelagian heresy which was condemned by the Council of Orange.

7) I want to add that there is no evidence of a Catholic stance (positive or negative) vis-a-vis the Orthodox acceptance of Cassian. Unfortunately, without a reliable source, such an assertion would be OR.

--Richard S (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Again Esoglou attacked Cody for Posting an Protestant source. I think though it is very bad to start saying that one's opposition can be used to describe them. That is a conflict of interest. I have tried very hard to use Roman Catholic sources and Protestant sources that appear to agree on the status of Cassian and his teachings on free will in the West. And in that situation I think that is just fine. But only in a limited fashion. As I have yet to see, read or meet Protestant sources that any of the Eastern Scholars of Greece would even take remotely seriously. As none of the ones so far can actually even understand the differences properly or correctly between East and West. Which is why I have worked so much on this article to give even just a surface understanding. I do agree with what you posted as an overview Richard and greatly appreciate you moving away from treating Roman Catholic sources on the issue as subjective. I also think your remarks are correct in how the subject is not exactly black and white and that is good. However because of contention. I would ask that Richard do his magic and write the passage and to please be concise, because if it reflects what you wrote above I will completely agree to it.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Official positions of the Catholic Church

Why is the Roman Catholic church allowing itself to be misrepresented, why does the Roman Catholic church not make an official condemnation on the Catholic Encyclopedia online if it is depicting the Roman Catholic position on such important issue incorrectly. Also why are article in the Catholic Encyclopedia allowed to be copied to Wikipedia? And the Catholic encyclopedia is being used as a validate source? Including articles mentioned here that directly related to this subject. If the website is invalidate it should censored and or taken down and updated.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The question assumes that the Catholic Church finds it important to have a fixed dogma on whether or not Cassian's writings are rejected by the Council of Orange and whether they are Semi-Pelagian. In its wisdom, the Church has not chosen to make this an important issue. It accepts the Council of Orange and whether Cassian's writings are rejected by the canons of that Council or not is a matter left up to the theologians to debate. If a theologian were to attempt to rehabilitate Cassian to the point of espousing semi-Pelagianism, that theologian would probably get some pushback. What I've seen from Esoglou suggests that the "rules of engagement" are that you cannot espouse semi-Pelagianism but you can argue that Cassian's writings are not really semi-Pelagian as everybody has always assumed.

As noted in the section above, Pope Benedict XVI considered parts of Gaudium et Spes as "downright Pelagian in its terminology". I suspect that, if he could change anything, he would change that rather than focus on the writings of Cassian. However, since he can't directly attack Gaudium et Spes, I can't imagine that he puts any priority on the writings of Cassian. Vatican II had a more immediate impact on the Catholic Church of the 20th century than the writings of Cassian which are not widely known or quoted even as the object of attack.

Like it or not, debating Cassian is just not front and center in Catholic theology. If the Orthodox think he should be, then that is their right. However, for most Catholics, the debate is resolved as "not Total Depravity but not Pelagian or semi-Pelagian". As long as a theologian can work within those boundaries, he can argue most anything.

--Richard S (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I gather that there is a misconception on LoveMonkey's part as to how the Catholic Church works. Cody and LoveMonkey have asserted that, if a theologian such as Lossky or Romanides asserts something, it must be Orthodox teaching because if it were not, it would have gotten a smackdown from a Metropolitan or a Patriarch. (Sorry if I have misstated an assertion that was made many months ago).

If I understood the assertion correctly, this makes everything that Lossky and Romanides wrote "official teaching of the Orthodox church". There is no Catholic theologian either living or dead of which such a statement could be made, not even Augustine or Tomas Aquinas. Not even the Church Fathers. Now some theologians such as these are highly revered and their doctrines have effectively become incorporated into Church teaching. However, it is not imposible to argue that Augustine or Aquinas were wrong in some aspect of their writings. Their writings are not considered sacred. (Careful distinction here: to argue that Augustine or Aquinas were wrong on some point is not to assert that they were in error to the point of being heretical).

The official teachings of the Catholic Church are established by the documents of the Councils, papal bulls and papal encyclicals. The Catechism presents these teachings in a form that is suitable for pedagogy. As a side point, even the papal bulls and encyclicals are not considered infallible. Papal infallibility is only invoked when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra and this has only happened with respect to two doctrines: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

In the Catholic Church, many theologians say many things. Some of these are outside the range of acceptable Church teaching and those things do get smacked down (cf. parts of Liberation theology which were considered to be in error).

Other ideas are presented as "not being outside the range of acceptable teaching" but that does not make them "official Church teaching". Whether you actually believe what is presented or not is up to the individual Catholic. It's not right unless the Catholic Church says so in an official pronouncement. It's not wrong unless the Catholic Church says so in an official pronouncement. Thus, there is a wide range of ideas which we can consider as "not wrong" but not clearly "right" and not "official Church teaching".

Since smacking down people and ideas creates dissension and ill will, the "big stick" is used rarely and only when the Vatican feels it important to do so. There's plenty of dissension and discontent within the Church without going around attempting to define dogma on every fine point of theology and determining who is "right" and who is "wrong" on every point.

