OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 20, 2014, 12:32:54 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: western vs eastern theology  (Read 12947 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hesychios
perpetual neophyte
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 171


« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2007, 01:25:20 AM »

Something puzzles me a bit concerning the Eastern theology. Perhaps you could help a western Catholic to understand it. In RC, if you violate the fast or abstinence, it is a sin, either mortal or venial, depending. And there are times when the bishop has declared the fasting to be voluntary, so in those cases, it would not be a sin. However, in the Eastern Churches, am I right to say that it would not be a sin if you violate the Lenten fast, but at the same time, you are expected to try your best to obey it. The Eastern Lenten fast is pretty severe.
In western Catholic theology, if you die with one mortal sin on your soul, then you go to hell. If you die with lesser sins, or if some of the larger sins have been forgiven, but there still might remain some stain, due to the fact that your repentance was imperfect, then in that case, you go to Purgatory and are purified there, but in that case, eventually, you will go to heaven. So, basically, for a western Catholic, you are safe as long as you do not have an unrepented mortal sin on your soul when you die.
Now how would that work for an Eastern Orthodox. For example, there are no mortal or venial sins in the Orthodox Church, is that correct? And at the same time, you do believe in hell? So how then will it be determined who will be saved and who will not. What does an Eastern Orthodox have to do, in order to attain eternal salvation? For example, if he does not try to keep the Lenten fast at all, and he attends the Liturgy, once a month. Will that person be OK ?
I don't want to oversimplify my answer, I must be brief but I can't just let a thought hand out there. I am also not the best person to address this, being relatively new to Holy Orthodoxy myself.

The concept of sin is very real in Orthodoxy, make no mistake about that. But in my understanding (subject to correction here) there is no hard and fast distinction between categories of sins. 'Mortal' and Venial' seeming to be like buckets we can toss examples of each sin into, Orthodoxy doesn't really think much about these buckets.

We might focus on the tendency to sin more so than each event (or incident), trends maybe. And it is helpful to understand the basic idea of salvation by Theosis (Divinization), becoming Godlike (in the sense of growth by imitation or emulation). It is a very old concept but not well received in the west anymore.

We can look at Theosis as ongoing development with each phase of our lives and church cycle as growth experiences, ascetic practices as real "exercises". If the doctor (one's Spiritual Director) prescribes a certain regimen, and we follow it, hopefully we shall see some improvement in the patient (the Christian). Strength, stamina, alertness and a positive outlook might be the benefit. Ascetic practices should strengthen one's resolve, help the spirit master the body, make it possible to resist sin. These are all positive benefits.

Neglecting these will mean the Christian will not reap the benefits, there will be lack of progress. That in a way is it's own punishment.

If we make these "penances" to be a lot more like arbitrary rules to follow, with unrelentingly stiff penalties attached (like damnation?) they can very well be counterproductive, and people may perform them for the wrong reasons or only for a while, perhaps not out of love for God but out of fear. Faced with such a high bar and negative reinforcement, some people (especially new Christians, and the young) elect to "opt out", the religion loses credibility with them.

I don't know anywhere else in human society where such an approach works well with people. "If you don't do your piano lessons I will burn your fingers!" rarely forms great pianists, "If you don't do your exercises, I will beat you to a pulp!" will not make good gymnasts. Why should "if you don't complete your fast, I will burn you in hell!" work any better?

The desire for success at these endeavors should rise from inside the person, they should love the music and wish to make great music, love the sport and want to break records, love God and seek Him. People can and will endure many trials to achieve those lofty goals, positively.

We have all read "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." and understand just what that can mean to us. The purpose of ascetic practice is to train the will and tame the flesh. That is a real growth prospect for us, to put on Christ. It is a very positive thing.

But one needs to be a real Christian first, these things will not make us Christians. Attempting to follow the "rules" of penance under threat of damnation can be dangerous to weak faith, it is a poor foundation for growth. That is why I recall St Paul stating "I want to learn only this from you: did you receive the Spirit from works of the law, or from faith in what you heard?" The monks of the desert did not arise in a vacuum, they came out of Christian communities elsewhere and determined to work hard for their salvation. Not everyone can do that, not everyone is at the same level.

