Topic: The Catholic Route to Birth Control

[elijahmaria]

Too bad the Vatican didn't take a similar position: basing its moral theology on natural law, rather than revelation, as it did in Humanae Vitae, it places itself on the shifting sands of natural knowledge.

Natural Law is an integral part of Revealed Truth.

What happened to Galileo (who lived when the concept of Orthodox Churches forcibly commemorating the Pope of Rome was born) when he revealed the Truth of Natural Law?  Sure, Rome corrected Her errant ways regarding Galileo ... Nearly 3+ Centuries after the fact.

I was not aware that Orthodoxy rejected such an important aspect of divine revelation.

Orthodoxy existed before the Renaissance / Enlightenment (which inspired Galileo to reveal the Truth of Natural Law only to be imprisoned and have his works burned).

Actually, Galileo was imprisoned under house arrest not because of what he discovered but because of how he chose to trumpet it.  As noted, Copernicus discovered much the same thing and had the backing of the Church.  It's also worth noting that most, if not all, of Galileo's proofs could be used to argue the complete opposite.

Kind of like how on this board people are often censured for the rhetoric they employ instead of the substance of the points.

Good for you!! On the substantive side.

But it is also a lesson in how attitude cannot always be separated from substance and in itself becomes transformative of substance.

[ialmisry]

Yes, Aristlotle, which the Vatican had canonized.

In reality the Catholic Church has recognized the sanctity of those patristic Fathers who used Aristotelian concepts in their theology.

No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father. Matthew 11:27 And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him. 1 Corinthians 2:11 Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature. Wisdom 13:5 Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition Proverbs 22:28 .

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

Too bad the Vatican and its scholastics didn't take St. John's sage advice.

On the subject at hand, Aristotle helped neither theology nor biology, but the Vatican continues to perpetuate reliance on him for both

[elijahmaria]

Yes, Aristlotle, which the Vatican had canonized.

In reality the Catholic Church has recognized the sanctity of those patristic Fathers who used Aristotelian concepts in their theology.

No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father. Matthew 11:27 And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him. 1 Corinthians 2:11 Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature. Wisdom 13:5 Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition Proverbs 22:28 .

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

Too bad the Vatican and its scholastics didn't take St. John's sage advice.

On the subject at hand, Aristotle helped neither theology nor biology, but the Vatican continues to perpetuate reliance on him for both

Aristotle had an immense impact on several of the more influential patristic Fathers so your comments are not at all on point.

[ialmisry]

Yes, Aristlotle, which the Vatican had canonized.

In reality the Catholic Church has recognized the sanctity of those patristic Fathers who used Aristotelian concepts in their theology.

No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father. Matthew 11:27 And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him. 1 Corinthians 2:11 Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature. Wisdom 13:5 Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition Proverbs 22:28 .

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

Too bad the Vatican and its scholastics didn't take St. John's sage advice.

On the subject at hand, Aristotle helped neither theology nor biology, but the Vatican continues to perpetuate reliance on him for both

Aristotle had an immense impact on several of the more influential patristic Fathers so your comments are not at all on point.

But he had no impact on any of the Law, Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists, so your comments are not at all on point.

[elijahmaria]

Yes, Aristlotle, which the Vatican had canonized.

In reality the Catholic Church has recognized the sanctity of those patristic Fathers who used Aristotelian concepts in their theology.

No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father. Matthew 11:27 And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him. 1 Corinthians 2:11 Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature. Wisdom 13:5 Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition Proverbs 22:28 .

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

Too bad the Vatican and its scholastics didn't take St. John's sage advice.

On the subject at hand, Aristotle helped neither theology nor biology, but the Vatican continues to perpetuate reliance on him for both

Aristotle had an immense impact on several of the more influential patristic Fathers so your comments are not at all on point.

But he had no impact on any of the Law, Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists, so your comments are not at all on point.

He did have impact on the articulation of Orthodox doctrine through the workings of the Fathers.  He had an impact on Orthodox spirituality and theology through the workings of the Fathers.  He and Plato were used equally and that is something that modernist Orthodox such as yourself either do not know or will not admit.

[ialmisry]

Yes, Aristlotle, which the Vatican had canonized.

In reality the Catholic Church has recognized the sanctity of those patristic Fathers who used Aristotelian concepts in their theology.

No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father. Matthew 11:27 And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him. 1 Corinthians 2:11 Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature. Wisdom 13:5 Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition Proverbs 22:28 .

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

Too bad the Vatican and its scholastics didn't take St. John's sage advice.

On the subject at hand, Aristotle helped neither theology nor biology, but the Vatican continues to perpetuate reliance on him for both

Aristotle had an immense impact on several of the more influential patristic Fathers so your comments are not at all on point.

But he had no impact on any of the Law, Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists, so your comments are not at all on point.

He did have impact on the articulation of Orthodox doctrine through the workings of the Fathers.  He had an impact on Orthodox spirituality and theology through the workings of the Fathers.  He and Plato were used equally and that is something that modernist Orthodox such as yourself either do not know or will not admit.

I am neither unaware nor have I denied that. But neither do I hold that a sperm carries a homumculus, nor that the sun runs around the earth, nor that souls are reincarnated, etc. and so I do hold theological, dogmatic, moral, etc. based on those positions.

[SolEX01]

He [Aristotle] did have impact on the articulation of Orthodox doctrine through the workings of the Fathers.  He had an impact on Orthodox spirituality and theology through the workings of the Fathers.  He and Plato were used equally and that is something that modernist Orthodox such as yourself either do not know or will not admit.

Why don't you enlighten us "modernist Orthodox" by showing us where Aristotle and Plato impacted the articulation of Orthodox doctrine, Orthodox spirituality and Orthodox theology?

