I meant to say that the viewership went up from 5 to over 150 people during Fr. Patrick's OPENING statement. We consistently maintained 100 people watching this great dialogue between our two wonderful interlocutors.
Great job you three. Would you William and Fr Patrick ever think about joining together in a 2v2 debate against Protestants on a subject y’all agree on?
Fabulous discussion. Thank you so much, Suan! At last, it’s one more great content to show that the position according to which only physical death is inherited due to Adam’s original/ ancestral sin (a particular stream inside Eastern Orthodoxy that, from the 20th century on, became apparently their majority party) is really biblically and patristically unsustainable. God bless William for his patience and his firm will to discuss it multiple times at this point.
William, your graciousness in dealing with disagreements with Father Patrick is always exemplary. I pray that you can always bring that to others whom you debate and sometimes allow to get under your skin by the unkind way or manner in which they conduct themselves. While it doesn’t alter the truth of your arguments, it can distract from them, which is undoubtedly their goal. Thanks and Peace be with you (always);)
As an EO I think that Fr John Ramsey as much as I respect him and love him is simply incorrect. All of the church fathers both east and west, before and after schism teach the position that William is defending, or at least I would like to think that they do because in my study of their holy works that is only valid interpretation that I could reason of. I do personally believe that William Albrecht is watering down RC position of original sin.
What is the difference that you note? Apostle Paul says: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death passed to all men, upon which all sinned." A key consequence of this is the need to baptise infants for the remission of sins: Canon 121 of Carthage: "It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever denies the little ones newly born from the wombs of their mothers when they are being baptised, or asserts that they are baptised for the remission of sins, but that they have inherited no original sin from Adam obliging them to be purified in the bath of renaissance (whence it follows that in these persons the form of baptism for the remission of sins is not true, but is to be regarded as factitious), let him be anathema; for no other meaning ought to be attached to what the Apostle has said, viz., “Sin entered the world through one human being” (Rom. 5:12), and thus it passed over into all human beings; wherefore all of them have sinned, than that which the catholic Church diffused and spread abroad every-where has ever understood those words to mean. For it is on account of this Canon of the faith that even the little ones too, who are as yet incapable of committing if any sin of their own to render them guilty of any offence, are truly baptised for the remission of sins, in order that what sin they inherited from the primordial birth may be purified in them through the process of renaissance." Is what Fr Patrick said inconsistent with this? Is there some other text of the Scriptures or Ecumenical Councils being missed here with which he is inconsistent? Can you provide a quote of a couple of Fathers that refute his position? Thank you?
@@johnramsey5651 I can provide Fr McGuckin who says in his book Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, page 580: "Orthodoxy teaches that humanity was seduced by the Devil at an early stage in its development, and the whole human race contracted illness, which is both spiritual (sin, passion) and physical (illness and death), a malaise not caused or willed by God" William Albrecht provide tons of stuff that teach both bodily and spiritual death. Death doesn't mean ceasing to exist but separation. Separation of the soul from the body and separation of us from God. I can provide more fathers, like Saint Peter Moglia, Saint Gennadios Scholarios, Saint Gregory Palamas, but again William already did that for me.
Sin is the transgression of God's law. This is not something that can be transferred. Unless you want to take the Gnostic view that the flesh itself is sinful. There's nothing original about original sin. Adam sinned, who did he inherit this from and how? Sin is a choice. The doctrine of original sin comes from Augustine, and is trash Gnostic theology. Satan sinned also, in whom did he inherit his sin from? Trash theology that's nowhere found in the Bible.
@@noybiznatch We inherit from Adam a sin but not his personal guilt but his fallen state. or tropos as St Maximus says. We are born outside of communion with God, since when Adam sinned we don't have access to three of life, hence why we need baptism; to reunite with God and have again access to the Tree of Life which is Jesus Christ now.
Fr. John states what has happened to Adam is a loss of the Holy Spirit and communion with God; as a result man has the inclination for sin, birth pangs, death, etc. William states Original Sin is a privation of grace, which leads to inheritance of birth pangs, concupiscence, death, etc. I can’t help but wonder both sides seem to talk past each other. It doesn’t seem there is a difference. I can’t tell there is a difference at all other than semantics.