--Richard S (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OK lets get back Richard to what is being said. There was this thing called a Church Council. It was called the Council of Orange (I believe there was actually more then one). What does the Roman Catholic church say about the Council of Orange and semipeliganism? You where the one whom so long ago ridiculed (the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church) the Orthodox for lack of centralization on dogma and doctrine. Looks like you where wrong for that.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Orange, Jerusalem, Lossky, Rahner etc.

I think that passage from Lossky could also be stated as "Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky has stated that the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the teachings of John Cassian, which were interpreted (on the rational plane) as a semi-pelagianism." (I believe it is better to avoid using "when" in this context, since Lossky does not claim that Cassian was rejected by the RCC only at a sepcific time.) I'm not denying that there could be different views about Cassian and his teachings in the RCC today, but I think the official position of the RCC, regarding this issue, is still closer to Augustine than Cassian, at least from what I understood from this book shown earlier (which is published by the Oxford University Press). The position adopted by Vatican II (which can be considered the official position of the RCC) seems to be that "before human beings can exercise faith, they must 'have the grace of God to move and assist' them" (are there sources which claim that Vatican II supported something else?), this looks different than the Orthodox view "that, despite the curse of sin, humans still possess a free will and can respond positively to God’s invitation to receive His divine grace". Probably the RCC also teaches a form of "synergy" (which first requires a direct action of divine grace to illuminate humans, since the RCC seems to claim, like Augustine, that "original sin" destroyed human free will and made humans sin always), but it looks nonetheless different than the way the EOC views synergy (since the EOC claims, that although the ancestral sin has made the human will sick, it still did not destroy human free will, and even in our sinful state, we can still accept God's invitation to receive divine grace and become illuminated, so God wants to help us, but he won't decide in our place if we want his help, since we can still make that decision, but the RCC claims we can't until the intervention of divine grace, because of Augustine's view of "original sin"). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cody, I will willingly make the amendment that you suggest to my edit, as soon as it is restored. I trust that, with others involved, the problem of the edit-reversing will be solved without having to threaten to respond in kind.

The RCC too holds "that, despite the curse of sin, humans still possess a free will and can respond positively to God’s invitation to receive His divine grace". And I do not believe that the EOC holds that human have no need whatever of the grace of God, moving and assisting them, in order to exercise the faith by which "man freely commits his entire self to God, making the full submission of his intellect and will to God who reveals, and willingly assenting to the Revelation given by him. Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth" (Dei Verbum, 5). The statement of EOC teaching that you quote speaks of human beings responding to God's invitation, which is itself a grace; it is not yet "sanctifying grace", for which the free exercise of faith and baptism is required, but it is God's grace, moving the heart and opening the mind to the truth. As you know, sanctifying grace is "the grace which keeps us united with God; and it must be distinguished from the transitory graces granted as special helps in particular needs" ((Orthodox Spirituality, p. 42).

I apologize for the shortcomings of the above explanation. Someone more skilled than I am could certainly do it better.

RCC doctrine on original sin is not identical with Augustine's. Esoglou (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cody go back and look at Esoglou's edits to the article I removed.Under the guise that Cody said so Esoglou is again speaking for the Orthodox church. There is an awful lot of 'summising' and 'guessing' and 'because' in what Esoglou does.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations. However, if the RCC indeed also believes that "despite the curse of sin, humans still possess a free will and can respond positively to God’s invitation to receive His divine grace", I still do not understand the need of the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary supported by the RCC, it is claimed in that article that "from the first moment of her existence, Mary was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind and that she was instead filled with divine grace" (so in other words, it claims that she needed divine grace before she could decide to accept to give birth to Christ, and without divine grace, such decision of acceptance would never have been possible because of "original sin"). The EOC indeed teaches that we need guidance and assistance of divine grace to reach illumination (Theoria) and Theosis, but first we must accept (in our sinful state) God's invitation (which is not the same as "illumination" or "infusion with divine grace") before we receive assistance and guidance from divine grace, we can still make this choice even despite the effects of "ancestral sin". So according to the EOC, the Holy Virgin Mary chose to give birth to Christ without being filled with divine grace from first moment of her existence, she was of course, filled later with divine grace, after she accepted to cooperate with God, the synergy ("the Orthodox Church believes that Mary was cleansed of all sin at the Annunciation after she had agreed to accept God's offer. It was at that point that the Holy Spirit came upon her to make her fit to receive the Word in her womb. At that moment she became “blessed” and “full of grace."). I would also add that the EOC teaches that synergy is human "cooperation with God's uncreated energies", but the RCC teaches that "divine grace" received by humans is a "created energy" (and in Orthodoxy, only the uncreated energies can be called "divine grace"). So, if the RCC teaches a form of "synergy", as far as I see, it is a cooperation between humans and "created grace", which takes place after they are given (through created grace) the possibility of choosing to accept more created grace (and this is different from the EO "synergy"). Cody7777777 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I fear, Cody, that you are confusing sanctifying grace with "the transitory graces granted as special helps in particular needs". God isn't stingy with his grace and gives his grace abundantly even to those who lack sanctifying grace. He gives them in particular the grace that assists them in freely accepting his invitation to be united with him in faith. And he gives his assisting grace every day to those also who do have sanctifying grace.

Ancestral sin does not deprive man of free will. That is a Protestant teaching, rejected by both RCC and EOC. It wasn't sanctifying grace that enabled Mary to accept God's invitation to become the Theotokos. Whether she was already sanctified or not, her acceptance was a matter of synergy between her free will and the assisting grace of God.

