OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 02:35:27 AM *
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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Council of Carthage and mortal & original sin  (Read 4270 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2011, 05:35:23 PM »

The Roman Church rejects the disciplines from Trullo not the apostolic canons. Several canons from the Council in Trullo are included in Gratian's Decretum. The Decretum was a highly influential source of canon law.

So acceptance of the canons has only ever been partial, however, the canons were accepted. And Carthage 418, affirming the faith of St. Augustine, is in full conformance of faith with the Roman Church.
I am asking you to give evidence that shows conclusively that the Council of Carthage in 419 was accepted as a whole (and so far you have given a canon from Trullo that approves a council held more than a century and a half before the one I am asking about), and that when it contradicts the Eastern Fathers it is to be accepted above their teaching.

Yet, I'm showing you Carthage 418 was accepted...
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2011, 05:36:19 PM »

Which question is not addressed? You've ignored the evidence I give for my claim. Which your questions hinge on.

As I've previously shown, the RC acceptance of Trullo as ecumenical (full or part), or even at all is in the end a moot point.
You have given vague assertions that John VIII (most of his acts were later rejected by Rome) and Gratian accept certain parts of Trullo, but you have not even shown by what authority Gratian did what he did.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2011, 05:38:59 PM »

Which question is not addressed? You've ignored the evidence I give for my claim. Which your questions hinge on.

As I've previously shown, the RC acceptance of Trullo as ecumenical (full or part), or even at all is in the end a moot point.
You have given vague assertions that John VIII (most of his acts were later rejected by Rome) and Gratian accept certain parts of Trullo, but you have not even shown by what authority Gratian did what he did.

Can you show which actions were rejected?

Given that Gratian's Decretal, that accepted the canons, was used for canon law, in itself shows an acceptance of the Church.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #48 on: January 13, 2011, 05:39:50 PM »

The Roman Church rejects the disciplines from Trullo not the apostolic canons. Several canons from the Council in Trullo are included in Gratian's Decretum. The Decretum was a highly influential source of canon law.

So acceptance of the canons has only ever been partial, however, the canons were accepted. And Carthage 418, affirming the faith of St. Augustine, is in full conformance of faith with the Roman Church.
I am asking you to give evidence that shows conclusively that the Council of Carthage in 419 was accepted as a whole (and so far you have given a canon from Trullo that approves a council held more than a century and a half before the one I am asking about), and that when it contradicts the Eastern Fathers it is to be accepted above their teaching.

Yet, I'm showing you Carthage 418 was accepted...
I want confirmation of precisely which councils of Carthage are being approved, the canon only mentions by name the councils held under St. Cyprian.  What evidence do you have that the later councils are also given approval?
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #49 on: January 13, 2011, 05:42:47 PM »

Can you show which actions were rejected?
I have not rejected anything (yet), nor have I tried to show anything (yet), what I am asking you to do is prove that the later councils of Carthage (i.e., the ones not held under St. Cyprian who alone is named in connection with the councils of North Africa) are approved, and to what degree they are approved, since Nicaea II only mentions approval of local councils when they were promulgating ecumenical decrees.  Or are you trying to tell me, in a round about way, that I should accept what you are saying simply because you are saying it?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 05:45:08 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2011, 05:43:40 PM »

I want confirmation of precisely which councils of Carthage are being approved, the canon only mentions by name the councils held under St. Cyprian.  What evidence do you have that the later councils are also given approval?

Quote
Introductory Note.

I have placed the canons of Sardica and those of Carthage and those of the Council held at Constantinople under Nectarius and Theophilus, and that of the Council of Carthage under St. Cyprian, immediately after the Council in Trullo, because in the second canon of that synod they are for the first time mentioned by name as being accepted by the Universal Church.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.ii.html


Yes, they were. The Council of Trullo (the Quinisext Council) is a continuation of the sixth EC, which was accepted by the Greeks and mostly accepted by the West.