If part of original sin is an inclination to sin, what do we call the inclination in Adam and Eve to sin? How is that not univocal? If it is univocal, how can we say such an inclination is a part of original sin? Wouldn’t it just be apart of humanity, pre- or post-fall regardless?
Adam and Eve had *complete* culpability; to a degree that other sins generally do not. Total freedom aside from any mental, physical or spiritual inclination towards evil One could say they perhaps even had an inclination to Good- which they went against. Much like how we may still (by the grace of God) resist a sin we are addicted to- despite a chemical and psychological attraction to it. This would be the inverse... It's like, if you've tried cocaine and loved it- Vs Resisting cocaine even though you've never tried it. And even though you've only heard second hand through a serpent, that it is good. Which one is harder? To deny the inclination is to basically say both are equal 🤷♂️
@reginaldmudford9722 Your argument is self affirming as to why they sinned. Adam and Eve had inclination for good. Bible clearly says, Eve saw that it was GOOD
@@damnmexican90you are factually wrong. The fact ‘Eve’ saw that this particular tree was good for food was completely innocent and not the reason the tree was prohibited. It was her DESIRE for wisdom, which was never defined as good but rather something that would surely bring death, that is the downfall. This desire was categorically not good. Eve like ourselves justifies sin because it has a good angle to it. Pretty much every sin has a part to it that you can call good, but overall it is not. Hope you understand my explanation.
@@johnsalamito6212 I understand what you mean, that is the traditional Catholic teaching. Not sure if its also the EO teaching. What i'm trying to convey to the gentleman with respect to his question. Sin post garden and inclination TOWARDS sin once kicked out. which the teaching does not imo address outright. She wanted something that she "percieved" to be good. SHE, which then Adam partook in. they BOTH wanted something GOOD. Notice how the sErpent had to manipulate Eve into percieving the fruit as good. Were before she percieved it as bad. The dialogue itself conveys a change in "perception", which points at something fundamental about humans and a "desire" for "good". There is fundmental change in "how" we sin after eating from the tree. Based on how Adam and Eve both now internalized distinction between themselves. and Cain and Abel flesh that out fully. perhaps i'm not phrasing it right, or perhaps im not being precise enough. Please do let me know.
To sin is to seek happiness by some means that is incompatible with it. To be *inclined* to sin, then, denotes a certain bias toward this sort of life. Adam and Eve had no such bias, because they possessed supernatural virtues which inclined them to seek God as their highest good. In order to sin, they had to act contrary to this inclination.
When the church fathers say that Mary gave birth without pain, that should certainly be doubted. On the basis of female anatomy and physiology as well as the mechanics of gestation and birth, it seems impossible for her not to have had pain, as her vaginal canal would have stretched enormously, and her nervous system’s pain receptors would have registered this and sent pain signals accordingly. Additionally, the pelvic bones loosen and widen during birth to accommodate the delivery of the infant, which is also very painful due to the pressure of the baby upon the vaginal canal and pelvic bones. At 14-15 years old Mary’s pelvic bone structure would have been undeveloped and would have been another source of pain. Some women will have dulled sensation at giving birth due to multiple deliveries;for mary it was also a first delivery, which would be another source of pain. Now, these factors considered, it seems there would only be two ways for Mary not to experience pain in childbirth. Either her Anatomy and physiology--specifically her nervous system, vaginal canal and pelvic structure--were either defective or not entirely present, or God directly intervened to stop the transmission of pain impulses along her nervous system (celestial epidural). If either of these cases is true, Mary’s alleged painless birth would have had nothing to do with original sin ( unless one posits that human females once had no pain receptors in their nervous system for giving birth). The idea of the church fathers that Mary experienced no pain in childbirth should be rejected on these bases.