I am afraid I do not see the relevance of the question whether this assisting grace was created or uncreated. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I suppose you hold that it was the great grace of God's invitation to Mary that enabled the angel, before the moment of Mary's acceptance of the invitation, to call her κεχαριτωμἐνη, highly favoured, highly graced or (as the word is also translated) full of grace (χἀρις). Or is there some other explanation of this expression by the angel when Mary had not yet accepted the invitation? Esoglou (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Having remained in the holy of holies of the Temple, she (the Virgin Mary) reached the holy of holies of the spiritual life, theosis. Thus, the Virgin Mary had reached theosis even before she received the visitation of the Archangel...The Virgin Mary realised that no one can reach God with reasoning, with the senses, with imagination or human glory, but rather only through the intellect (I think the translation refers to the "nous", the "mind of the heart"). Thus she deadened all the powers of the soul that came from the senses, and through noetic prayer she activated the intellect (the "nous"). In this manner she reached illumination and theosis. And for this reason she was granted to become the Mother of Christ, to give her flesh to Christ. She didn't have simply virtues, but the god-making Grace of God". So, I believe, that the Holy Virgin Mary entered the synergy with God probably at some moment after she was brought to the temple, and because of her own desire to follow God and accept His invitation, but she received divine grace after she accepted to take part in the synergy, she made this choice freely (without special assistance) to accept the invitation (and start the synergy) despite the effects caused by the ancestral sin (which according to the EOC, despite considerably weakening human nature and bringing the spiritual illness called "death", they don't take away the possibility to freely choose God), and later, after she reached Theosis, she was asked to give birth to Christ. (The invitation for synergy was an act of uncreated grace, but the invitation itself does not refer to an act of assistance, the assistance/guidance, illumination (Theoria) and deification (Theosis) can begin after accepting the invitation to take part in the synergy, God wants to help us only if we also agree, and only when we freely accept there can be simultaneity between human free wil and divine grace, if He would assist us before our agreement, it would be against our free will, and it would not be simultaneous.) The source cited in the post above claimed she became "full of grace" after she accepted to give birth to Christ, I think it means, that she increased even more in divine grace. However, I have to say, that I still don't understand why the RCC needs the dogma of Immaculate Conception (which claims she was filled with divine grace from the first moment of her existence) if it claims that Original Sin does "not deprive man of free will". I believe the distinction between "uncreated grace" and "created grace" is important, because from an EO point of view "uncreated grace" is a direct action of God, so synergy with the uncreated grace of God, means direct synergy with God, from an EO point of view, our synergy with God is possible only through His uncreated divine grace, created grace would not represent a direct action of God. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears then the view of Anthony M. Coniaris, that "the Orthodox Church believes that Mary … at that moment (i.e., "after she had agreed to accept God's offer") she became ...'full of grace'" is not certain.

I don't see why assistance to make a decision is against free will. If I help someone to decide to give up smoking, that doesn't make his decision unfree, surely? And God, whom we believe to be generous in offering his assistance to everybody, would surely not have made an exception for Mary, making her the only human person who had to start a process with no help whatever from God.

Ancestral sin leaves us weakened in our powers but does not deprive us of free will, and sanctifying grace does not suddenly give us previously unknown abilities of mind and will. So whether Mary was freed from ancestral sin from her first moment of existence, or in youth, or only after receiving the angel's message has nothing to do with her ability to make a free decision. Esoglou (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be against our free will if we don't want assistance. But, of course, this was not the case of the Holy Virgin Mary, since she freely wanted to follow God (and she wanted to receive His assistance), and then she received His assistance at that same moment (or simultaneously, when accepting His invitation), starting the synergy, which led her in time to Theoria and Theosis, and accepted to give birth to Christ, Who saved us from death through His Resurrection. However, I have to say again, that I have not found yet an explanation, why the RCC considers the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary" to be necessary, if Original Sin did not deprive humans of free will, since this dogma claims that it was necessary for her to receive divine grace from the first moment of her existence (and it actually, denies her a simultaneous action in starting the synergy). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right: it would be against freedom if the helper forced the other to accept his "help", which would then not be help, but compulsion. That is not the case in divine-human synergy. God doesn't force his help on anyone. But it is available even before the human will takes any action or decision, any initiative. However, it becomes effective only simultaneously with the human will's free action or decision, the human will's free initiative. What the RCC Council of Orange rejects is the idea that human beings do things for their own salvation with no help whatever from God, that God is in no way involved in the initiative towards salvation that they freely take, an initiative that they in fact take with the concomitant help of God, who gives them the power to take freely any initiatives towards salvation that they do take. Even if it is said that God becomes involved later and that from the time of God's involvement there begins to be divine-human synergy, the idea that for a time, even a short time, man is able to work for his salvation without God being involved in his initiative is so like Pelagianism that it has in recent centuries been called semi-Pelagianism.