From Trullo, the second canon refers to the Carthage Synod of 418:
Quote
Canon II.
It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders.  And in these canons we are bidden to receive the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles [written] by Clement.  But formerly through the agency of those who erred from the faith certain adulterous matter was introduced, clean contrary to piety, for the polluting of the Church, which obscures the elegance and beauty of the divine decrees in their present form.  We therefore reject these Constitutions so as the better to make sure of the edification and security of the most Christian flock; by no means admitting the offspring of heretical error, and cleaving to the pure and perfect doctrine of the Apostles.  But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the 318 holy God-bearing Fathers assembled at Nice, and those at Ancyra, further those at Neocæsarea and likewise those at Gangra, and besides, those at Antioch in Syria:  those too at Laodicea in Phrygia:  and likewise the 150 who assembled in this heaven-protected royal city:  and the 200 who assembled the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and the 630 holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon.  In like manner those of Sardica, and those of Carthage:  those also who again assembled in this heaven-protected royal city under its bishop Nectarius and Theophilus Archbishop of Alexandria. Likewise too the Canons [i.e. the decretal letters] of Dionysius, formerly Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria; and of Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria and Martyr; of Gregory the Wonder-worker, Bishop of Neocæsarea; of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa; of Gregory Theologus; of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Theophilus, Archbishop of the same great city of Alexandria; of Cyril, Archbishop of the same Alexandria; of Gennadius, Patriarch of this heaven-protected royal city.  Moreover the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the custom delivered down to them.  And that no one be allowed to transgress or disregard the aforesaid canons, or to receive others beside them, supposititiously set forth by certain who have attempted to make a traffic of the truth.  But should any one be convicted of innovating upon, or attempting to overturn, any of the afore-mentioned canons, he shall be subject to receive the penalty which that canon imposes, and to be cured by it of his transgression.


And I want something backing your own claims, as well.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2011, 05:44:20 PM »

Can you show which actions were rejected?
I have not rejected anything (yet), nor have I tried to show anything, what I am asking you to do is prove that the later councils of Carthage (i.e., the ones not held under St. Cyprian who alone is named in connection with the councils of North Africa) are approved.

The letter from Pope John VIII.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2011, 05:45:30 PM »

Perhaps EOs just don't believe what they used to believe about original sin and baptism.

It seems to me to be another instance where we are making mountains out of molehills. Any distinction appears to be in semantics, if any.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2011, 05:47:20 PM »

I must say Azure, your avatar is more than appropriate for this thread.  laugh
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2011, 05:48:22 PM »

I must say Azure, your avatar is more than appropriate for this thread.  laugh

 Cheesy
Logged


I'm going to need this.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,305


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #55 on: January 13, 2011, 08:17:23 PM »

I must say this is one of my favorite threads.  And I do lean towards the idea that this is all semantics, but I would like to see FatherHLL's suggestion be answered.  Are there any Eastern Church fathers that expression a "remission" of "Original Sin"?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #56 on: January 13, 2011, 08:45:34 PM »

I must say this is one of my favorite threads.  And I do lean towards the idea that this is all semantics, but I would like to see FatherHLL's suggestion be answered.  Are there any Eastern Church fathers that expression a "remission" of "Original Sin"?

What is the Greek word the council used that gets translated "Original Sin"? And why are we trying to distinguish between remission and forgiveness when they are both translations of the same Greek word (aphesis)?

To expand on that a bit--"aphesis" literally means "release, letting go," hence remission and forgiveness. One translation sounds more like purgation of an illness, while the other connotes conciliation. I believe these are simply alternate ways of seeing the same thing. There's a degree of paradox, but that's nothing new for us, right?
Logged
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #57 on: January 13, 2011, 09:16:25 PM »

Are there any Eastern Church fathers that expression a "remission" of "Original Sin"?

Not that I am aware of.  If there were, I'm sure someone would have quoted them in one of these "original sin" threads.  The use of remission-of-sin language to speak of baptismal regeneration appears to be of Latin provenance. 
Logged

Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #58 on: January 13, 2011, 09:53:44 PM »

Are there any Eastern Church fathers that expression a "remission" of "Original Sin"?

Not that I am aware of.  If there were, I'm sure someone would have quoted them in one of these "original sin" threads.  The use of remission-of-sin language to speak of baptismal regeneration appears to be of Latin provenance. 

"I confess one baptism for the remission of sins." Huh Of all the statements the Fathers could have used to summarize what we believe about baptism, they chose the aforementioned language. This being a council dominated by Eastern delegations. That being said, we Orthodox may well place a bigger emphasis on "rebirth," but I've never perceived this as emphasizing rebirth at the expense of forgiveness of sins.

Rufus
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2011, 01:48:53 AM »

I recall addressing this on another thread some time ago, but which one I don't recall.  In any case, in summation, Orthodoxy understands original sin (the ancestral sin) just as the canon states it, that it needs removed, not expiated.   It does not say that baptism pays for original sin nor that it is for the forgiveness of that sin, as it is not a personal sin and therefore does not need forgiven.   It does say remitted--i.e. removed, as with the remission of cancer.   The original/ancestral sin is a cancer upon mankind that needs removed.  
In that case, I think you and the RCs are in agreement. They make it clear the "guilt" is not personal, but a shared consequence.
Also, "remission of sins" is a common term for the removal or forgiveness of sin in the Latin Church. The forgiveness then is not personal, but our state of "rejecting of God" in our generation.
Unfortunately, agreement is not the case.  Carthage mentions nothing of forgiveness of guilt but rather remission of spiritual cancer.   The Orthodox Church, in full concord with Carthage, holds that baptism is for the remission of original (ancestral) sin but not for the forgiveness of guilt.  I am aware that the Latin tradition confuses forgiveness with remission.   Not so in Orthodoxy.   Offenses may be forgiven but the illness of sin still needs remitted even with forgiveness.   A wife can forgive her husband for drinking too much and getting liver cancer, but the cancer still needs remitted even though there was forgiveness.   A husband can forgive his wife for cheating on him and getting an STD but the STD still needs remitted.   But with the original/ancestral sin, since no human being has inherited the guilt of Adam, but only the illness, only remission is required--the corruption of Adam inherited by us ancestrally.     