@@Danielqu976 I assume that the Papacy teaches that we inherit original sin from Adam. I am not sure though why the pope listing the dogma is relevant to the Orthodox position which is defined by the Apostle Paul is saying: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death passed to all men, upon which all sinned." A key consequence of this is the need to baptise infants for the remission of sins: Canon 121 of Carthage: "It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever denies the little ones newly born from the wombs of their mothers when they are being baptised, or asserts that they are baptised for the remission of sins, but that they have inherited no original sin from Adam obliging them to be purified in the bath of renaissance (whence it follows that in these persons the form of baptism for the remission of sins is not true, but is to be regarded as factitious), let him be anathema; for no other meaning ought to be attached to what the Apostle has said, viz., “Sin entered the world through one human being” (Rom. 5:12), and thus it passed over into all human beings; wherefore all of them have sinned, than that which the catholic Church diffused and spread abroad every-where has ever understood those words to mean. For it is on account of this Canon of the faith that even the little ones too, who are as yet incapable of committing if any sin of their own to render them guilty of any offence, are truly baptised for the remission of sins, in order that what sin they inherited from the primordial birth may be purified in them through the process of renaissance."
@@buffcommie942 Thank you. Could you actually please state the position or provide three or four quotes from the Fathers to illustrate the position? Thank you.
This seems a classic case of two people talking way past each other. Fr. Patrick should probably have flushed out the implications of death on the passions more. He also never got home to the point where there is marked disagreements, and I think Albrecht denied holding to a position of human perfection without God, but he seemed to settle on that as a point of disagreement. Albrecht denied all the things he objected to, so it seemed he had no point in arguing. For Albrecht, I didn't find Enoch and Elijah a strong argument at all. Fr. Patrick called it an exception and that it's not required all men die, pointed out that people will not die at the return of the Lord. That's enough there; it's possible to go different ways after that to understand it. Nobody's eschatological position is shared by all the Fathers, so that entire excursus seemed unnecessary. Enoch and Elijah are even weaker arguments than Protestants saying, "But what about the brothers of the Lord?" Neither was the questioning on the Confession of Dositheus and the Fathers compelling. If we have a cause A, and A causes secondary causes A1...n, it does not follow that A1...n are somehow invalidate A as a proposition. To make a parallel of how this strikes me. I say, "Dinosaurs are were killed by a comet/astroid striking the Yukatan peninsula, DinoKiller." The other guy says, "I have here papers that say that Dinosaurs were killed by acid rain, tsunamis, extreme climatic change, air filled with particularates, and firy debris shooting into orbit then falling all over the globe. You didn't say that with DinoKiller." "Well those are consequences of DinoKiller." "But they are not the same thing. I don't see how you can reconcile this. The scientific papers frankly contradict you. I'm just reading you the papers; I'm not interpreting." (I am aware that there are the lava trappes as an alternative theory; I ignored those for the sake of the example) I honestly cannot see how Albrecht failed to grasp what Fr. Patrick was saying, since it was said different ways over and over, and the questioning was so single-minded. My only guess is that Albrecht is responding to Fr. Romanides and misunderstanding Fr. Patrick and the Fathers as badly as Romanides misunderstood a lot of western thinkers (particularly Augustine) and just couldn't hear Fr. Patrick. There was a fairly emotional sounding bout at the end about Romanides, and I honestly can understand why. The sad reality is, he failed to understand Fr. Patrick at every step and is a mirror of Romanides as a result. And saying "I'm just reading and not interpreting" is like a Protestant saying "It says 'brothers' of Jesus. I'm not interpreting" or "I don't have an accent." This debate would have been better as a discussion. Fr. Patrick would be better at that. It wouldn't have the psychological pressure to misunderstand the opponent. We probably would have found real disagreements more clearly, and it is clearing through the mud that I was wanting to hear. I didn't get that. I had heard from Roman Catholics and Orthodox that original sin is inherited guilt dogmatically, even Roman Catholic priests. I may have to amend my understanding after I verify the claims. So there has been some benefit to this, but it seems to have been two ships passing in the night more than anything. I will take up their request and mention them for a bit in my prayers, specifically that they can understand what each other say, not even that they come to agree. It is fortunate they are very clearly close friends, so that probably won't take much outside of a debate.