[elijahmaria]

He [Aristotle] did have impact on the articulation of Orthodox doctrine through the workings of the Fathers.  He had an impact on Orthodox spirituality and theology through the workings of the Fathers.  He and Plato were used equally and that is something that modernist Orthodox such as yourself either do not know or will not admit.

Why don't you enlighten us "modernist Orthodox" by showing us where Aristotle and Plato impacted the articulation of Orthodox doctrine, Orthodox spirituality and Orthodox theology?

Why?  Is it really of any importance to you?  Somewhere on the Internet there's a list of patristic Fathers who were influenced by Aristotle;  I am certain I've seen several articles by Catholics and maybe one or two by Orthodox authors.  Why should I go out and find them if only to have you all mock me?  I'm from Oz...remember?

[SolEX01]

He [Aristotle] did have impact on the articulation of Orthodox doctrine through the workings of the Fathers.  He had an impact on Orthodox spirituality and theology through the workings of the Fathers.  He and Plato were used equally and that is something that modernist Orthodox such as yourself either do not know or will not admit.

Why don't you enlighten us "modernist Orthodox" by showing us where Aristotle and Plato impacted the articulation of Orthodox doctrine, Orthodox spirituality and Orthodox theology?

Why?  Is it really of any importance to you?

You asserted that Aristotle had an impact.  You also asserted that "modernist Orthodox" do not know or admit to Aristotle's influence.  Show us where Aristotle had such influence.

Somewhere on the Internet there's a list of patristic Fathers who were influenced by Aristotle;  I am certain I've seen several articles by Catholics and maybe one or two by Orthodox authors.  Why should I go out and find them if only to have you all mock me?  I'm from Oz...remember?

Now, I haven't mocked you; I'm different from the others.   

BTW, there are very beautiful Greek Catholic Churches in my part of the world that I've never visited.

[stanley123]

He [Aristotle] did have impact on the articulation of Orthodox doctrine through the workings of the Fathers.  He had an impact on Orthodox spirituality and theology through the workings of the Fathers.  He and Plato were used equally and that is something that modernist Orthodox such as yourself either do not know or will not admit.

Why don't you enlighten us "modernist Orthodox" by showing us where Aristotle and Plato impacted the articulation of Orthodox doctrine, Orthodox spirituality and Orthodox theology?

Why?  Is it really of any importance to you?

You asserted that Aristotle had an impact.  You also asserted that "modernist Orthodox" do not know or admit to Aristotle's influence.  Show us where Aristotle had such influence.

Somewhere on the Internet there's a list of patristic Fathers who were influenced by Aristotle;  I am certain I've seen several articles by Catholics and maybe one or two by Orthodox authors.  Why should I go out and find them if only to have you all mock me?  I'm from Oz...remember?

Now, I haven't mocked you; I'm different from the others.   

BTW, there are very beautiful Greek Catholic Churches in my part of the world that I've never visited.

Here is an article from the Jacques Maritain Center on Aristotle and the Christian Church. It seems like Aristotle might have been more influential in the west than the East. Anyway, in chapter 5 of the article, it states that: "The early Greek Fathers, as a rule, deal more universally with Plato than with Aristotle. The numerous heresies that spring up in the fertile brain of the Greeks and the Syrians, find in the Aristotelian philosophy a basis on which to support their peculiar views; and the more they attach themselves to Aristotle, the more the Catholics become shy of him."
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/aatcc.htm

[SolEX01]

He [Aristotle] did have impact on the articulation of Orthodox doctrine through the workings of the Fathers.  He had an impact on Orthodox spirituality and theology through the workings of the Fathers.  He and Plato were used equally and that is something that modernist Orthodox such as yourself either do not know or will not admit.

Why don't you enlighten us "modernist Orthodox" by showing us where Aristotle and Plato impacted the articulation of Orthodox doctrine, Orthodox spirituality and Orthodox theology?

Why?  Is it really of any importance to you?

You asserted that Aristotle had an impact.  You also asserted that "modernist Orthodox" do not know or admit to Aristotle's influence.  Show us where Aristotle had such influence.

Somewhere on the Internet there's a list of patristic Fathers who were influenced by Aristotle;  I am certain I've seen several articles by Catholics and maybe one or two by Orthodox authors.  Why should I go out and find them if only to have you all mock me?  I'm from Oz...remember?

Now, I haven't mocked you; I'm different from the others.  

BTW, there are very beautiful Greek Catholic Churches in my part of the world that I've never visited.

Here is an article from the Jacques Maritain Center on Aristotle and the Christian Church. It seems like Aristotle might have been more influential in the west than the East. Anyway, in chapter 5 of the article, it states that: "The early Greek Fathers, as a rule, deal more universally with Plato than with Aristotle. The numerous heresies that spring up in the fertile brain of the Greeks and the Syrians, find in the Aristotelian philosophy a basis on which to support their peculiar views; and the more they attach themselves to Aristotle, the more the Catholics become shy of him."
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/aatcc.htm

Thank you.    Quoting from the home page:

It shows very industrious and extensive research, and is full of interest to Catholic students. The supremacy of Aristotle in the intellectual world of nature, and that of St. Thomas in the illumination of faith, are the two great lights of natural and supernatural truth. From the time of St. Edmund, who brought the study of Aristotle from Paris to Oxford, the tradition of study at Oxford rested on Aristotle and Faith. Now it has wandered to the world of Rationalism, which Aristotle and St. Thomas purified.

Your book will be very useful in recalling students to the world-wide philosophy of the Catholic Church. I wish you all blessings in your studies.

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith and Purifiers of Rationalism (a byproduct of Enlightenment thought).  How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?   

Edited for Content

[Shlomlokh]

I think with the RCC's "development of doctrine" Birth Control will be allowable within a few generations. I think it was Fr. Ambrose that pointed out the contradiction in current RCC teaching on the subject and how it doesn't jive with Casti Conubii (sp?). Why would that be so impossible for the RCC?