What do you think of the following declaration? "A man, therefore, before he is regenerated, is able by nature to incline to what is good, and to choose and work moral good. But for the regenerated to do spiritual good — for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual — it is necessary that he be guided and prevented [preceded] by grace, as has been said in treating of predestination. Consequently, he is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life, although he has it in his own power to will, or not to will, to co-operate with grace." These are the words of a pan-Orthodox Council (known as the Synod of Jerusalem, but actually held, if I remember right, in Bethlehem). You will find them at the end of Decree 14 of the Council's decrees.

I think the ideas of Rahner and Lossky are in harmony with this decree.

The RCC does not believe that Mary had to be conceived free from ancestral sin in order to be able to accept the offer to become the Theotokos. Her immaculate conception was not necessary for that purpose, and was never thought to be necessary.

By the way, you may have noticed that LoveMonkey thinks I "attacked" you for quoting a Protestant source. I know of no such attack. On the contrary, I thanked you heartily for quoting a Protestant source, which I had come across earlier and which I, not you, had been mistaken about, thinking that what the source said had instead been said by Lossky. I thank you again for that and for your courtesy in discussing these matters patiently with me. Esoglou (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My response to Esoglou [36] What does the Eastern Orthodox mean by the term "tunics of skin"?LoveMonkey (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that quote from the Confession of Dositheus, and I also thank you for your patience in discussing these matters. However, I do not see where the Confession of Dositheus claims that we need to be assisted when deciding to cooperate with God, it does say that we need to be assisted when working for our salvation, so in other words we need to work with God in synergy, but the decision if we want to work or not with God is ours, since regarding man, it claims that "he has it in his own power (it does not claim here that assistance is necessary) to will, or not to will, to co-operate with grace.", it also claims that "he is by nature able to choose and do what is good", and according to the following article the EO position about this is that "according to the holy Fathers, salvation is a matter of synergy, of cooperation—that of man with God, if man wills (actively chooses) the good, the right path, the virtuous life—then will God grant grace", this looks different than what Karl Rahner claims about the RC view, respectively "the Catholic doctrine of justification does not profess a semi-Pelagian synergism according to which salvation would be divided up into God's gracious act and the independent free act of man. On the contrary, man's free response to God is itself again the gift of God's grace.", in other words according to Rahner, it is not in humans' "own power power to will, or not to will, to co-operate with grace", but the "gift of God's grace" ("even the very possibility and act of this response is once more based on God, who gives that we can and do accept his action."), so it appears that Rahner claims that humans cannot respond to God's invitation unless they are assisted by Him, this means that God needs to assist them before they respond and this does not seem to be simultaneous). Regarding the Immaculate Conception, perhaps RCC does not see a problem in relation to its concept of "synergy" (which as far as I see, is not same as the EO "synergy"), but from an EO point of view "the Immaculate Conception expresses the idea that Mary's response to God was purely due to her preparation in grace; it is an outright rejection of the possibility of synergism and thus incompatible with Eastern Orthodox theology". And regarding the 2nd Council of Orange, according to the following article (already shown earlier), it claimed that "man under original sin had lost all power to turn to God", are there sources which state that the Council of Orange did not claimed this? (Also, the following book, which expresses an EO point of view, claims that "all the (Orthodox) Fathers were "semi-Pelagian," that is, all taught the cooperation of the human will with grace (synergism)", and there are enough sources which claim that semi-pelagianism was condemned at Orange.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Having had to reply to Richard's question below, I find I have time only to give you a very brief reply. The RCC too, and the Council of Orange in particular, have only spoken of working towards salvation. Look up what the Council of Orange said. Take in particular canon 7. I haven't time to read them all now, and I only hope that I picked the most suitable one, and I depend on you to let me know if there is some other part of the Council's decisions that speaks of human initiative for anything other than towards salvation. The Council of Jerusalem too made it quite clear that it was speaking of acts leading to salvation, not ordinary good actions. Rahner too expressly speaks of salvation. If I remember right, the Council of Jerusalem too says that grace must come before, must "precede" ("prevent" in the now archaic sense of the word) man's action, which I understand in the same way as I understand Rahner (and Lossky). Doesn't Jerusalem say that "on his own" man can do nothing to save himself, in other words he has "lost all power to turn to God" unless given divine grace. It is God's grace that gives him the power to make even the first move. I don't think any Catholic understands the immaculate conception of Mary in the way that the Orthodox writer you quote (I haven't time to look up the link) says: if as the Council of Jerusalem says everyone's action on the way to salvation depends on God's grace, what is the difficulty about saying thagt grace made it possible for her to consent? What Catholic says that without the immaculate conception she couldn't have consented? Take Thomas Aquinas who didn't believe in the immaculate conception as later defined but only in a cleansing like that attributed to John the Baptist, and yet certainly believed that Mary was able (with the help of divine grace) to consent. And again, if the Fathers believed in synergism, they certainly didn't believe in semi-Pelagianism in the sense in which that term is applied to the idea contradicted by the Council of Jerualem and the Council of Orange. Please excusre me if I have misunderstood you. And also the shortcomings of my reply. Esoglou (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, there isn't any problem, (I didn't had too much time either, and I'm sorry for the long delays in response). Thank you, for the link to the canons of the 2nd council of Orange, they were interesting. According to "CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism", it appears that according to Orange, the Original Sin destroyed free will, and there can be no free will until baptism (this could also explain why the dogma of the Immaculate Conception would be necessary), but Saint John Cassian claimed that the effects of the ancestral sin do not destroy free will (similar claims were also made by Saints Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria "though we inherit a corrupted nature; but our free will remains intact.", and the Confession of Dositheus also claims that man still has "the same nature in which he was created, and the same power of his nature, that is free-will, living and operating, so that he is by nature able to choose and do what is good", so free will is not destroyed by the effects of ancestral sin. Of course, we need to be assisted by divine grace when working for our salvation in synergy, but the question here seems to be if humans can also take the decision to accept God's invitation for synergy without having yet the assistance of divine grace, Karl Rahner (who speaks for the RCC), claims that "man's free response to God is itself again the gift of God's grace." (this seems to claim that without an act of divine grace, we would never be able to give a free response to God, this means God acts on us before we respond to His invitation, and this is clearly not simultaneous with our acceptance of God's invitation) this contradicts with the claim made in the Confession of Dositheus "he has it in his own power to will, or not to will, to co-operate with grace.", and Lossky also claims that "Eastern tradition has always asserted simultaneity in the synergy of divine grace and human freedom. As St. Macarius of Egypt says: "The will of man is an essential condition, for without it God does nothing."", and according to the following “The grace of the Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without grace our efforts can not collect the prize of virtue”. (Regarding the book shown earlier, which claimed "all the (Orthodox) Fathers were "semi-Pelagian," that is, all taught the cooperation of the human will with grace (synergism)" it appears to claim that semi-pelagian synergism is the same as Orthodox synergism, and Karl Rahner has clearly claimed that "the Catholic doctrine of justification does not profess a semi-Pelagian synergism according to which salvation would be divided up into God's gracious act and the independent free act of man.".) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In this long discussion, to which, because of its length, I am giving a section of its own, I find myself in the strange position of acting as if I were an expert on the matter. I am not. I merely find sources that that show that intelligent people can with apparent good reasons hold opposing views. (In this I differ from another editor who on finding evidence for one view refuses to admit that there is any other view.)