My understanding is that Catholics teach concupisence is simply part of human nature placed providentially by god (Trent) it merely becomes more active after the removal of grace which doesn’t change our nature but is merely the taking off of a cloak (Bellermine)
There is no need for 20 mins, I would stop after 3 minutes, whether or not they believed would be up to them. I would then leave them to waffle on till kingdom come. Just give the truth then move on. The truth on this topic doesn't need 20 mins
That orthodox priest seems very gentle and honest in disposition as for what he claims to be the right understanding or original sin. Albretch, on the contrary, although honestly trying to prove his position, what he proves is just his arrogance his understanding of the topic. Unfortunately, this is a very complex topic to deal with historically, and (if we are honest) the Scriptures are not entirely clear as to the how sin touches us in relation to Adam’s sin. May we just continue to be humble in all these discussions, recognizing both their complexity and their relevance in relation to humankind.
You sound like your bitter, because your boys haven't been doing so good lately! I suggest taking sometime off and going to adoration and think about about coming Home to the One True Church, and if you can't do that atm I suggest reading Williams new and just in article on Catholic answers website called "Considering Eastern Orthodoxy" , on the site use the search engine and write this title "Considering Eastern Orthodoxy" .
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I meant to say that the viewership went up from 5 to over 150 people during Fr. Patrick's OPENING statement. We consistently maintained 100 people watching this great dialogue between our two wonderful interlocutors.
Great job you three. Would you William and Fr Patrick ever think about joining together in a 2v2 debate against Protestants on a subject y’all agree on?
Good idea! 🤍
Greetings from Ecua🇪🇨
Thank you to brother William for defending our faith, and thank you father Suan for moderating/hosting👍
Fabulous discussion. Thank you so much, Suan! At last, it’s one more great content to show that the position according to which only physical death is inherited due to Adam’s original/ ancestral sin (a particular stream inside Eastern Orthodoxy that, from the 20th century on, became apparently their majority party) is really biblically and patristically unsustainable. God bless William for his patience and his firm will to discuss it multiple times at this point.
William, your graciousness in dealing with disagreements with Father Patrick is always exemplary. I pray that you can always bring that to others whom you debate and sometimes allow to get under your skin by the unkind way or manner in which they conduct themselves. While it doesn’t alter the truth of your arguments, it can distract from them, which is undoubtedly their goal.
Thanks and Peace be with you (always);)
Yes, Mr Albrecht is clearly a man of great charity and humility. God bless him. 🙏🏻
Excellent Debate!
Great job gentlemen. Suan excellent moderation.
As an EO I think that Fr John Ramsey as much as I respect him and love him is simply incorrect. All of the church fathers both east and west, before and after schism teach the position that William is defending, or at least I would like to think that they do because in my study of their holy works that is only valid interpretation that I could reason of. I do personally believe that William Albrecht is watering down RC position of original sin.
What is the difference that you note?
Apostle Paul says: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death passed to all men, upon which all sinned."
A key consequence of this is the need to baptise infants for the remission of sins: Canon 121 of Carthage: "It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever denies the little ones newly born from the wombs of their mothers when they are being baptised, or asserts that they are baptised for the remission of sins, but that they have inherited no original sin from Adam obliging them to be purified in the bath of renaissance (whence it follows that in these persons the form of baptism for the remission of sins is not true, but is to be regarded as factitious), let him be anathema; for no other meaning ought to be attached to what the Apostle has said, viz., “Sin entered the world through one human being” (Rom. 5:12), and thus it passed over into all human beings; wherefore all of them have sinned, than that which the catholic Church diffused and spread abroad every-where has ever understood those words to mean. For it is on account of this Canon of the faith that even the little ones too, who are as yet incapable of committing if any sin of their own to render them guilty of any offence, are truly baptised for the remission of sins, in order that what sin they inherited from the primordial birth may be purified in them through the process of renaissance."