In Christ,
Andrew

[elijahmaria]

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith and Purifiers of Rationalism (a byproduct of Enlightenment thought).  How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?   

Edited for Content

Oh my yes...There's nobody more enlightened than St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Maximos the Confessor used Aristotelian philosophy in some of his conceptual schemes.

He was another enlightened figger in Orthodox history, I understand.

[elijahmaria]

I just know all you clever fellows could have found this source if you'd really tried...dontcha think?  I mean really!!...don't you think?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hellenistic_thought.aspx

Father Florovsky has also placed great emphasis in his writings on another essential area of concern which highlights the differences between the Hellenistic philosophers and the Greek Fathers: human personhood. [17] Here, especially, we see that Hellenistic philosophical terms and categories are radically transformed in their Patristic usage. In fact, the Greek Patristic concept of personality is a uniquely Christian contribution to the history of thought. As Florovsky notes, in their understanding of the relationship between the human soul and the body, the Greek Fathers were actually closer to Aristotle than to Plato. [18] Prima facie, this appears strange, since, strictly speaking, Aristotelian anthropology and cosmology make no claims for life after death: nothing human passes beyond the grave, and man's singular being does not survive death. Nonetheless, Father Florovsky argues that Aristotle understood the unity of human existence, of the body and soul, at an intuitive level. Aristotle understood better than any of the Greek philosophers the empirical wholeness of human existence, and thus empirical existence and the human personality took on an importance for him that could not be detached from the eternal elements of the soul. And so he discounted the idea of a transmigration of souls to other bodies, in that he could not free himself from a compelling respect for the unity of these two elements of the human person. He never came to attribute permanence or an immortal dimension to the person, but the foundations for such an attribution are everywhere to be found in his thought.

[ialmisry]

I think with the RCC's "development of doctrine" Birth Control will be allowable within a few generations. I think it was Fr. Ambrose that pointed out the contradiction in current RCC teaching on the subject and how it doesn't jive with Casti Conubii (sp?). Why would that be so impossible for the RCC?

Casti Connubii. It wouldn't. Neither it nor HV is admitted (when you press them) as ex cathedra.

Now I know that they will say "Ordinary and universal teaching of the Church...full assent of faith...infallible...blah..blah...blah." When did we see "Bishops proposing definitively, dispersed, but in unison, in union with Pope." I'd say the CCC, but when pressed on that, they deny that they hold CCC as infallible.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30177.0.html
Ipso facto, not the "Bishops proposing definitively, dispersed, but in unison, in union with Pope."

Showing yet again their magisterium with all its levels degrees of theological certitude is pretty much a useless concept, as it fails to deliver on its claims.

[ialmisry]

I just know all you clever fellows could have found this source if you'd really tried...dontcha think?  I mean really!!...don't you think?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hellenistic_thought.aspx

Father Florovsky has also placed great emphasis in his writings on another essential area of concern which highlights the differences between the Hellenistic philosophers and the Greek Fathers: human personhood. [17] Here, especially, we see that Hellenistic philosophical terms and categories are radically transformed in their Patristic usage. In fact, the Greek Patristic concept of personality is a uniquely Christian contribution to the history of thought. As Florovsky notes, in their understanding of the relationship between the human soul and the body, the Greek Fathers were actually closer to Aristotle than to Plato. [18] Prima facie, this appears strange, since, strictly speaking, Aristotelian anthropology and cosmology make no claims for life after death: nothing human passes beyond the grave, and man's singular being does not survive death. Nonetheless, Father Florovsky argues that Aristotle understood the unity of human existence, of the body and soul, at an intuitive level. Aristotle understood better than any of the Greek philosophers the empirical wholeness of human existence, and thus empirical existence and the human personality took on an importance for him that could not be detached from the eternal elements of the soul. And so he discounted the idea of a transmigration of souls to other bodies, in that he could not free himself from a compelling respect for the unity of these two elements of the human person. He never came to attribute permanence or an immortal dimension to the person, but the foundations for such an attribution are everywhere to be found in his thought.

What Ariistlotle didn't understand the Law, Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists taught us.

[stanley123]

I just know all you clever fellows could have found this source if you'd really tried...dontcha think?  I mean really!!...don't you think?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hellenistic_thought.aspx

Father Florovsky has also placed great emphasis in his writings on another essential area of concern which highlights the differences between the Hellenistic philosophers and the Greek Fathers: human personhood. [17] Here, especially, we see that Hellenistic philosophical terms and categories are radically transformed in their Patristic usage. In fact, the Greek Patristic concept of personality is a uniquely Christian contribution to the history of thought. As Florovsky notes, in their understanding of the relationship between the human soul and the body, the Greek Fathers were actually closer to Aristotle than to Plato. [18] Prima facie, this appears strange, since, strictly speaking, Aristotelian anthropology and cosmology make no claims for life after death: nothing human passes beyond the grave, and man's singular being does not survive death. Nonetheless, Father Florovsky argues that Aristotle understood the unity of human existence, of the body and soul, at an intuitive level. Aristotle understood better than any of the Greek philosophers the empirical wholeness of human existence, and thus empirical existence and the human personality took on an importance for him that could not be detached from the eternal elements of the soul. And so he discounted the idea of a transmigration of souls to other bodies, in that he could not free himself from a compelling respect for the unity of these two elements of the human person. He never came to attribute permanence or an immortal dimension to the person, but the foundations for such an attribution are everywhere to be found in his thought.

Thanks for this reference and discussion. Here it says that according to Father Florovsky: " ... in their understanding of the relationship between the human soul and the body, the Greek Fathers were actually closer to Aristotle than to Plato."

