>>792966
>So this whole anti-western bias the Orthodox have, literally goes back to the earliest centuries of the church; it's not some newfangled phenomenon we're complaining about.
I understand that, but you undermine what being in communion means if you believe you can really separate the two Church from that 1,000 years of being One Church. We were One Church, under one authority for one thousand years.
This only speaks to your loose sense of what "communion" actually means, more than anything. As for St. Cyprian, your idea that "he developed the idea of the primacy" is a serious charge, if he's guilty of such abject heresy in your eyes, why is he even a Saint? Much like St. Augustine, really.
>At it's most basic level, "legalism" is essentially what the Pharisees were about.
Yes, the Pharisees cared more about the satisfaction of the Law of Moses, to the point of abject hypocrisy and murdering Christ.
>the reliance on clear-cut formulaic answers, with a transactional view of justice, even when such black/white formulations aren't substantially unwarranted
Sure. But how does this apply to Catholicism, again? Scripture itself makes this distinction, that some sins are akin to death itself, why wouldn't it be up to the Church to define what it is? In this thread, we have accusations that we are hard-hearted like the Pharisees, but in other threads, we must also contend with SSPX and Sedes who contend that Novus Ordo is bunk because…well, Pharasical observance.
It's really funny how this all works. I wish you'd pay attention to what's actually going on in Catholicism before you make accusations.
>and implies the "sin" here is contained in the act of reproduction itself.
Augustine is a subtle author, the entirety of Original Sin did not come from this one reading of this one passage. He makes the point, that in the Garden one of the first effects of the Fall was the sudden Lust that befell both Adam and Eve (which, is the real reason why they wanted to cover themselves).
It's not the act that is sinful (as you seem to claim, not Augustine), because it becomes licit in marriage; it is the Lust. And we know this Lust is an effect of sin, due to the Fall in Genesis. This in turn, is further supported by St. Paul's very adamant urgings for us to strive against our "animal flesh" and to fast, and to scourge it. Christ is the called the "New Adam", not also because He was the Messiah, but because He was the New Adam that was again free from all Sin, being completely celibate.
I don't believe you've heard the Augustine position from St. Augustine himself, so you should definitely read City of God sometime.
>This is important, because the Eastern understanding of ancestral sin, relies on this plural form, as it views Sinfulness much more like an environmental condition that permeates every human action, rather than a label for specific, individual human actions.
We're not judged by our environment, we're judged by our works. However, I won't attack this position until I read it from the source.
>Fr. Rose himself is engaging in philosophy in that book, so how would he be arguing against the very thing he's doing?
I'm speaking of methods of Philosophy before Christ. "The Orthodox stance on matters is wildly misunderstood" because you all rail on "hellenism", and then walk it all back and pretend to be appalled when you get called out on the argument.
>Divine Revelation + Un-Christian Philosophical Presuppositions?
Once again, a tragic generalization. You argue that we must throw out everything we know before Christ, regardless of whether or not we can rehabilitate the argument. We aren't rehabilitating or delineating Christ, we are modifying the argument to the Truth.