Your remark on canon 13 of the Council of Orange set me searching for what the Council really said, which was "De reparatione liberi arbitrii. Arbitrium voluntatis in primo homine infirmatum, nisi per gratiam baptismi non potest reparari; quod amissum, nisi a quo potuit dari, non potest reddi. Unde Veritas ipsa dicit: 'Si vos Filius liberaverit, tunc vere liberi eritis (Jo 8,36)." It seems I should not have directed you to a Protestant translation of the Council's canons: infirmatum means "weakened", not "destroyed"; and reparari does not mean "restored" in the sense of given back, but only in the sense of "repaired", "restored to how it should be". John Cassian, you say, "claimed that the effects of the ancestral sin do not destroy free will". The Roman Catholic Church too explicitly rejects the doctrine of the first Protestant Reformers that ancestral sin "has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom" (CCC 406). So too did the Council of Jerusalem, as you have quoted. It only said that "for the regenerated to do spiritual good — for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation and wrought by supernatural grace are properly called spiritual — it is necessary that he be guided and prevented [preceded] by grace", as did the Council of Orange. "Semi-Pelagianism" means different things to different people. Some apply the term "semi-Pelagianism" to synergism in the strict sense (simultaneous cooperation of divine grace and human will), and in this sense all the (Eastern, but not only the Eastern) Fathers, and the Roman Catholic Church too were/are "semi-Pelagian", that is, all taught/teach the cooperation of the human will with grace (synergism). On the other hand, some, it appears, try to extend the meaning of "synergism", which properly requires simultaneity, so as to include semi-Pelagianism (the belief that a succession of independent contributions is sufficient for salvation, with no need for simultaneity). This stretching of the meaning of "synergism" to include semi-Pelagianism is what Rahner rejected, calling it "a semi-Pelagian synergism according to which salvation would be divided up into God's gracious act and the independent free act of man". Lossky too rejected that idea of non-simultaneous cooperation between God and man. There is no contradiction between Rahner (who gave his own non-official interpretation of the RCC doctrine) and the Council of Jerusalem (which expressed the EOC doctrine). The Council says that man has it in his power to will (or not to will) to cooperate with grace, and Rahner says that it is by a gift of God that man has this freedom and this power, for, as the Council says, man "is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life". Esoglou (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either, in fact these debates have helped me learn more about these matters, and I still have much to learn. Thank you for your translation of that canon from the 2nd council of Orange, you are probably correct about that, however there are still some secondary sources which claim that "It was affirmed by this synod (of Orange) that man is not only under original sin, but has lost all power to turn to God" (probably it is written by a protestant, but it sill is a secondary source), and there was also the earlier article (which is an EO source) which stated that Orange claimed that "man under original sin had lost all power to turn to God", and since those who participated at Orange were influenced by Augustine's views, I don't think it is impossible that these secondary sources could be right. Other translations of the "Confession of Dostiheus" do not use "preceded" for "prevented" (and in my opinion, the Confession seems to be a bit ambiguous regarding these issues), however, as far as I see, the Confession of Dositheus does not say there that we must be preceded by divine grace before our choice to accept God's invitation for synergy, "for the works of the believer being contributory to salvation...it is necessary that he be guided and prevented by grace", it does not claim here that we must always be guided or "prevented" by grace when accepting God's invitation for synergy, but that we need to be guided or "prevented" by grace when we work for salvation (and we start working for salvation after accepting God's invitation), but on the following article from the "Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyatheira and Great Britain" it is claimed that “The grace of the Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without grace our efforts can not collect the prize of virtue”. Regarding Karl Rahner, as far as I see, he claims that man's response is free because of God's grace ("even the very possibility and act of this response is once more based on God, who gives that we can and do accept his action."), and so if man wouldn't have God's grace, he wouldn't be free to choose to follow God's will, but the Confession of Dositheus appears to claim that man is free because of our nature (which, of course, was created by God, but still, now man can respond freely to God's invitation for synergy, even without the direct intervention of God's grace). And Rahner also states that the the RC doctrine of justification does not claim that salvation is "divided up into God's gracious act and the independent free act of man" (so it appears that he claims, that man also depends on God's grace for his free act). (I could be mistaken, but in my opinion, the RCC seems to claim that after we receive grace (without asking), we have the choice of rejecting grace or accepting grace, however the EOC claims that first we must choose between sinning (in the "world of passions") or rejecting sin and turn our will to follow God, and when we turn our will towards God, we simultaneously receive His uncreated grace, I would also add, that I do not see where Rahner speaks about the simultaneity of our response and our receiving of divine grace.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You have raised several questions. Let us examine them one by one.