[SolEX01]

I just know all you clever fellows could have found this source if you'd really tried...dontcha think?  I mean really!!...don't you think?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hellenistic_thought.aspx

Gee, I wished you had found something more academic, tsk, tsk, tsk....  From the last sentences of the above link:

Only the most superficial or polemical observer, even from such a cursory treatment as our present one, can truly argue that the Greek Fathers were anything but seekers after old bottles for new wine, readily and acutely conscious that, lest the new wine be spoiled in these old vessels, they had to cleanse and purify them of their former content. Such is a proper image of the Greek Fathers as they undertook to use, transform, and remold Hellenistic thought.

The Apostle Paul didn't convince many of the "men of Athens" since they believed in the "old wine" of the Hellenistic Age, but Paul's successors surely transformed the "old wine" for the "new wineskins" only for the Renaissance/Enlightenment inspired Vatican to go back in time....

[SolEX01]

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith and Purifiers of Rationalism (a byproduct of Enlightenment thought).  How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?   

Edited for Content

Oh my yes...There's nobody more enlightened than St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Maximos the Confessor used Aristotelian philosophy in some of his conceptual schemes.

He was another enlightened figger in Orthodox history, I understand.

The bolded question wasn't answered; so you claim that the Greek Catholics have resisted Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals contrary to what the Vatican has taught over the last 5-7 Centuries?

[elijahmaria]

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith and Purifiers of Rationalism (a byproduct of Enlightenment thought).  How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?  

Edited for Content

Oh my yes...There's nobody more enlightened than St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Maximos the Confessor used Aristotelian philosophy in some of his conceptual schemes.

He was another enlightened figger in Orthodox history, I understand.

The bolded question wasn't answered; so you claim that the Greek Catholics have resisted Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals contrary to what the Vatican has taught over the last 5-7 Centuries?

Bluntly stated, you have not one small clue about what you are talking about, and I am not going to take the time to even try to enlighten you.  With your closed mind and in the darkness of historical ignorance and ignorance of the sources of Catholic doctrine, it would be a solid waste of my time at this moment to try to air out the house with a dose of reality.

I will give you this much:  Catholic doctrine is taken from her saints and her doctors of the Church, the Councils and the Fathers, Scripture and Apostolic teaching.   It does not come from the secular teachings of professional theologians, although that is what I find many Orthodox actually think...or feel more aptly put.  That fact you can see by checking the sources in the CCC and in any systematic theology book that lists the sources for various doctrines and theologies systematically, so much of the very most basic work you can in fact do on your own.

When I have ready resources to make my points briefly and succinctly as I just did with Aristotle and the patristic Fathers, I will continue to address these issues but to spend days searching for scarce Internet resources to address your false assertion only to have you all fight me all the way...is not worth my time or my energy or the emotional stress it would cause.  I am sure you will all look in your hearts and understand my refusal.

In Christ,

Mary

[ialmisry]

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith and Purifiers of Rationalism (a byproduct of Enlightenment thought).  How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?  

Edited for Content

Oh my yes...There's nobody more enlightened than St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Maximos the Confessor used Aristotelian philosophy in some of his conceptual schemes.

He was another enlightened figger in Orthodox history, I understand.

The bolded question wasn't answered; so you claim that the Greek Catholics have resisted Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals contrary to what the Vatican has taught over the last 5-7 Centuries?

Bluntly stated, you have not one small clue about what you are talking about, and I am not going to take the time to even try to enlighten you.

With your closed mind and in the darkness of historical ignorance and ignorance of the sources of Catholic doctrine, it would be a solid waste of my time at this moment to try to air out the house with a dose of reality.

This ought to be interesting.

I will give you this much:  Catholic doctrine is taken from her saints and her doctors of the Church, the Councils and the Fathers, Scripture and Apostolic teaching.   It does not come from the secular teachings of professional theologians, although that is what I find many Orthodox actually think

How about the religious teachings of professional theologians?

The famous Duns Scotus (d. 1308) at last (in III Sent., dist. iii, in both commentaries) laid the foundations of the true doctrine so solidly and dispelled the objections in a manner so satisfactory, that from that time onward the doctrine prevailed. He showed that the sanctification after animation — sanctificatio post animationem — demanded that it should follow in the order of nature (naturae) not of time (temporis); he removed the great difficulty of St. Thomas showing that, so far from being excluded from redemption, the Blessed Virgin obtained of her Divine Son the greatest of redemptions through the mystery of her preservation from all sin. He also brought forward, by way of illustration, the somewhat dangerous and doubtful argument of Eadmer (S. Anselm) "decuit, potuit, ergo fecit." [He should do it, He could do it, therefore He  did it].

From the time of Scotus not only did the doctrine become the common opinion at the universities, but the feast spread widely to those countries where it had not been previously adopted... In 1439 the dispute was brought before the Council of Basle where the University of Paris, formerly opposed to the doctrine, proved to be its most ardent advocate, asking for a dogmatical definition...As the council at the time was not ecumenical, it could not pronounce with authority [actyally, according to the Vatican's definition and rules at the time it was, but the Vatican found it inconvenient, like Constantinople IV 879, and dropped it from its list]....Whilst these disputes went on, the great universities and almost all the great orders had become so many bulwarks for the defense of the dogma. In 1497 the University of Paris decreed that henceforward no one should be admitted a member of the university, who did not swear that he would do the utmost to defend and assert the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Toulouse followed the example; in Italy, Bologna and Naples; in the German Empire, Cologne, Maine, and Vienna; in Belgium, Louvain; in England before the Reformation. Oxford and Cambridge; in Spain Salamanca, Toledo, Seville, and Valencia; in Portugal, Coimbra and Evora; in America, Mexico and Lima...

and yet another heresy became a dogma for the Vatican.

...or feel more aptly put.

Vatican II.

That fact you can see by checking the sources in the CCC and in any systematic theology book that lists the sources for various doctrines and theologies systematically, so much of the very most basic work you can in fact do on your own.

You can't do that for Humanae Vitae, the topic at hand.