Once we believe, and desire Him, we will bear the burdens, we will take up our crosses to gain Him for ourselves, we embrace the rules (the "Law" if you will). Until we have reached that point a little understanding is in order. I think that is probably why the church has this high bar set before us, and all of that patience and compassion for us along with it.

Michael
Logged

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living"
Jaroslav Pelikan
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #46 on: December 19, 2007, 02:37:19 AM »

I think the whole East vs. West theology issue is one giant canard.

Indeed. Y's answer above is very much what we Catholics would say.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2007, 03:48:34 AM »

This, I think, is a poor approach.

This approach takes ascetic practice and turns it into something else, I would almost say that applying the threat of damnation for not complying with the institutions rules either negates or compromises the purpose of an ascetic practice.

The Law does not save. It makes sinners.

If people in 2008 are Ok doing something that people in 1800 were damned for and people in 200AD knew nothing of, there is an inconsistancy that cannot be explained away. Basically, the crime here is disobediance to the institutional church's rules, for which we pay must the ultimate price.

Taking up ascetic practices...exercises... should be a positive decision for a Christian, part of their growth. Salvation is not merely a process , it is a growth process and for each person that can be different.

Look what has happened. The western system makes these demands on people but has no working concept of economia. Everything is a pass-fail proposition. Later, the rules are relaxed for everyone the same way, it does not address the persons needs but is minimalist for everyone.

Orthodox typically fast Wednesdays and Fridays, this was true in the west once as well. But mention that to a Roman Catholic today and it would normally register shock. How many Roman Catholics were damned once for eating meat on Wednesday?

Michael


Fantastic post. 
I'll add only this quote:

If I adore You out of fear of Hell, burn me in Hell!
If I adore you out of desire for Paradise,
Lock me out of Paradise.
But if I adore you for Yourself alone,
Do not deny to me Your eternal beauty.
-Rabi'a
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2007, 09:44:16 AM »

Quote
But one needs to be a real Christian first, these things will not make us Christians. Attempting to follow the "rules" of penance under threat of damnation can be dangerous to weak faith, it is a poor foundation for growth.

Threats of "Hellfire and Damnation" seem to be present in many of the things I've run across in Eastern Christendom.
Logged
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2007, 08:23:36 PM »

Hello,

Look what has happened. The western system makes these demands on people but has no working concept of economia. Everything is a pass-fail proposition. Later, the rules are relaxed for everyone the same way, it does not address the persons needs but is minimalist for everyone.

Of course there is - only we don't call it that. We actually don't have a formal name for it (if you can believe that Tongue). But one is directed to consult with their Spiritual Father/Confessor for all sorts of things that fall under the umbrella of economia - inability to attend a Sunday Mass, needed relaxing of fasting requirements, discretion on increased ascetical practices, etc., etc.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #50 on: December 19, 2007, 08:25:56 PM »

Hello,

Of course it does, and it does not make sense. It is not the eating of meat on Fridays itself that would be the mortal sin, just like missing Mass on Sundays would not itself be the mortal sin. The mortal sin would be the deliberate denial of the Church's authority that it would entail. I ate meat a couple Fridays ago---I was careless, and I forgot. You see, I usually fast on Fridays and don't think about avoiding meat or not (since I'm not eating). Well, I was invited out to dinner, and of course I ordered something with meat in it. Of course, I should have stuck with my fast, but I was hungry, and my flesh was weak. I felt bad about it afterward, but I didn't commit a mortal sin. If I refused to avoid meat on Fridays because "the Church ain't tellin' me what to do!" then that might be a different story.

Always keep in mind the conditions that make a sin mortal. It's not legalistically black or white.

Exactly - it is not the lack of fasting or attending Mass that is the sin in itself - but the willful disobedience toward the Church's authority. Disobedience is the sin!
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2007, 08:36:10 PM »

Hello,

We don't refer to them as such. All sin is weighted equally when determining our guilt or innocence at the Judgment, but some sin affects us in this life more than other sin does. Where we differ from the RC, if I am correct in my understanding of their doctrine, is that the RC categorize sin irrespective of circumstances whereas the Orthodox leave the determination of the severity of the sin, and therefore of the penance, to the priest.
Yes, of course. Christ himself spoke of it on several occasions.
God will judge this, at the Last Judgment. That's about all we say about it.
I'll answer with a story.
Er...I don't know. I have no idea who this person is or what's going on in his life, so I couldn't tell you. The Orthodox don't presume to know anything about the state of one's soul. None of us will escape judgment, so it's up to the Judge, the Lord Jesus Christ, to judge each one's heart. All we can do is pray, repent, and try to live as holy as we possibly can. The rest is up to God.