Is what Fr Patrick said inconsistent with this? Is there some other text of the Scriptures or Ecumenical Councils being missed here with which he is inconsistent? Can you provide a quote of a couple of Fathers that refute his position? Thank you?
@@johnramsey5651 I can provide Fr McGuckin who says in his book Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, page 580:
"Orthodoxy teaches that humanity was seduced by the Devil at an early stage in its development, and the whole human race contracted illness, which is both spiritual (sin, passion) and physical (illness and death), a malaise not caused or willed by God"
William Albrecht provide tons of stuff that teach both bodily and spiritual death. Death doesn't mean ceasing to exist but separation. Separation of the soul from the body and separation of us from God.
I can provide more fathers, like Saint Peter Moglia, Saint Gennadios Scholarios, Saint Gregory Palamas, but again William already did that for me.
Sin is the transgression of God's law. This is not something that can be transferred. Unless you want to take the Gnostic view that the flesh itself is sinful. There's nothing original about original sin. Adam sinned, who did he inherit this from and how? Sin is a choice. The doctrine of original sin comes from Augustine, and is trash Gnostic theology. Satan sinned also, in whom did he inherit his sin from? Trash theology that's nowhere found in the Bible.
@@noybiznatch We inherit from Adam a sin but not his personal guilt but his fallen state. or tropos as St Maximus says. We are born outside of communion with God, since when Adam sinned we don't have access to three of life, hence why we need baptism; to reunite with God and have again access to the Tree of Life which is Jesus Christ now.
Fr. John states what has happened to Adam is a loss of the Holy Spirit and communion with God; as a result man has the inclination for sin, birth pangs, death, etc. William states Original Sin is a privation of grace, which leads to inheritance of birth pangs, concupiscence, death, etc.
I can’t help but wonder both sides seem to talk past each other. It doesn’t seem there is a difference. I can’t tell there is a difference at all other than semantics.
If part of original sin is an inclination to sin, what do we call the inclination in Adam and Eve to sin? How is that not univocal? If it is univocal, how can we say such an inclination is a part of original sin? Wouldn’t it just be apart of humanity, pre- or post-fall regardless?
Adam and Eve had *complete* culpability; to a degree that other sins generally do not.
Total freedom aside from any mental, physical or spiritual inclination towards evil
One could say they perhaps even had an inclination to Good- which they went against.
Much like how we may still (by the grace of God) resist a sin we are addicted to- despite a chemical and psychological attraction to it.
This would be the inverse...
It's like, if you've tried cocaine and loved it-
Vs
Resisting cocaine even though you've never tried it.
And even though you've only heard second hand through a serpent, that it is good.
Which one is harder?
To deny the inclination is to basically say both are equal 🤷♂️
@reginaldmudford9722
Your argument is self affirming as to why they sinned.
Adam and Eve had inclination for good. Bible clearly says,
Eve saw that it was GOOD
@@damnmexican90you are factually wrong. The fact ‘Eve’ saw that this particular tree was good for food was completely innocent and not the reason the tree was prohibited. It was her DESIRE for wisdom, which was never defined as good but rather something that would surely bring death, that is the downfall. This desire was categorically not good. Eve like ourselves justifies sin because it has a good angle to it. Pretty much every sin has a part to it that you can call good, but overall it is not. Hope you understand my explanation.
@@johnsalamito6212 I understand what you mean, that is the traditional Catholic teaching. Not sure if its also the EO teaching. What i'm trying to convey to the gentleman with respect to his question. Sin post garden and inclination TOWARDS sin once kicked out. which the teaching does not imo address outright.
She wanted something that she "percieved" to be good. SHE, which then Adam partook in. they BOTH wanted something GOOD. Notice how the sErpent had to manipulate Eve into percieving the fruit as good. Were before she percieved it as bad.
The dialogue itself conveys a change in "perception", which points at something fundamental about humans and a "desire" for "good". There is fundmental change in "how" we sin after eating from the tree. Based on how Adam and Eve both now internalized distinction between themselves. and Cain and Abel flesh that out fully.
perhaps i'm not phrasing it right, or perhaps im not being precise enough. Please do let me know.