When I have ready resources to make my points briefly and succinctly as I just did with Aristotle and the patristic Fathers,

Your point is misdirected.

I will continue to address these issues but to spend days searching for scarce Internet resources to address your false assertion only to have you all fight me all the way...is not worth my time or my energy or the emotional stress it would cause.  I am sure you will all look in your hearts and understand my refusal.

LOL. Spoken like a supreme pontiff from the cathedra.

[elijahmaria]

I will continue to address these issues but to spend days searching for scarce Internet resources to address your false assertion only to have you all fight me all the way...is not worth my time or my energy or the emotional stress it would cause.  I am sure you will all look in your hearts and understand my refusal.

LOL. Spoken like a supreme pontiff from the cathedra.

Thank you!!

You provide ample evidence for why I took the position I did in my refusal.

[ialmisry]

I will continue to address these issues but to spend days searching for scarce Internet resources to address your false assertion only to have you all fight me all the way...is not worth my time or my energy or the emotional stress it would cause.  I am sure you will all look in your hearts and understand my refusal.

LOL. Spoken like a supreme pontiff from the cathedra.

Thank you!!

You provide ample evidence for why I took the position I did in my refusal.

and your refusal provides ample evidence to ignore the assertions behind the posts

let's not forget your magisterium

infallibility by smoke and mirrors.

[elijahmaria]

Again you emphasize your openness to dialogue, insipid rather than inspiring.

I will continue to address these issues but to spend days searching for scarce Internet resources to address your false assertion only to have you all fight me all the way...is not worth my time or my energy or the emotional stress it would cause.  I am sure you will all look in your hearts and understand my refusal.

LOL. Spoken like a supreme pontiff from the cathedra.

Thank you!!

You provide ample evidence for why I took the position I did in my refusal.

and your refusal provides ample evidence to ignore the assertions behind the posts

let's not forget your magisterium

infallibility by smoke and mirrors.

[ialmisry]

Again you emphasize your openness to dialogue, insipid rather than inspiring.

No, I emphasize my steadfastness to dogma.

a Romanian Orthodox priest invited a Roman Catholic priest to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy of Pentecost.

I read the news that the priest was deposed from priesthood by his bishop, for this co-celebration with a romano-catholic.

Amen! Amen! Amen!

That's why you find it less than inspiring in this insipid I-don't-want-to-waste-time-to-defend-my-assertions.

Speaking of "dialogue," at Florence the Latins expressed the exasperation that the bishops that did come would have nothing of Aristotle ("a fig for your Aristotle!") and merely would repeat quotations from the Fathers.  The Latins also expressed dismay that Bp. Mark Eugenios i.e. St. Mark of Ephesus, was the only one whose learning impressed the products of the Latin universities.

[elijahmaria]

Again you emphasize your openness to dialogue, insipid rather than inspiring.

No, I emphasize my steadfastness to dogma.

I never worry about your steadfastness to dogma.

I strongly question your knowledge of Catholic teaching, and I question your knowledge of anything but a very narrow view of Orthodox teaching.

And so I see you not as dogmatic but as doctrinaire and in that way you are impossible to talk to except at a very superficial and generally very nasty level.

That is what is insipid rather than inspiring.

[ialmisry]

Again you emphasize your openness to dialogue, insipid rather than inspiring.

No, I emphasize my steadfastness to dogma.

I never worry about your steadfastness to dogma.

I strongly question your knowledge of Catholic teaching, and I question your knowledge of anything but a very narrow view of Orthodox teaching.

I provide plenty of documenation, links etc. Anyone can follow up.  Unlike you, I name names.

And so I see you not as dogmatic but as doctrinaire

Readers can see for themselves.

and in that way you are impossible to talk to except at a very superficial and generally very nasty level.

Only for those for whom words have no meaning.

That is what is insipid rather than inspiring.

Depends on what you're selling. We have no need of natural law, and hence won't be buying it no matter how aggressive the marketing.  Hence we don't overlook the basis of Humanae Vitae, and how it got there.

[elijahmaria]

Depends on what you're selling. We have no need of natural law, and hence won't be buying it no matter how aggressive the marketing.  Hence we don't overlook the basis of Humanae Vitae, and how it got there.

You'd have to elevate your explanations to the level of convincing, for how you come to this odd assertion, before it is more than just an odd assertion.  But you don't explain things you just point and grunt.

M.

[SolEX01]

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith and Purifiers of Rationalism (a byproduct of Enlightenment thought).  How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?  

Edited for Content

Oh my yes...There's nobody more enlightened than St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Maximos the Confessor used Aristotelian philosophy in some of his conceptual schemes.

He was another enlightened figger in Orthodox history, I understand.

The bolded question wasn't answered; so you claim that the Greek Catholics have resisted Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals contrary to what the Vatican has taught over the last 5-7 Centuries?

Bluntly stated, you have not one small clue about what you are talking about,

You have adopted the majority view here ... at least I know that the sentiments do not change across Religious Jurisdictions.   

and I am not going to take the time to even try to enlighten you.  With your closed mind and in the darkness of historical ignorance and ignorance of the sources of Catholic doctrine, it would be a solid waste of my time at this moment to try to air out the house with a dose of reality.

I wouldn't want you to waste your time.  You won't take direction from us; why should you enlighten us?

I will give you this much:  Catholic doctrine is taken from her saints and her doctors of the Church, the Councils and the Fathers, Scripture and Apostolic teaching.   It does not come from the secular teachings of professional theologians, although that is what I find many Orthodox actually think...or feel more aptly put.  That fact you can see by checking the sources in the CCC and in any systematic theology book that lists the sources for various doctrines and theologies systematically, so much of the very most basic work you can in fact do on your own.

We're still waiting with bated breath for how Humanae Vitae was derived from the bolded text.  Frankly, you can't.