Hope that helps.

The Catholic Church absolutely looks upon the circumstances for the judgement of the severity of the sin. And no person can know the state of a person's soul. There are three conditions that are required for a sin to be mortal:

1. Grave Matter (the sin in itself is grave - e.g., murder)
2. Knowledge (you know that it is a grave offense to commit the sin)
3. Full consent of the will in light of that knowledge

The first condition is objective. Either a sin is grave or it isn't. We know that murder is a grave offense, that is object.

Does a person have knowledge - as Father Corapi says, "if they don't know any better, they will when I get through with them". This is semi-subjective, and we can't always know if a person knows. But as Father Corapi wisely observes, as Christians, if there is any doubt as to whether the person knows or not, our evangelical duty is to inform them. "Hey did you know that having an abortion is gravely offensive to God."

Did the person fully consent to the sin in light of this knowledge. Only God fully knows this. The sinner should know (but they don't always). The sinner's Guardian Angel should also know their state of soul and whether their was full consent. And the confessor should have a good idea after the sinner confesses to him. Outside of these four people, no one knows. And this is why we can't judge or condemn others (other than a confessor whose job it is to judge the soul in the confessional and offer the forgiveness of God or retain the sins).


Does this make sense? Did I leave anything out?
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2007, 08:50:46 PM »

With respect, you guys have to look beyond, say, Pope John XXII in formulating your reasonable responses. And I do believe that they're reasonable but the RCC disagrees.

Hello,
Exactly - it is not the lack of fasting or attending Mass that is the sin in itself - but the willful disobedience toward the Church's authority. Disobedience is the sin!

Here's the (old) Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote
Finally Alexander VII (24 Sept., 1665) condemned a proposition formulated in the following terms: Whoso violates the ecclesiastical law of fasting to which he is bound does not sin mortally unless he acts through contempt or disobedience (Denzinger, op. cit., no. 1123).

So it's not just a matter of disobedience to the Church's authority, etc. It's violating the legal requirements of the Fast.
Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #53 on: December 19, 2007, 09:03:20 PM »

Hello,

With respect, you guys have to look beyond, say, Pope John XXII in formulating your reasonable responses. And I do believe that they're reasonable but the RCC disagrees.

Here's the (old) Catholic Encyclopedia:

So it's not just a matter of disobedience to the Church's authority, etc. It's violating the legal requirements of the Fast.

I don't see it. That says exactly what we're saying.

Quote
Finally Alexander VII (24 Sept., 1665) condemned a proposition formulated in the following terms: Whoso violates the ecclesiastical law of fasting to which he is bound does not sin mortally unless he acts through contempt or disobedience (Denzinger, op. cit., no. 1123).

It's not a mortal sin unless it is through disobedience - in other words, the real sin is disobedience.


Where do you see a difference?  Huh
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Alexius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Posts: 180

Baptism of Poland


« Reply #54 on: December 19, 2007, 09:04:45 PM »

No, no, no!!!!!!! The Pope could not declare peanuts necessary for salvation! Why? Because it fails at least one of the four criteria necessary to declare dogma: "It must be interpretive, not originative..." I would love to see where in Scripture it says peanuts are necessary for salvation, or how many Church Fathers interpreted Scripture as saying so...Roll Eyes
Logged

"You cannot reason with those who do not..."

                Prayers and Petitions,
                        Alexius Cool
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #55 on: December 19, 2007, 09:09:36 PM »

Hello,

No, no, no!!!!!!! The Pope could not declare peanuts necessary for salvation! Why? Because it fails at least one of the four criteria necessary to declare dogma: "It must be interpretive, not originative..." I would love to see where in Scripture it says peanuts are necessary for salvation, or how many Church Fathers interpreted Scripture as saying so...Roll Eyes

And Christ rebuked the Pharisees and said it is not by salted pretzels alone that man lives, but by the best honey roasted peanuts in town - or beer nuts at Cheers!  laugh
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #56 on: December 19, 2007, 09:15:50 PM »

Hello,

I don't see it. That says exactly what we're saying.