The more you folks go on about a topic explaining how it is not what the west does, the more we who are Catholics realize that we are indeed teaching the same thing.  Perhaps you should shorten up your explanations and the similarities and sameness would be less apparent.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2011, 01:48:54 AM »

I must say this is one of my favorite threads.  And I do lean towards the idea that this is all semantics, but I would like to see FatherHLL's suggestion be answered.  Are there any Eastern Church fathers that expression a "remission" of "Original Sin"?

I will join you and say that I am enjoying that last couple of active threads very very much!!
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,305


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2011, 02:46:36 AM »

Are there any Eastern Church fathers that expression a "remission" of "Original Sin"?

Not that I am aware of.  If there were, I'm sure someone would have quoted them in one of these "original sin" threads.  The use of remission-of-sin language to speak of baptismal regeneration appears to be of Latin provenance. 

"I confess one baptism for the remission of sins." Huh Of all the statements the Fathers could have used to summarize what we believe about baptism, they chose the aforementioned language. This being a council dominated by Eastern delegations. That being said, we Orthodox may well place a bigger emphasis on "rebirth," but I've never perceived this as emphasizing rebirth at the expense of forgiveness of sins.

Rufus

Eh...it says "remission of sins" not "remission of Original Sin" in particular.  That's what I'm looking for specifically.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2011, 04:14:00 AM »

Regardless of the interpretation, both the east and the west accepted this statement from the council of carthage. Perhaps it meant slightly different things to different people at the time (or even now), but the beliefs are close enough to the same to use identical wording on both sides (that is, unless one of the sides no longer believes in the wording of the council).
« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 04:24:10 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #63 on: January 14, 2011, 04:22:36 AM »

I recall addressing this on another thread some time ago, but which one I don't recall.  In any case, in summation, Orthodoxy understands original sin (the ancestral sin) just as the canon states it, that it needs removed, not expiated.   It does not say that baptism pays for original sin nor that it is for the forgiveness of that sin, as it is not a personal sin and therefore does not need forgiven.   It does say remitted--i.e. removed, as with the remission of cancer.   The original/ancestral sin is a cancer upon mankind that needs removed.  
In that case, I think you and the RCs are in agreement. They make it clear the "guilt" is not personal, but a shared consequence.
Also, "remission of sins" is a common term for the removal or forgiveness of sin in the Latin Church. The forgiveness then is not personal, but our state of "rejecting of God" in our generation.
Unfortunately, agreement is not the case.  Carthage mentions nothing of forgiveness of guilt but rather remission of spiritual cancer.   The Orthodox Church, in full concord with Carthage, holds that baptism is for the remission of original (ancestral) sin but not for the forgiveness of guilt.  I am aware that the Latin tradition confuses forgiveness with remission.   Not so in Orthodoxy.   Offenses may be forgiven but the illness of sin still needs remitted even with forgiveness.   A wife can forgive her husband for drinking too much and getting liver cancer, but the cancer still needs remitted even though there was forgiveness.   A husband can forgive his wife for cheating on him and getting an STD but the STD still needs remitted.   But with the original/ancestral sin, since no human being has inherited the guilt of Adam, but only the illness, only remission is required--the corruption of Adam inherited by us ancestrally.     
If you keep thinking like that, you might end up believing in Purgatory.
Careful.
  Huh  Did you not read what I wrote?
Yeah. You distinguished between the eternal consequences of sin and the temporal consequences, which is part of the Catholic teaching about Purgatory.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #64 on: January 14, 2011, 10:42:20 AM »