When I have ready resources to make my points briefly and succinctly as I just did with Aristotle and the patristic Fathers, I will continue to address these issues but to spend days searching for scarce Internet resources to address your false assertion only to have you all fight me all the way

No false assertions were made.  You can't explain if Greek Catholics have resisted the Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals which have permeated the Vatican.

...is not worth my time or my energy or the emotional stress it would cause.  I am sure you will all look in your hearts and understand my refusal.

You have a life.  So do we.  There are more important things in life than this stuff; however, if you're going to defend Roman Catholicism on Humanae Vitae even though you look Eastern Orthodox, act Eastern Orthodox and are not Eastern Orthodox, you better be prepared to explain your point in a way that the Orthodox can understand.  If we don't understand, don't be so hard on yourself.    

If you can't ... say, "I don't know" and we'll pick another windmill to tilt at....

[elijahmaria]

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas; Pillars of the Roman Catholic Faith and Purifiers of Rationalism (a byproduct of Enlightenment thought).  How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?  

Edited for Content

Oh my yes...There's nobody more enlightened than St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Maximos the Confessor used Aristotelian philosophy in some of his conceptual schemes.

He was another enlightened figger in Orthodox history, I understand.

The bolded question wasn't answered; so you claim that the Greek Catholics have resisted Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals contrary to what the Vatican has taught over the last 5-7 Centuries?

Bluntly stated, you have not one small clue about what you are talking about,

You have adopted the majority view here ... at least I know that the sentiments do not change across Religious Jurisdictions.   

and I am not going to take the time to even try to enlighten you.  With your closed mind and in the darkness of historical ignorance and ignorance of the sources of Catholic doctrine, it would be a solid waste of my time at this moment to try to air out the house with a dose of reality.

I wouldn't want you to waste your time.  You won't take direction from us; why should you enlighten us?

I will give you this much:  Catholic doctrine is taken from her saints and her doctors of the Church, the Councils and the Fathers, Scripture and Apostolic teaching.   It does not come from the secular teachings of professional theologians, although that is what I find many Orthodox actually think...or feel more aptly put.  That fact you can see by checking the sources in the CCC and in any systematic theology book that lists the sources for various doctrines and theologies systematically, so much of the very most basic work you can in fact do on your own.

We're still waiting with bated breath for how Humanae Vitae was derived from the bolded text.  Frankly, you can't.

When I have ready resources to make my points briefly and succinctly as I just did with Aristotle and the patristic Fathers, I will continue to address these issues but to spend days searching for scarce Internet resources to address your false assertion only to have you all fight me all the way

No false assertions were made.  You can't explain if Greek Catholics have resisted the Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals which have permeated the Vatican.

...is not worth my time or my energy or the emotional stress it would cause.  I am sure you will all look in your hearts and understand my refusal.

You have a life.  So do we.  There are more important things in life than this stuff; however, if you're going to defend Roman Catholicism on Humanae Vitae even though you look Eastern Orthodox, act Eastern Orthodox and are not Eastern Orthodox, you better be prepared to explain your point in a way that the Orthodox can understand.  If we don't understand, don't be so hard on yourself.    

If you can't ... say, "I don't know" and we'll pick another windmill to tilt at....

I've been beaten by a well tempered instrument!!  I yield.   I give up!!  I'll spend more time on it!!  Maybe I'll have something useful to say and maybe not but you have made my day!!...no...my year!!  How could I have been so hard of heart?

Thank you.

Now what was the question again because I feel slightly off track here...Help me find a direction, please.

M.

[SolEX01]

I've been beaten by a well tempered instrument!!  I yield.   I give up!!  I'll spend more time on it!!  Maybe I'll have something useful to say and maybe not but you have made my day!!...no...my year!!  How could I have been so hard of heart?

Thank you.

Now what was the question again because I feel slightly off track here...Help me find a direction, please.

redacted

[elijahmaria]

I've been beaten by a well tempered instrument!!  I yield.   I give up!!  I'll spend more time on it!!  Maybe I'll have something useful to say and maybe not but you have made my day!!...no...my year!!  How could I have been so hard of heart?

Thank you.

Now what was the question again because I feel slightly off track here...Help me find a direction, please.

The above is a perfect textbook example on how to express sarcasm on the Internet.  I've learned so much from you.     You've made my millennium.   

God Bless You!

Oh...I didn't see that one coming.  That one hurt actually.  I was being sincere.

Fool me once, shame on me

[SolEX01]

I've been beaten by a well tempered instrument!!  I yield.   I give up!!  I'll spend more time on it!!  Maybe I'll have something useful to say and maybe not but you have made my day!!...no...my year!!  How could I have been so hard of heart?

Thank you.

Now what was the question again because I feel slightly off track here...Help me find a direction, please.

The above is a perfect textbook example on how to express sarcasm on the Internet.  I've learned so much from you.     You've made my millennium.   

God Bless You!

Oh...I didn't see that one coming.  That one hurt actually.  I was being sincere.

Fool me once, shame on me

That's why sarcasm is a dangerous thing to use on Internet because the words do not convey facial expressions, emotions, etc. 

Now, I'm sorry and I ask for your forgiveness.     There are two things to discuss:

1.  Support for Humanae Vitae based on Catholic doctrine which is taken from her saints and her doctors of the Church, the Councils and the Fathers, Scripture and Apostolic teaching

2.  Whether Greek Catholics have resisted the Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals which have permeated the Vatican.

[ialmisry]

Depends on what you're selling. We have no need of natural law, and hence won't be buying it no matter how aggressive the marketing.  Hence we don't overlook the basis of Humanae Vitae, and how it got there.

You'd have to elevate your explanations to the level of convincing, for how you come to this odd assertion, before it is more than just an odd assertion.  But you don't explain things you just point and grunt.

no, I cite and link.

[elijahmaria]

I've been beaten by a well tempered instrument!!  I yield.   I give up!!  I'll spend more time on it!!  Maybe I'll have something useful to say and maybe not but you have made my day!!...no...my year!!  How could I have been so hard of heart?