It's not a mortal sin unless it is through disobedience - in other words, the real sin is disobedience.


Where do you see a difference?  Huh


Athanasios, read it carefully (it is somewhat misleading).

Pope Alexander CONDEMNED a proposition formulated in the following terms: Whoso violates the ecclesiastical law of fasting to which he is bound does not sin mortally unless he acts through contempt or disobedience (Denzinger, op. cit., no. 1123).
Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #57 on: December 19, 2007, 09:17:36 PM »

And thanks, Athanasios, that last post elevated me from the shame of "Newbie" to the glory of "Jr Member"

Ahhh, the sin of pride...
Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #58 on: December 19, 2007, 09:24:26 PM »

Hello,

Athanasios, read it carefully (it is somewhat misleading).

Pope Alexander CONDEMNED a proposition formulated in the following terms: Whoso violates the ecclesiastical law of fasting to which he is bound does not sin mortally unless he acts through contempt or disobedience (Denzinger, op. cit., no. 1123).

Ah, didn't see that. Do you have an online link for this - or context of the condemnation?

I'll look for the article I had a while back that gave an excellent explanation of this sort of thing (much better than I could probable do).
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #59 on: December 19, 2007, 09:24:55 PM »

Hello,

And thanks, Athanasios, that last post elevated me from the shame of "Newbie" to the glory of "Jr Member"

Ahhh, the sin of pride...

Enjoy the climb to the top!  laugh
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #60 on: December 19, 2007, 10:47:25 PM »

With respect, you guys have to look beyond, say, Pope John XXII in formulating your reasonable responses. And I do believe that they're reasonable but the RCC disagrees.

Here's the (old) Catholic Encyclopedia:

So it's not just a matter of disobedience to the Church's authority, etc. It's violating the legal requirements of the Fast.

Ah, happy days! A non-Catholic proof-texting to tell us Catholics what he thinks the Catholic Church believes!  Roll Eyes laugh
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 10:48:51 PM by lubeltri » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #61 on: December 19, 2007, 10:49:04 PM »

Hello,

Enjoy the climb to the top!  laugh

But once you get there it's kinda boring, we need levels beyond archon. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #62 on: December 19, 2007, 10:49:51 PM »

Hello,

But once you get there it's kinda boring, we need levels beyond archon. Wink

I'd vote for that!

We could have a poll for new name suggestions.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 10:50:23 PM by Athanasios » Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #63 on: December 20, 2007, 09:52:10 AM »

Ah, happy days! A non-Catholic proof-texting to tell us Catholics what he thinks the Catholic Church believes!  Roll Eyes laugh

Swing and a miss!

Here's where you're wrong.  1) Not quite "non-Catholic" yet  2) It's hardly proof texting to quote the pope to disprove your erroneous argument and 3) It's not what I think the RCC believes - it's what the pope says it believes.

But I was wrong too.  I'd have bet anything that your response to the papal teaching would be: "Alexander wasn't speaking infallibly!"

Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #64 on: December 20, 2007, 09:53:21 AM »

But once you get there it's kinda boring, we need levels beyond archon. Wink

Yeah, but then we'd be treading in First Commandment territory  Smiley
Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #65 on: December 20, 2007, 10:33:15 AM »

But once you get there it's kinda boring, we need levels beyond archon. Wink

You said it, bub.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #66 on: December 20, 2007, 12:09:36 PM »

Swing and a miss!

Here's where you're wrong.  1) Not quite "non-Catholic" yet  2) It's hardly proof texting to quote the pope to disprove your erroneous argument and 3) It's not what I think the RCC believes - it's what the pope says it believes.

But I was wrong too.  I'd have bet anything that your response to the papal teaching would be: "Alexander wasn't speaking infallibly!"

You think your single second-hand quote ripped out of context is enough? That's proof-texting if I ever saw it.

The only good thing I can say about you leaving the Catholic Church is that your culpability may be reduced by the lack of understanding of Catholic teaching you've clearly displayed here and on other threads.