1. "man under original sin had lost all power to turn to God" – He has not lost his free will but, with regard to securing salvation ("turning to God"), man (according to Jerusalem) "is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life".
2. Other translations of the "Confession of Dostiheus" do not use "preceded" for "prevented" – You surely don't believe that Jerusalem said that God's grace prevents, in the modern sense of blocking something, man's doing spiritual good. Without checking, I think both translations are the same, but the editor of one has added "preceded" in parenthesis, to warn the reader that here the word "prevent" is used in its etymological (from Latin prae-venire, to come before) but now archaic meaning. The same editor has made other comments in parenthesis, such as the correction of the reference to Roman 1:19, which he says is actually to Romans 2:14.
3. we need to be guided or "prevented" by grace when we work for salvation (and we start working for salvation after accepting God's invitation) – Exactly. Neither Jerusalem nor Orange stated that for actions other than working for salvation God's grace is necessary.
4. “The grace of the Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without grace our efforts can not collect the prize of virtue” – God's grace is on offer even before we make the effort, but it isn't actually granted ("vouchsafed") unless we accept it.
5. Rahner ..."even the very possibility and act of this response is once more based on God, who gives that we can and do accept his action."), and so if man wouldn't have God's grace, he wouldn't be free to choose to follow God's will … And Rahner also states that the the RC doctrine of justification does not claim that salvation is "divided up into God's gracious act and the independent free act of man" (so it appears that he claims, that man also depends on God's grace for his free act) – Rahner is talking about working for salvation, and Jerusalem also says that, in that field, man "is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life": of himself man can do absolutely no work worthy of a Christian life, such as the towards-salvation free act of accepting sanctifying grace and choosing to follow God's will.
6. first we must choose between sinning (in the "world of passions") or rejecting sin and turn our will to follow God, and when we turn our will towards God, we simultaneously receive His uncreated grace – RCC also says that it is only when we exercise the God-given ability (God-given, because of ourselves we don't have the ability to do any work worthy of a Christian life) to turn our will towards God, that we receive the grace that sanctifies us.
7. I do not see where Rahner speaks about the simultaneity of our response and our receiving of divine grace – Rahner rejects the notion that salvation is "divided up" (made into two separate actions, instead of a synergy) "into God's gracious act" (God's actual granting of grace when actually we receive it) "and the independent" (Jerusalem states that man is not independent of God in this matter, that he is "not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life") "free act of man".

It thus seems to me that the RCC and EOC declarations on this matter do not have to be interpreted as contradictory. Esoglou (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "prevenient grace" is that this term is not often used by the EOC (at least, as far as I know), and the term itself has more roots in western augustinian tradition. I'm not sure how exactly this term got into the "Confession of Dositheus", although I suspect some western influence (and Dositheus was also combating protestant ideas in his Confession). According to some Orthodox sources, "Maximos asserted that self-determination (literally, self-determined movement – aujtexouvsio~ kivnhsi~) is a constitutive element of human nature, but is not aimless; our natural free will is oriented toward God precisely because humanity is created by God, in His image. A special act of God’s grace (i.e., prevenient grace) is not required for us to orient ourselves toward Him;" (so, I think that probably "prevenient grace" could refer, from an Orthodox point of view, just to God's invitation for synergy, but not to previous assistance (prior to our acceptance) in helping us orient our will to Him, since that would mean that He would act on us before we accept, and it won't be simultaneous with our acceptance). According to the secondary sources shown earlier Orange declared that "man under original sin had lost all power to turn to God", this claims quite clearly that because of Original Sin, we would no longer be able to "have one of two choices of fundamental character to make. We must choose either to subject ourselves to God or to the world (eg, "the flesh," evil, sin, the devil, pride, self, etc.). Thus Lossky explicates the basic Orthodox position. The beginning of the spiritual life is conversion (epistrophe), an attitude of the will turning towards God and renouncing the world". The following book also claims that the council of Orange declared that "any human desire to be cleansed of that sin (Original Sin) comes through the work of the Holy Spirit alone. Saving faith, desire for prayer, all turning of the will to do good, Christian courage, honors and so on are first and last the work of God.". From an EO point of view, I think it can be said that God's "prevenient grace" only invites us, but does not forcefully open us to God's invitation, since we "we must open ourselves to God's divine energies". However, as far as I see, Karl Rahner appears to claim that we must first always be aided (by God's grace) to open ourselves to God's invitation, before we can accept it ("The injured freedom must (freely) accept this help (divine grace) and yet is not capable of this acceptance by its own power. Even for this it must be liberated by the prevenient grace of the unsearchable decision of God"), I have to say I again, that I have not found yet, where Rahner speaks of the simultaneity of our response and our receiving of divine grace. (This EO article also claims that “When Catholics say that persons cooperate in preparing for an accepting justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate human abilities".) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the Council of Jerusalem was called to address Calvinist ideas propounded by Patriarch Cyril of Constantinople – ideas involved also in the calling of the Western Council of Trent – you are quite right in what you say about why it had to deal with concepts such as prevenient grace.