Thank you.

Now what was the question again because I feel slightly off track here...Help me find a direction, please.

The above is a perfect textbook example on how to express sarcasm on the Internet.  I've learned so much from you.     You've made my millennium.   

God Bless You!

Oh...I didn't see that one coming.  That one hurt actually.  I was being sincere.

Fool me once, shame on me

That's why sarcasm is a dangerous thing to use on Internet because the words do not convey facial expressions, emotions, etc. 

Now, I'm sorry and I ask for your forgiveness.     There are two things to discuss:

1.  Support for Humanae Vitae based on Catholic doctrine which is taken from her saints and her doctors of the Church, the Councils and the Fathers, Scripture and Apostolic teaching

2.  Whether Greek Catholics have resisted the Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals which have permeated the Vatican.

Sure.  We'll get on track now.    I tend to be sharp sometimes but try not to be sarcastic.  Thanks much!!

I can say that the Catholic Church of the west,  in general,  develops the language of her doctrine using the writings of her saints and doctors before using any secular theologians and schoolmen.   Not even Duns Scotus was really necessary for the dogmatic teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception.  Protestant theology is far more attuned to her Schoolmen than the Catholic Church in terms of actual doctrinal formulations.

The encyclical letter Humanae Vitae is a unique statement and synthesis.  It is to be obeyed but it has yet to be distilled into any kind of dogmatic statement.  But that is not unusual for moral teachings...in the Catholic Church.  There are so many pastoral aspects to such a teaching that it is best not to lock it in to some kind of rigid statement of truth.

[SolEX01]

Sure.  We'll get on track now.    I tend to be sharp sometimes but try not to be sarcastic.  Thanks much!!

I strive to get along with everyone on this board.  No hard feelings? 

I can say that the Catholic Church of the west,  in general,  develops the language of her doctrine using the writings of her saints and doctors before using any secular theologians and schoolmen.   Not even Duns Scotus was really necessary for the dogmatic teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception.

I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?

Protestant theology is far more attuned to her Schoolmen than the Catholic Church in terms of actual doctrinal formulations.

Can you see that Schoolmen can lead to arbitrary, man-made belief systems like Bible Inerrancy?

The encyclical letter Humanae Vitae is a unique statement and synthesis.  It is to be obeyed but it has yet to be distilled into any kind of dogmatic statement. 

A speed limit is a dogmatic statement which goes unobeyed every day.  If you're caught, you receive a ticket and pay a fine and life goes on.  If you don't obey Humanae Vitae, do you go to Hell?

But that is not unusual for moral teachings...in the Catholic Church.  There are so many pastoral aspects to such a teaching that it is best not to lock it in to some kind of rigid statement of truth.

But what if the pastoral teaching mandates obedience to the above dogmatic statement?  At least in the Orthodox Church, a Priest has no dogmatic statement which requires mandatory adherence and tailors his guidance to fit the circumstances of the individual (e.g. oikonomia or Economy).

[Papist]

I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?

The Divine Liturgy

[Deacon Lance]

How did the Greek Catholics embrace such Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals?

I do not know that they did. Certainly many became Latinized as they trained in Latin seminaries, but this affected the Basilians much more than married clergy who stayed close to their roots.

[elijahmaria]

I strive to get along with everyone on this board.  No hard feelings?  

I can say that the Catholic Church of the west,  in general,  develops the language of her doctrine using the writings of her saints and doctors before using any secular theologians and schoolmen.   Not even Duns Scotus was really necessary for the dogmatic teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception.

I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?

Protestant theology is far more attuned to her Schoolmen than the Catholic Church in terms of actual doctrinal formulations.

Can you see that Schoolmen can lead to arbitrary, man-made belief systems like Bible Inerrancy?

The encyclical letter Humanae Vitae is a unique statement and synthesis.  It is to be obeyed but it has yet to be distilled into any kind of dogmatic statement.  

A speed limit is a dogmatic statement which goes unobeyed every day.  If you're caught, you receive a ticket and pay a fine and life goes on.  If you don't obey Humanae Vitae, do you go to Hell?

But that is not unusual for moral teachings...in the Catholic Church.  There are so many pastoral aspects to such a teaching that it is best not to lock it in to some kind of rigid statement of truth.

But what if the pastoral teaching mandates obedience to the above dogmatic statement?  At least in the Orthodox Church, a Priest has no dogmatic statement which requires mandatory adherence and tailors his guidance to fit the circumstances of the individual (e.g. oikonomia or Economy).

No hard feelings at all.  In fact I loved your wonderful reply to my grumpy note.  You won me over then and there!!

There is a good article by Father Lev Gillet that I will have to dig out for you from my documents which I will publish here if it is not on-line any more.  He has good references to eastern sources for the teaching of the Immaculate Conception.  Duns Scotus was really rather incidental to it all, and late in the day for the teaching.

As to professional theologians, yes, their ruminations and speculations can lead down all sorts of wrong-headed rabbit trails.  They can also make some astonishingly inspired statements.  So the Church is wise to allow them room to consider the language of belief and theology, but not to depend upon them for formal teaching, but rather to look to the holy men and women of the Church, many of whom themselves, are well versed in Scripture and the ancient Fathers.

There is room for pastoral action in the Catholic Church with respect to all moral teaching.  But only God reads the hearts of men and women.  Remember it is you and I who must take our sins to our confessor.  He does not, generally speaking, come out looking for us pointing fingers and shouting "J'acuse!!"

But salvation is the narrow path so it is up to the Church NOT to direct us into the path of ease and good feelings.

M.

[ialmisry]

I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?

The Divine Liturgy

Any Divine Liturgy which taught the IC would be only "so called."

[Papist]

I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?

The Divine Liturgy

Any Divine Liturgy which taught the IC would be only "so called."