-

[Added] In fact, there isn't even a quote! You quoted a hundred-year-old article paraphrasing a 19th century German author's understanding of the Pope's reaction to a proposition. And that is your evidence for Catholic teaching?

You also seemed to fail to read the surrounding paragraphs in the article, which explain (in extreme detail) all the exceptions to the law. And immediately following your quote is something you conveniently left out: Though this obligation is generally serious, not every infraction of the law is mortally sinful. Whenever transgressions of the law fail to do substantial violence to the law, venial sins are committed.

At the end of the article is this: No student of ecclesiatical discipline can fail to perceive that the obligation of fasting is rarely observed in its integrity nowadays. Conscious of the conditions of our age, the Church is ever shaping the requirements of this obligation to meet the best interests of her children. At the same time no measure of leniency in this respect can eliminate the natural and divine positive law imposing mortification and penance on man on account of sin and its consequences. (Council of Trent, Sess. VI. can. xx)

Added to all this are the conditions required for EVERY mortal sin.

« Last Edit: December 20, 2007, 12:24:22 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #67 on: December 20, 2007, 12:14:35 PM »

You think your single second-hand quote ripped out of context is enough? That's proof-texting if I ever saw it.

The only good thing I can say about you leaving the Catholic Church is that your culpability may be reduced by the lack of understanding of Catholic teaching you've clearly displayed here and on other threads.

It's hardly ripped out of context, your argument is a specifically condemned proposition.

So ad hominems aside, how is your view of Catholic teaching reconciled with that of the Magisterium?
Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #68 on: December 20, 2007, 12:29:31 PM »

So ad hominems aside, how is your view of Catholic teaching reconciled with that of the Magisterium?

You seem to have little understanding of what the Magisterium is if you think a single third-hand non-quote infallibly describes Church teaching.
Logged
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #69 on: December 20, 2007, 12:39:46 PM »

You seem to have little understanding of what the Magisterium is if you think a single third-hand non-quote infallibly describes Church teaching.

Still evading the question and falling back on the ad hominems.  The Scholastics are rolling over in their graves...

And relative to the Magisterium, when a proposition (usually presented in the form of a dubia) is specifically condemned by the pope it becomes (at the very least) part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the RCC and as such it REQUIRES your assent as a good Catholic.

A specific condemnation is neither third hand nor is it a non-quote. Now you may not be able to reconcile it with your rationally thought out position (and I mean that sincerely, YOUR position makes more sense!) but you can't dismiss it.
Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #70 on: December 20, 2007, 03:22:31 PM »

 Roll Eyes

Pope Navigator I,

If you want me to respond any further, get me that phantom quote in context and not third-hand out of that hundred-year-old encyclopedia. And EVEN IF it is entirely as you characterize it, Popes are sometimes wrong.

Otherwise I am wasting my time here. You have a history of facile proof-texting (i.e. the thread on Unam Sanctam and the improper use of a quote from St. Catherine of Siena to suggest that we see the Pope as God). I suggest you get on with your studies of EO theology and spirituality and stop justifying your break with Rome by telling Catholics what you erroneously think we must believe.

Too much scrupulosity is a serious form of legalism (often resulting from pride, it can be sinful) and is strongly discouraged by the Catholic Church. Thinking you've committed a mortal sin by non-deliberately forgetting about Friday penance or the Eucharistic fast (especially without first speaking with your spiritual father) is an example of excess scrupulosity.

Knowing and deliberate disobedience is an entirely different story.

I honestly have no idea why something this obvious won't sink in to you. All mortal sins by nature are committed knowingly and deliberately. The fasting and abstinence obligations are no different.

 
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #71 on: December 20, 2007, 03:26:42 PM »

Roll Eyes

Pope Navigator I,

If you want me to respond any further, get me that phantom quote in context and not third-hand out of that hundred-year-old encyclopedia. And EVEN IF it is entirely as you characterize it, Popes are sometimes wrong.

Otherwise I am wasting my time here. You have a history of facile proof-texting (i.e. the thread on Unam Sanctam and the improper use of a quote from St. Catherine of Siena to suggest that we see the Pope as God). I suggest you get on with your studies of EO theology and spirituality and stop justifying your break with Rome by telling Catholics what you erroneously think we must believe.