Is there a conflict between the Council's declaration that man is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life (such as turning to God) and saying that man can orient himself to God without "a special act of God's grace"? If there is a conflict between them, it follows that one can interpret EOC doctrine in different ways. (And which should we choose: the exposition by Valerie A. Karras or that of the Council of Jerusalem?) But perhaps – note the word "perhaps" – both can be interpreted as agreeing that, while a "special" grace is not needed, the general grace of God, which at all times (not just on exceptional occasions) gives human beings the possibility of responding to God's invitation or promise of salvation, is very much needed. The Wikipedia article on prevenient grace quotes the Council of Trent as saying that salvation (referred to as "justification" because of the Reformers' use of this term) "is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace" – again, no mention of a "special" grace, but only of God's "quickening (life-giving) and assisting grace". This general grace of God can be seen as what, according to both Trent and Jerusalem, gives man the ability to give a free consenting response to God's invitation, a response that is thus seen as effected by God's grace.

So, while some do indeed interpret the RCC and EOC declarations on free will and divine grace as contradictory, it still seems to me that they do not have to be interpreted in that way. Esoglou (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, from my own point of view, I do not think that the Confession of Dostheus claims that we cannot turn to God through our natural free will (since it also claims that "he (man) is by nature able to choose and do what is good", and we truly do what is good, only when we choose to orient ourselves to God), and when it claims that "he (man) is not able of himself to do any work worthy of a Christian life" I think it means that without God's grace (working in synergy with us) we can never reach Theoria and Theosis, but not that we always need divine assistance to choose orienting our will to God and accept His invitation for synergy (when we simultaneously receive His assistance, His divine grace). However, I admit that the Confession of Dositheus could also be interpreted in other ways (since, at least in my opinion, it appears to have some ambiguity regarding these issues). I'm not claiming that the EO and RC positions are always interpreted as contradictory, but as you said, there are some who claim there are some contradictions, and I think that some of the things discussed here could also be mentioned in some sections of the article. The discussion was interesting. Cody7777777 (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I"m glad that the discussion was interesting and stimulating. It was probably outside the guidelines for Talk Pages but we can indulge each other a little bit from time to time.

I confess once again to not having read and understood every word of this section. However, I wish to point out that even if you could get LoveMonkey, Cody7777777, Esoglou and myself to all agree on these questions, we still could not assert that the EOC and RCC agree/disagree regarding free will and grace. That would be some combination of OR and SYNTH. We must look to secondary sources that make explicit claims regarding any such agreement or disagreement between the two churches. Lossky is the only that I've seen that makes the explicit claim. Perhaps LoveMonkey and Cody have provided others. I confess I haven't looked at every source. I haven't seen a single source that says explicitly that the EOC and RCC agree on this issue. If Rahner explicitly references the EOC position and says that it is identical to the RCC position, then we should quote that. However, from a quick scan of the dialogue above, I gather that Cody and Esoglou were debating (1) whether Rahner represented the RCC position and (2) whether Rahner's view was the same as the EOC position. This is a perfect example of OR and SYNTH. There could be 100 Wikipedians in consensus and it still would be OR. Sorry, guys. Personally, I suspect that the EOC and RCC do, in fact, have substantially the same position and that the RCC is more Semi-Pelagian than it is willing to 'fess up to. However, no matter how you dice it, it still comes up OR unless you can put it in the mouth of a reliable source. --Richard S (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still unclear on one thing from you Richard, if we provide the sources: what is it that you need them to say? As no matter how clearly they state that the EO embraces Cassian over Augustine or is for free will where volition toward God or salvation can be done without the grace of God. And that Cody has posted numerous ones you keep repeatedly stating that the only source of this is the passage from Lossky. Why is that? Even just in this section alone Cody has posted

• 1) [37]
• 2) [38]
• 3) [39]
• 4) [40]
• 5) Andrew Louth [41]
• 6) [42]
• 7) [43]
• 8) [44]
• 9) [45]
• 10) [46]

