OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 04:36:14 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 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: De-Incarnated Christ of Orthodoxy?  (Read 13294 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,029


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #90 on: October 28, 2011, 06:00:35 AM »

I didn't know private blogs spoke for the entirety of the Orthodox Christian faith.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #91 on: October 28, 2011, 02:10:28 PM »

I didn't know private blogs spoke for the entirety of the Orthodox Christian faith.  Roll Eyes
The article is not from a private blog, but from the organ of a (then) ROCOR monastery which houses the relics of King St. Edward of England.  It is quite good (though I do not agree 100% with it, but then if 2 persons agree 100%, only one of them is doing the thinking) and quite fair, although it does talk about the differences between the Orthodox and the Vatican, problems with aspects of Marian cults, and other things we evidently are not supposed to notice, let alone talk about. This is a good flavor of it
Quote
In the New Testament we see the incomparable spiritual beauty of the Mother of the Lord. In her shining humility she always points away from herself. Mother of the Messiah, she humbly refers to herself as God's handmaiden. Her kinswoman Elizabeth's praise of her is immediately referred to God, Who has regarded her lowliness. She does not presume to issue her own orders to the servants at Cana, but quietly advises them to obey her Son's instructions. The Acts leaves her not engaged in some private initiative, but waiting in prayer with the whole body of the believers.

The lady of all the apparitions, by contrast, remains firmly centre stage, with the spotlight fixed permanently on herself. She decrees new titles for herself: The Immaculate Conception, Our Lady of the Rosary, Mother of Consolation, Virgin of the Poor, Queen of Peace. She seeks amendment and consolation for injuries done to herself:—"Dry the tears on my face, which I pour down as I observe what you do" (Medjugorje), "Look at my Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce me at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. There are so many souls whom the Justice of God condemns for sins committed against me that I have come to ask for reparation: sacrifice yourself for this intention" (Fatima).

The Messages
In the end it must be the content of the messages themselves which inspires acceptance or rejection of the visions. As stated previously, this was why we have not included Walsingham among the Marian shrines, as the message, whether revealed to Richeldis in a private vision or a dream, was a simple request for a chapel in honour of the incarnation....Firstly there is the air of politeness and courtesy. "Come nearer, children, don't be afraid: I am here to tell you great news," at La Salette. "Will you do me the kindness of coming here for a fortnight," at Lourdes The Lady of Zeitoun bows in greeting to the assembled crowds. The Gospa of Medjugorje repeats her parrotlike refrain at the end of every message, "Thank you for responding to my call."

There is the same absence of Christ, or at least His marginalization as a distant figure of vengeance, whose just wrath is held back by the Virgin. At Medjugorje He is equally distant, though not fearful, and we are invited to "think more about Jesus" on Christmas Day and "do something concrete for Jesus Christ,"—that is, "bring a flower as a sign of abandonment to Jesus. I want every member of the family to have one flower next to the crib so that Jesus can see and see your devotion to him."

There are the same secrets, apocalyptic warnings, good advice on church going and behaviour, and exhortations to "love," "do penance," and "pray." The message of Banneux was quite literally, "Pray a lot." Prayer means the rosary, which is constantly mentioned. Although Medjugorje supporters claim that the Mass is emphasized as the central prayer, the rosary has general preeminence. It is "the one form of prayer preferred by Mary" (O'Carroll). "The rosary is a powerful weapon against Satan ... We must defeat Satan with rosaries in our hands ... " (Medjugorje). Assistance at the hour of death is promised at Fatima to those who confess, receive Communion on the first Saturday of five consecutive months and recite a set umber of rosaries for a set amount of times with the correct intention. All the visionaries have recited the rosary, and the apparition at Medjugorje appeared regularly during its public recitation. The boy seer of Fatima was given the promise that he would go to heaven but would "have to recite many rosaries." One of the Medjugorje visionaries received a rosary from the Lady personally (whether this was actually a materialization is not clear) and the Pope was sent one specially blessed for him by the Gospa.

There is the same teaching of purgatory and Papal supremacy, and the same emphasis on the sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Pope John Paul II likewise emphasizes the Immaculate Heart and associates it with the sacred Heart. Those who embrace the Immaculate Heart are offered salvation at Fatima, and the Gospa of Medjugorje invites us to consecrate ourselves to the Immaculate Heart and make atonement for the sins by which the Heart of Jesus has been offended.