Too much scrupulosity is a serious form of legalism (often resulting from pride, it can be sinful) and is strongly discouraged by the Catholic Church. Thinking you've committed a mortal sin by non-deliberately forgetting about Friday penance or the Eucharistic fast (especially without first speaking with your spiritual father) is an example of excess scrupulosity.

Knowing and deliberate disobedience is an entirely different story.

I honestly have no idea why something this obvious won't sink in to you. All mortal sins by nature are committed knowingly and deliberately. The fasting and abstinence obligations are no different.

 

hear, hear... You get the 'reasonable' Roman Catholic award for the day.  Cheesy
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #72 on: December 20, 2007, 03:48:04 PM »

I have to agree with lubeltri here.  

When I attended RC parishes, I went to very conservative parishes persided over by either SSPX or FSSP priests, and never once when I confessed to missing a fast unintentionally, or if I asked about being invited to a get-together on a fast day, if I was allowed to eat, was I racked over the coals.  I remember reading on one site, and it was extremely true, that "true charity trumps all law and law exists to serve true charity".  There were sometimes that I caught myself eating something I shouldn't on a fast day, so I put it down and stopped.  I didn't whip myself over it.  Did I confess to my Priest?  Yes.  But since I was actively going out of my way to disobey and disregard the fast.  Or, one time, I went to a friend's grandparents anniversary dinner.  Unfortunately, it fell on a fast day.  Did I eat?  Yes, I ate some, not be full, but to be polite and a gracious guest, since the meal clearly took a long time to prepare.  Again, I confessed it, and my Priest said, like many Orthodox Priest's say, it is better to avoid the sin of pride some experience during a fast when others don't, than proclaiming my fasting when asked.  The people I was with had, out of charity, invited me to their celebration and fed me.  In a perfect world, everyone would have been fasting too and I would not have been faced with that, but things happen.  Yes, the RCC has a degree of legalism that rub people the wrong way, but come on, that is ridiculous.  If we weren't of a fallen nature than sure, I could understand such legalism, since it wouldn't be an issue.  

Also, I was often in contact with my Bishop, I was accepted to RC seminary, though I did not attend.  So I would discuss things with him as well.  And I would get the same answer and he is part of the episcopate.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #73 on: December 20, 2007, 03:49:28 PM »

Roll Eyes
Pope Navigator I,

If you want me to respond any further, get me that phantom quote in context and not third-hand out of that hundred-year-old encyclopedia.



Let's try it one last time...

The quote was sourced. It included the Denzingers reference. Look it up in your personal copy of Denzingers which, I'm sure, that you as a good student of Catholic dogmatics have handy on your bookshelf.

Roll Eyes
And EVEN IF it is entirely as you characterize it, Popes are sometimes wrong.


Saying that a pope is wrong in the exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium is a very dangerous thing, Your Eminence Smiley  Criticizing his exercise of prudential judgment is one thing but questioning the Vicar of Christ in a matter like this....oh my... How long have you been Catholic?


Roll Eyes
Otherwise I am wasting my time here. You have a history of facile proof-texting (i.e. the thread on Unam Sanctam and the improper use of a quote from St. Catherine of Siena to suggest that we see the Pope as God).

Speaking of facile. I not only cited Unam Sanctam I presented ten other references to back up the argument.  You provided...um...none. Just, as usual, your opinion.

And I never used St Catherine's quote to suggest that Catholics believe the pope is God. Quite the contrary I highlighted "sweet Christ on Earth" as opposed to the "God on Earth" reference of a previous poster.  It was a defense of Catholicism; not a detraction.

Roll Eyes
 I suggest you get on with your studies of EO theology and spirituality and stop justifying your break with Rome by telling Catholics what you erroneously think we must believe.

I've never told you what you must believe. I've pointed out what POPES have told you that you must believe.  As I study Orthodoxy maybe you should take a crack at Catholicism say, pre-Mother Angelica.

Too much scrupulosity is a serious form of legalism (often resulting from pride, it can be sinful) and is strongly discouraged by the Catholic Church. Thinking you've committed a mortal sin by non-deliberately forgetting about Friday penance or the Eucharistic fast (especially without first speaking with your spiritual father) is an example of excess scrupulosity.