To sin is to seek happiness by some means that is incompatible with it. To be *inclined* to sin, then, denotes a certain bias toward this sort of life. Adam and Eve had no such bias, because they possessed supernatural virtues which inclined them to seek God as their highest good. In order to sin, they had to act contrary to this inclination.
When the church fathers say that Mary gave birth without pain, that should certainly be doubted. On the basis of female anatomy and physiology as well as the mechanics of gestation and birth, it seems impossible for her not to have had pain, as her vaginal canal would have stretched enormously, and her nervous system’s pain receptors would have registered this and sent pain signals accordingly. Additionally, the pelvic bones loosen and widen during birth to accommodate the delivery of the infant, which is also very painful due to the pressure of the baby upon the vaginal canal and pelvic bones. At 14-15 years old Mary’s pelvic bone structure would have been undeveloped and would have been another source of pain. Some women will have dulled sensation at giving birth due to multiple deliveries;for mary it was also a first delivery, which would be another source of pain. Now, these factors considered, it seems there would only be two ways for Mary not to experience pain in childbirth. Either her Anatomy and physiology--specifically her nervous system, vaginal canal and pelvic structure--were either defective or not entirely present, or God directly intervened to stop the transmission of pain impulses along her nervous system (celestial epidural). If either of these cases is true, Mary’s alleged painless birth would have had nothing to do with original sin ( unless one posits that human females once had no pain receptors in their nervous system for giving birth). The idea of the church fathers that Mary experienced no pain in childbirth should be rejected on these bases.
A bit ago you had an upcoming livestream listed about Jewish veneration of saints in the 1st and 2nd centuries BC. Is video that still coming?
It’s been indefinitely delayed. I’m hoping to get the PowerPoint together in September when I’m back at Harvard and can access the library.
I definitely think William from PP won this debate, with all die respect to Father Ramses. Also check out #East2WestTheology and #DennisG33
Crazy! That is not the Orthodox position
Ok, so what is the Orthodox position based on what authority?
Does the pope list your dogma?@@johnramsey5651
@@Danielqu976 I assume that the Papacy teaches that we inherit original sin from Adam. I am not sure though why the pope listing the dogma is relevant to the Orthodox position which is defined by the Apostle Paul is saying: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death passed to all men, upon which all sinned." A key consequence of this is the need to baptise infants for the remission of sins: Canon 121 of Carthage: "It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever denies the little ones newly born from the wombs of their mothers when they are being baptised, or asserts that they are baptised for the remission of sins, but that they have inherited no original sin from Adam obliging them to be purified in the bath of renaissance (whence it follows that in these persons the form of baptism for the remission of sins is not true, but is to be regarded as factitious), let him be anathema; for no other meaning ought to be attached to what the Apostle has said, viz., “Sin entered the world through one human being” (Rom. 5:12), and thus it passed over into all human beings; wherefore all of them have sinned, than that which the catholic Church diffused and spread abroad every-where has ever understood those words to mean. For it is on account of this Canon of the faith that even the little ones too, who are as yet incapable of committing if any sin of their own to render them guilty of any offence, are truly baptised for the remission of sins, in order that what sin they inherited from the primordial birth may be purified in them through the process of renaissance."
@@johnramsey5651 its pretty much the Catholic poisition, based off the historical consensus of orthodox theologians and the church fathers.
@@buffcommie942 Thank you. Could you actually please state the position or provide three or four quotes from the Fathers to illustrate the position? Thank you.
This seems a classic case of two people talking way past each other.
Fr. Patrick should probably have flushed out the implications of death on the passions more. He also never got home to the point where there is marked disagreements, and I think Albrecht denied holding to a position of human perfection without God, but he seemed to settle on that as a point of disagreement. Albrecht denied all the things he objected to, so it seemed he had no point in arguing.