Thats ten Orthodox sources in just this section Richard. What are we not saying that you need us to say and source? How is all of this getting missed? I did not post the other Lossky passages that Cody used in this section and I did not post all of the sources Cody posted including Protestant ones I posted sources specific to EOC, Augustine, Cassian and Semi-pelaganism and free will. Again there are even more sources to this effect all stating that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox position on this are not the same and I find no reason other then speculative opinion to believe otherwise. How much do you need? When will enough be enough? As Esoglou has provided not Roman Catholic source(s) stating that the EOC and RC are close to having the same positions on any of this. I can find no Orthodox representative of the church with rank in the church of the EOC to state that the EOC and the Roman Catholic church hold the same position or one even close to the same position. But as I have posted there are EOC theologians whom state that the EOC and RCC are not in agreement. Hows this getting missed? How are we saying it wrong? How is this not being direct enough? I mean the Orthodox believe in the tunic of skin the teaching of the sarx and we center Lent and Pascha around the teaching of the sarx the garments of the free that by God fashioning us bodies for the world of good and evil the world of free will our bodies our beings where different and did not have these garments of flesh. We do not believe like the West, Richard. These garments of skin.[47]

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a misunderstanding. In my understanding of the matter, I was having a rather generic discussion with Cody, not discussing an edit to the article. If I were, I would have written very differently. And I suppose he would too: he wouldn't have been talking so much about his personal opinion, ranging over many different but associated matters. Just as I was merely giving my personal opinion on those matters, with no thought of contributing to an article in Wikipedia. I thought, and still trust, that Cody was considering the discussion in the same way, seeing my opinion merely as my opinion and not as material for the article. Cody and I should doubtless have long since transferred the discussion to either his or my Talk page. Since Richard and LoveMonkey have begun to treat it as a discussion about some edit (what edit?) to the article, I cannot continue the discussion here. Now can we get back to discussing here the edits to the article that LoveMonkey reverted on no grounds other than that he refuses his consent? That is no discussion about personal opinions, as this was, but a concrete matter that is awaiting attention in accordance with objective Wikipedia rules. Esoglou (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Richard: Most of the discussion I had earlier in this section with Esoglou was indeed not about some specific edits (there was no proposed edit during the discussion), but more about personal opinions (and also about the opinions of some theologians mentioned during the discussion), it probably turned this section into a forum, but nonetheless, in my opinion it was not counter-productive (it was also helpful in finding some sources about related topics). In the end, I did not suggested adding our opinions in the article (I'm sorry for not being more clear, I realize now that my last post could give this impression), but rather, I suggested that some information, from some of the sources mentioned (during our discussion), could be useful and adapted for some sections of this article (but, it was not discussed yet what to add from them). Now, regarding your request for secondary sources about the difference of perspectives, between the EOC and the RCC, regarding free will and divine grace, I think the following article, called "BEYOND JUSTIFICATION: An Orthodox Perspective" (on the website of an Orthodox parish), written by Valerie A. Karras could be useful (the article also appears in this book). Some interesting statements from the article, could be: "While Orthodoxy maintains that free will is a constitutive element of the imago Dei, both Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism – sharing an Augustinian heritage – assert that one of the aspects of original sin is the loss of free will with respect to humanity’s orientation toward God.", "Eastern Christian thought is virtually unanimous from the earliest centuries in affirming humanity’s fundamental freedom to do good or ill, to turn toward God or away from him. By contrast, the Christian West, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, has been strongly influenced by Augustine’s peculiarly negative concept of free will.", "When Catholics say that persons cooperate in preparing for an accepting justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate human abilities" (this actually comes from a joint declaration with the Lutherans), "Maximos asserted that self-determination (literally, self-determined movement – aujtexouvsio~ kivnhsi~) is a constitutive element of human nature, but is not aimless; our natural free will is oriented toward God precisely because humanity is created by God, in His image. (From an EO point of view) A special act of God’s grace (i.e., prevenient grace) is not required for us to orient ourselves toward Him;". In my opinion, this article seems to clarify, from an EO perspective, what these differences are. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, I understood that this section was a discussion of personal opinions. The problem was that the discussion had gotten rather long and didn't appear to be aimed at improving the article so I figured it was time to remind everyone of the Talk Page guidelines which include not turning the page into a discussion forum. I was also hoping that maybe one of you might know of a source that could be used to back up the assertions in your discussion. I think the EO perspective is easily documented. I'm sorry that, due to my laziness, I thought it was only Lossky and not the slew of sources that established the EO perspective. What's difficult here is that the EO sources mention the difference between the EO and RCC perspectives. Do we have any Catholic sources that mention this difference? (For example, does Rahner explicitly mention the EO perspective and contrast the Catholic perspective against it?) If we are unable to find sources that mention the difference, then we are constrained to say nothing as to whether or not the Catholics think the RCC perspective is the same as or different from the EO perspective. We will have to limit ourselves to presenting the RCC perspective without indicating whether the Catholics think that they differ from the EO perspective or not. --Richard S (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To Richard. I can not stress hard enough how much I am in complete agreement with Cody on his choice of Valerie A. Karras. That article is rich in what it is saying. I would hope someday people would begin to respect the meaning of hypostasis in the Christian context that it is laid out in the East. That hypostasis is a completeness and if person is the word that the West chooses then the word must give a completeness and that individual is simply not acceptable in the context of hypostasis. (Maybe a distorted ousia though which would be pagan). Please also keep in mind that the pagans GAVE US our history before Christianity. Christianity is not about hate.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)