My gosh, I don't actually believe that stuff. If I did I wouldn't be on my way out the door.  The problem is that you're misrepresenting the beliefs of the RCC if not, the faith of modern Catholics.  I don't believe for a minute that one is guilty of sin by neglecting the fast (as opposed to the rejecting the authority that imposed it)

Unfortunately for you, the pope does...


I honestly have no idea why something this obvious won't sink in to you.
 

You read my mind.

All this aside, a sincere Merry Christmas to you.  I think we live in the same part of the world so we can probably agree, as brothers, that God has truly blessed the Red Sox and the Patriots Smiley
Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #74 on: December 20, 2007, 04:04:48 PM »

You have no idea what you are talking about. [throw up hands]

I'm a Yankees fan.





-

Merry Christmas as well.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2007, 04:07:47 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #75 on: December 20, 2007, 04:46:43 PM »

You have no idea what you are talking about. [throw up hands]


You're clueless [bangs head against the wall]

I'm a Yankees fan.

That would explain the "invincible ignorance"!!  Grin
-
Merry Christmas as well.

All the best in '08

Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #76 on: December 20, 2007, 05:49:57 PM »

Navigator,

Are you trying to be offensive?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #77 on: December 20, 2007, 05:54:45 PM »

Navigator,

Are you trying to be offensive?

Do you mean the last post? NOOO I was joking. (That's why I included the emoticons)

Stephen
Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #78 on: December 20, 2007, 05:59:59 PM »

I've never told you what you must believe. I've pointed out what POPES have told you that you must believe.

Permit me to return the favor:
  • The Catholic Church does not require anyone to believe that there have been 21 ecumenical councils.
  • The Catholic Church does not require anyone to believe that there have been such-and-such number of ex cathedra statements. (I say "such-and-such number" because even the ultramontists don't agree among themselves about how many there have been!)
  • The Catholic Church does not require anyone to believe that everyone who isn't in full communion with the pope is going to hell.

All this aside, a sincere Merry Christmas to you.  I think we live in the same part of the world so we can probably agree, as brothers, that God has truly blessed the Red Sox and the Patriots Smiley

I'm pretty much always pleased to hear someone say they are a fan of the Red Sox and the Patriots, but in your case I have to make an exception.

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #79 on: December 20, 2007, 06:02:52 PM »

Navigator,

Are you trying to be offensive?

Do you mean the last post?

No.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #80 on: December 20, 2007, 06:05:19 PM »

Do you mean the last post?

No.

I was following the lead of my opposite in this discussion.

If I was offensive, I apologize.
Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #81 on: December 20, 2007, 06:15:22 PM »

I was following the lead of my opposite in this discussion.

If I was offensive, I apologize.

Did your attorney craft that for you?  Wink
« Last Edit: December 20, 2007, 06:16:05 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #82 on: December 20, 2007, 06:32:45 PM »

Did your attorney craft that for you?  Wink

Just can't escape that legalism, can you Smiley

I know we can't discuss this here but I'm dying to know how you became a fan of those "graceless heretics" in pinstripes... It's not natural.
Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #83 on: December 20, 2007, 06:34:33 PM »

Just can't escape that legalism, can you Smiley

I know we can't discuss this here but I'm dying to know how you became a fan of those "graceless heretics" in pinstripes... It's not natural.


I was born and grew up in New York. I don't change religions and I don't change sports teams. Period.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2007, 06:34:48 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #84 on: December 20, 2007, 07:08:47 PM »

My question ("Are you trying to be offensive?") was not in reference to just one particular post; but I think the following is a good example:

Roll Eyes
And EVEN IF it is entirely as you characterize it, Popes are sometimes wrong. 

Saying that a pope is wrong in the exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium is a very dangerous thing, Your Eminence Smiley  Criticizing his exercise of prudential judgment is one thing but questioning the Vicar of Christ in a matter like this....oh my... How long have you been Catholic?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Navigator
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Discerning
Posts: 43


« Reply #85 on: December 20, 2007, 07:39:02 PM »

My question ("Are you trying to be offensive?") was not in reference to just one particular post; but I think the following is a good example:

Saying that a pope is wrong in the exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium is a very dangerous thing, Your Eminence Smiley  Criticizing his exercise of prudential judgment is one thing but questioning the Vicar of Christ in a matter like this....oh my... How long have you been Catholic?