For Albrecht, I didn't find Enoch and Elijah a strong argument at all. Fr. Patrick called it an exception and that it's not required all men die, pointed out that people will not die at the return of the Lord. That's enough there; it's possible to go different ways after that to understand it. Nobody's eschatological position is shared by all the Fathers, so that entire excursus seemed unnecessary. Enoch and Elijah are even weaker arguments than Protestants saying, "But what about the brothers of the Lord?"
Neither was the questioning on the Confession of Dositheus and the Fathers compelling. If we have a cause A, and A causes secondary causes A1...n, it does not follow that A1...n are somehow invalidate A as a proposition.
To make a parallel of how this strikes me. I say, "Dinosaurs are were killed by a comet/astroid striking the Yukatan peninsula, DinoKiller."
The other guy says, "I have here papers that say that Dinosaurs were killed by acid rain, tsunamis, extreme climatic change, air filled with particularates, and firy debris shooting into orbit then falling all over the globe. You didn't say that with DinoKiller."
"Well those are consequences of DinoKiller."
"But they are not the same thing. I don't see how you can reconcile this. The scientific papers frankly contradict you. I'm just reading you the papers; I'm not interpreting."
(I am aware that there are the lava trappes as an alternative theory; I ignored those for the sake of the example)
I honestly cannot see how Albrecht failed to grasp what Fr. Patrick was saying, since it was said different ways over and over, and the questioning was so single-minded. My only guess is that Albrecht is responding to Fr. Romanides and misunderstanding Fr. Patrick and the Fathers as badly as Romanides misunderstood a lot of western thinkers (particularly Augustine) and just couldn't hear Fr. Patrick. There was a fairly emotional sounding bout at the end about Romanides, and I honestly can understand why. The sad reality is, he failed to understand Fr. Patrick at every step and is a mirror of Romanides as a result.
And saying "I'm just reading and not interpreting" is like a Protestant saying "It says 'brothers' of Jesus. I'm not interpreting" or "I don't have an accent."
This debate would have been better as a discussion. Fr. Patrick would be better at that. It wouldn't have the psychological pressure to misunderstand the opponent. We probably would have found real disagreements more clearly, and it is clearing through the mud that I was wanting to hear. I didn't get that.
I had heard from Roman Catholics and Orthodox that original sin is inherited guilt dogmatically, even Roman Catholic priests. I may have to amend my understanding after I verify the claims. So there has been some benefit to this, but it seems to have been two ships passing in the night more than anything.
I will take up their request and mention them for a bit in my prayers, specifically that they can understand what each other say, not even that they come to agree. It is fortunate they are very clearly close friends, so that probably won't take much outside of a debate.
I didn't finish watching yet but good comment here. Typically discussions and written debates go way further than live debates.
My understanding is that Catholics teach concupisence is simply part of human nature placed providentially by god (Trent) it merely becomes more active after the removal of grace which doesn’t change our nature but is merely the taking off of a cloak (Bellermine)
There is no need for 20 mins, I would stop after 3 minutes, whether or not they believed would be up to them. I would then leave them to waffle on till kingdom come. Just give the truth then move on. The truth on this topic doesn't need 20 mins
That orthodox priest seems very gentle and honest in disposition as for what he claims to be the right understanding or original sin. Albretch, on the contrary, although honestly trying to prove his position, what he proves is just his arrogance his understanding of the topic. Unfortunately, this is a very complex topic to deal with historically, and (if we are honest) the Scriptures are not entirely clear as to the how sin touches us in relation to Adam’s sin. May we just continue to be humble in all these discussions, recognizing both their complexity and their relevance in relation to humankind.
How on earth does William show arrogance here??
This was painful to listen to.
Albrecht is so rude, it's hard to listen.
You sound like your bitter, because your boys haven't been doing so good lately!
I suggest taking sometime off and going to adoration and think about about coming Home to the One True Church, and if you can't do that atm I suggest reading Williams new and just in article on Catholic answers website called "Considering Eastern Orthodoxy" , on the site use the search engine and write this title "Considering Eastern Orthodoxy" .
???
It’s not that he’s rude, he just lays things on so thick that it’s awkward.
?
How? You are soft. He’s perfectly reasonable and he’s a beast in the domain of debate