I recall addressing this on another thread some time ago, but which one I don't recall.  In any case, in summation, Orthodoxy understands original sin (the ancestral sin) just as the canon states it, that it needs removed, not expiated.   It does not say that baptism pays for original sin nor that it is for the forgiveness of that sin, as it is not a personal sin and therefore does not need forgiven.   It does say remitted--i.e. removed, as with the remission of cancer.   The original/ancestral sin is a cancer upon mankind that needs removed.  
In that case, I think you and the RCs are in agreement. They make it clear the "guilt" is not personal, but a shared consequence.
Also, "remission of sins" is a common term for the removal or forgiveness of sin in the Latin Church. The forgiveness then is not personal, but our state of "rejecting of God" in our generation.
Unfortunately, agreement is not the case.  Carthage mentions nothing of forgiveness of guilt but rather remission of spiritual cancer.   The Orthodox Church, in full concord with Carthage, holds that baptism is for the remission of original (ancestral) sin but not for the forgiveness of guilt.  I am aware that the Latin tradition confuses forgiveness with remission.   Not so in Orthodoxy.   Offenses may be forgiven but the illness of sin still needs remitted even with forgiveness.   A wife can forgive her husband for drinking too much and getting liver cancer, but the cancer still needs remitted even though there was forgiveness.   A husband can forgive his wife for cheating on him and getting an STD but the STD still needs remitted.   But with the original/ancestral sin, since no human being has inherited the guilt of Adam, but only the illness, only remission is required--the corruption of Adam inherited by us ancestrally.     
If you keep thinking like that, you might end up believing in Purgatory.
Careful.
  Huh  Did you not read what I wrote?
Yeah. You distinguished between the eternal consequences of sin and the temporal consequences, which is part of the Catholic teaching about Purgatory.

Yes indeed!!  That's why I said that the more Orthodox believers "explain" what they do believe the more it becomes apparent to us that on this or that subject we teach the same thing pretty precisely. 

It is only because some Orthodox have repeated the same attribution of false-teaching to the Catholic Church for generations that things fall apart in discussion.

It is incredibly frustrating and there are times when I want to attribute some kind of purposeful evil intent but then I see things like this and realize that there is a true blindness at work.

Mary
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,305


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #65 on: January 14, 2011, 11:37:32 AM »

I would say though that there are Protestant teachings of atonement that some Orthodox might have generalized and called "West" and then furthermore added Catholic to that category.  I personally think there's has been some Orthodox holding to an "anti-West" movement of Orthodoxy without knowing exactly what the "West" really refers to.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 14, 2011, 01:58:50 PM »

I would say though that there are Protestant teachings of atonement that some Orthodox might have generalized and called "West" and then furthermore added Catholic to that category.  I personally think there's has been some Orthodox holding to an "anti-West" movement of Orthodoxy without knowing exactly what the "West" really refers to.

Yes yes and yes!!  It has been very clear to me for a long time that many, if not most, of the real arguments are against the protester's root and branch...so to speak... Smiley
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #67 on: January 15, 2011, 05:04:24 PM »

Regardless of the interpretation, both the east and the west accepted this statement from the council of carthage. Perhaps it meant slightly different things to different people at the time (or even now), but the beliefs are close enough to the same to use identical wording on both sides (that is, unless one of the sides no longer believes in the wording of the council).
You mean it is possible for different people to arrive at different interpretations when looking back at Church councils? Hmmmm....that's not good. Sounds like having a divinely inspired interpreter (i.e. the Magisterium) would be useful.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 05:04:50 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #68 on: January 15, 2011, 05:17:09 PM »

Sounds like having a divinely inspired interpreter (i.e. the Magisterium) would be useful.
If only there was such a thing....
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #69 on: January 15, 2011, 05:21:04 PM »

Sounds like having a divinely inspired interpreter (i.e. the Magisterium) would be useful.
If only there was such a thing....
Scripture and Councils are useless if no two people can agree on an interpretation.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,313


« Reply #70 on: January 15, 2011, 05:33:25 PM »

Regardless of the interpretation, both the east and the west accepted this statement from the council of carthage. Perhaps it meant slightly different things to different people at the time (or even now), but the beliefs are close enough to the same to use identical wording on both sides (that is, unless one of the sides no longer believes in the wording of the council).
You mean it is possible for different people to arrive at different interpretations when looking back at Church councils? Hmmmm....that's not good. Sounds like having a divinely inspired interpreter (i.e. the Magisterium) would be useful.

I'd like to get more into this, but I figured it was off topic, so I started another thread...
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #71 on: January 15, 2011, 06:02:49 PM »

Regardless of the interpretation, both the east and the west accepted this statement from the council of carthage. Perhaps it meant slightly different things to different people at the time (or even now), but the beliefs are close enough to the same to use identical wording on both sides (that is, unless one of the sides no longer believes in the wording of the council).
You mean it is possible for different people to arrive at different interpretations when looking back at Church councils? Hmmmm....that's not good. Sounds like having a divinely inspired interpreter (i.e. the Magisterium) would be useful.

Yes, we tend to call the teaching office by its older name, the Episcopate. 
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.111 seconds with 54 queries.