The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom

[ialmisry]

There is a good article by Father Lev Gillet that I will have to dig out for you from my documents which I will publish here if it is not on-line any more.  He has good references to eastern sources for the teaching of the Immaculate Conception.  Duns Scotus was really rather incidental to it all, and late in the day for the teaching.

Without Duns Scotus pushing it, the "foreign doctrine" as St. Bonaventure called it teaching at Paris, would hot have been taken up by the Univeristy of Paris with a blood oath to uphold and propogate it. Duns Scotus was both central and the catalyst

St. Bernard was perfectly justified when he demanded a careful inquiry into the reasons for observing the feast. Not adverting to the possibility of sanctification at the time of the infusion of the soul, he writes that there can be question only of sanctification after conception, which would render holy the nativity, not the conception itself (Scheeben, "Dogmatik", III, p. 550). Hence Albert the Great observes: "We say that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before animation, and the affirmative contrary to this is the heresy condemned by St. Bernard in his epistle to the canons of Lyons" (III Sent., dist. iii, p. I, ad 1, Q. i).

St. Bernard was at once answered in a treatise written by either Richard of St. Victor or Peter Comestor. In this treatise appeal is made to a feast which had been established to commemorate an insupportable tradition. It maintained that the flesh of Mary needed no purification; that it was sanctified before the conception. Some writers of those times entertained the fantastic idea that before Adam fell, a portion of his flesh had been reserved by God and transmitted from generation to generation, and that out of this flesh the body of Mary was formed (Scheeben, op. cit., III, 551), and this formation they commemorated by a feast. The letter of St. Bernard did not prevent the extension of the feast, for in 1154 it was observed all over France, until in 1275, through the efforts of the Paris University, it was abolished in Paris and other dioceses.

After the saint's death the controversy arose anew between Nicholas of St. Albans, an English monk who defended the festival as established in England, and Peter Cellensis, the celebrated Bishop of Chartres. Nicholas remarks that the soul of Mary was pierced twice by the sword, i.e. at the foot of the cross and when St. Bernard wrote his letter against her feast (Scheeben, III, 551). The point continued to be debated throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and illustrious names appeared on each side. St. Peter Damian, Peter the Lombard, Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and Albert the Great are quoted as opposing it.

In the thirteenth century the opposition was largely due to a want of clear insight into the subject in dispute. The word "conception" was used in different senses, which had not been separated by careful definition. If St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and other theologians had known the doctrine in the sense of the definition of 1854, they would have been its strongest defenders instead of being its opponents.

The famous Duns Scotus (d. 1308) at last (in III Sent., dist. iii, in both commentaries) laid the foundations of the true doctrine so solidly and dispelled the objections in a manner so satisfactory, that from that time onward the doctrine prevailed. He showed that the sanctification after animation — sanctificatio post animationem — demanded that it should follow in the order of nature (naturae) not of time (temporis); he removed the great difficulty of St. Thomas showing that, so far from being excluded from redemption, the Blessed Virgin obtained of her Divine Son the greatest of redemptions through the mystery of her preservation from all sin. He also brought forward, by way of illustration, the somewhat dangerous and doubtful argument of Eadmer (S. Anselm) "decuit, potuit, ergo fecit."

Dangerous and doubtful indeed.

From the time of Scotus not only did the doctrine become the common opinion at the universities, but the feast spread widely to those countries where it had not been previously adopted. With the exception of the Dominicans, all or nearly all, of the religious orders took it up...The controversy continued, but the defenders of the opposing opinion were almost entirely confined to the members of the Dominican Order. In 1439 the dispute was brought before the Council of Basle where the University of Paris, formerly opposed to the doctrine, proved to be its most ardent advocate, asking for a dogmatical definition...Whilst these disputes went on, the great universities and almost all the great orders had become so many bulwarks for the defense of the dogma. In 1497 the University of Paris decreed that henceforward no one should be admitted a member of the university, who did not swear that he would do the utmost to defend and assert the Immaculate Conception of Mary...

thereafter follows the list already posted
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

I'll wait until you post Fr. Lev Gillet to comment further.

As to professional theologians, yes, their ruminations and speculations can lead down all sorts of wrong-headed rabbit trails.

of which the IC is only one example

They can also make some astonishingly inspired statements.

Read St. Bonaventure, and St. Bernard of Clairveaux's  letters on the IC.  

So the Church is wise to allow them room to consider the language of belief and theology, but not to depend upon them for formal teaching, but rather to look to the holy men and women of the Church, many of whom themselves, are well versed in Scripture and the ancient Fathers.

There is room for pastoral action in the Catholic Church with respect to all moral teaching.  But only God reads the hearts of men and women.  Remember it is you and I who must take our sins to our confessor.  He does not, generally speaking, come out looking for us pointing fingers and shouting "J'acuse!!"

But salvation is the narrow path so it is up to the Church NOT to direct us into the path of ease and good feelings.

So where do you place HV in all of that?

[SolEX01]

I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?

The Divine Liturgy

So the Papacy obtained an infallible dogma from a suppressed Liturgical Rite?   

[ialmisry]

I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?

The Divine Liturgy

Any Divine Liturgy which taught the IC would be only "so called."

The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom

Is there some Latinized or Novus Ordo service which claims that name that teaches the IC?  It's not in the Orthodox original.

[Papist]

I admit my lack of knowledge in post-1054 Roman Catholic theology.  Isa explained that Universities in Paris adopted Duns Scotus' beliefs, sometimes under duress, and those beliefs became the Immaculate Conception.  If Duns Scotus didn't exist, where else would the IC come from?

The Divine Liturgy

Any Divine Liturgy which taught the IC would be only "so called."

The Divine Litrugy of St. John Crysostom

Is there some Latinized or Novus Ordo service which claims that name that teaches the IC?  It's not in the Orthodox original.

Nope