That was in response to this:



Roll Eyes

Pope Navigator I,

If you want me to respond any further, get me that phantom quote in context and not third-hand out of that hundred-year-old encyclopedia. And EVEN IF it is entirely as you characterize it, Popes are sometimes wrong.
[...]
I honestly have no idea why something this obvious won't sink in to you.

You'll note the honorific lubeltri was kind enough to bestow upon me. Not to mention the unfortunate reference to my ability to comprehend. I thought, under the circumstances, that I should return the compliment.

Unfortunately, it seems that we both checked our Christianity at the door and I regret that. That's why I said earlier that I was sorry if what I wrote was offensive. I meant it.

Logged

"From silly devotions and sour faced saints, deliver us O Lord!" - Teresa of Avila
Hesychios
perpetual neophyte
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 171


« Reply #86 on: December 20, 2007, 07:54:38 PM »

Hello  Peter,

  • The Catholic Church does not require anyone to believe that there have been 21 ecumenical councils.
  • The Catholic Church does not require anyone to believe that there have been such-and-such number of ex cathedra statements. (I say "such-and-such number" because even the ultramontists don't agree among themselves about how many there have been!)
  • The Catholic Church does not require anyone to believe that everyone who isn't in full communion with the pope is going to hell.
I find this interesting.

Is this an area where people are permitted to believe these ideas on these subjects or not?

I was wondering if there may be a possible point in time when the church might state that "it was not official dogma" about such an such and repudiate some of these things, like the list of Councils, for instance.

Thanks,
Michael
Logged

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living"
Jaroslav Pelikan
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #87 on: December 20, 2007, 09:13:40 PM »

Hello  Peter,  I find this interesting.

Is this an area where people are permitted to believe these ideas on these subjects or not?

Oh, absolutely, Catholics are permitted to believe that there have been 21 ecumenical councils, and most Catholics do (in the Latin Church especially). But we are also permitted to believe that there have been only 7 or only 3.

I was wondering if there may be a possible point in time when the church might state that "it was not official dogma" about such an such and repudiate some of these things, like the list of Councils, for instance.

Thanks,
Michael

Here you have me quite confused. I just don't know what you're asking. Could the Orthodox Church come out and say "It was never an official dogma that all non-Orthodox are going to hell." or "It was never an official dogma that there have been exactly 7 (or 3) ecumenical councils."?

I guess I just don't understand why they would do that. To me it would be like coming out with the statement "Free-market capitalism was never an official dogma".

God bless,
Peter.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2007, 09:17:32 PM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #88 on: December 20, 2007, 10:00:17 PM »

Hello  Peter,  I find this interesting.

Is this an area where people are permitted to believe these ideas on these subjects or not?

I was wondering if there may be a possible point in time when the church might state that "it was not official dogma" about such an such and repudiate some of these things, like the list of Councils, for instance.

Thanks,
Michael
I think that there are some teachings which must be held, but it is not absolutely certain that they have been defined infallibly.  For example, the teaching on artificial birth control, although it is pretty close to being an infallible teaching.
It seems confusing, but there are different levels of teaching or different hierarchy of truths in Catholicism. Basically, as I know it to be, there are three or four levels of teaching in the RCC:
1. Level 1: Solemn definition.
2. Level 2: Day to day teaching of the Church around the world, which has the concurrence of the world's bishops.
3. Level 3: Teaching in the official papal encyclicals.
For another example, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Mother of God. This is an official teaching of the RCC, but I am not sure that it is a level 1 teaching, since a Catholic theologian has said that the RCC could accept a convert to RCC without asking the person if he believed in the teaching of the Church on the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God.
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/4levels.htm

Logged
yeshua
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Syriac-Maronite
Posts: 28


« Reply #89 on: December 20, 2007, 10:05:23 PM »

Oh, absolutely, Catholics are permitted to believe that there have been 21 ecumenical councils, and most Catholics do (in the Latin Church especially). But we are also permitted to believe that there have been only 7 or only 3.

Peter,

Would it be possible if you could provide me a source for this assertion? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

Peace and God Bless.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.16 seconds with 73 queries.