There are the same bargains, promises and threats, inducements to right action through self-interest. If you do this, I promise to do that: if you omit to do so and so, such and such will follow or not follow. "Those who wear the Medal will receive great favours, especially if they wear it round their neck." "If sinners will only repent, the stones and rocks will turn into heaps of wheat" (La Salette). "If people do as I tell you, many souls will be saved and there will be peace" (Fatima). "If we do not change, the punishment will be very great" (Garabandal).

Lourdes is in many ways a striking contrast. The rosary is as prominent, and the apparition holds a rosary on her arm and lets the beads slip through her fingers as Bernadette kneels and recites her prayers. But while there is no mention whatsoever of Christ, there is also no mention of Hearts, purgatory, apocalyptic threats or bargains. The utterances are few and concise, consisting in the main of short commandments: "Go and kiss the ground for the conversion of sinners; Go and drink at the spring ...; Go and tell the priests to have a chapel built here." The contrast with the garrulousness of the Gospa of Medjugorje could not be more marked.

The vision's short statement, "I am the Immaculate Conception," has had a greater impact than any other message from the shrines. Protestants are inclined to see in it no more than a reflection of Bernadette's mental ability and the state of her grammar. Roman Catholic theologians at the time puzzled over it and felt uneasy because it was uncomfortably similar to Old and New Testament statements made by God and Christ, and seemed to parallel "I am the Resurrection," "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." Marian maximalists rejoiced at what they saw as divine honours given the Virgin in heaven, and hopefully awaited further revelations by future apparitions, saying, "I am the Mediation of all graces," and "I am the Co-Redemption." To their chagrin, they were disappointed, and had to make do with "I am the Lady of the Rosary" and "I am the Virgin of the Poor." Marian minimalists, on the other hand, insisted that the Virgin was purposely limiting her privileges to the Immaculate Conception and thereby implying that she was not the Mediatrix of all graces or Co-Redemptrix. Some Orthodox, in an attempt to justify their own acceptance of the Lourdes apparition, try to attach significance to the the date on which the statement was made, namely March 25th, saying that the Virgin was referring not to her own conception by St Anna, but to the (only) Immaculate Conception of the Lord Jesus Christ on the day of the Annunciation.

The statement would seem to be as enigmatic as many from the Delphic oracle. What it did do was precipitate and confirm the dogma of Papal Infallibility. In imposing the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, the Pope acted on his own authority without the consent of a General Council. For this he was greatly criticised in some ecclesiastical circles. When the Lady of Lourdes announced her name by privilege as "I am the Immaculate Conception," she not only proved that the Pope had been right about the dogma, but confirmed his ability to act on his own, in other words that the supreme authority belonged to the Pope alone. Papal Infallibility became an official dogma in 1870. As Alan Neame puts it, Our Lady of Lourdes was to some degree the mother of Papal Infallibility and the grandmother of the Old Catholics who went into schism rather than accept it.

If someone should inconveniently recall that [St] Catherine of Sienna [fourteenth century], during her vision, was told by Our Lady that she was not immaculately conceived, again, Rome has the answer. Even saintly people can misinterpret their revelations, and Catherine was so influenced by her Dominican teachers, who opposed the teaching, that "even in her mystical rapture this holy woman could not sufficiently immerse herself in God to overcome the suggestion" (Archbishop of Split).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #92 on: October 28, 2011, 02:28:43 PM »

Just a quick note about Marian apparitions, whether "approved" or not by the Vatican or a local bishop--From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #67:  "Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain nonChristian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".
« Last Edit: October 28, 2011, 02:30:14 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
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 #93 on: October 28, 2011, 05:03:49 PM »

I found the article linked below informative:

"Eastern Presuppositions" and Western Liturgical Renewal
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #94 on: October 28, 2011, 05:20:34 PM »

I found the article linked below informative:

"Eastern Presuppositions" and Western Liturgical Renewal
While you are here, Apotheoun: can you make heads or tails of Venuleius (the blog linked in the OP) is talking about?  Best I can gather, he is trying to bring in the "Caesaropapism" charge in the back window.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #95 on: October 28, 2011, 10:23:26 PM »

I found the article linked below informative:

"Eastern Presuppositions" and Western Liturgical Renewal
While you are here, Apotheoun: can you make heads or tails of Venuleius (the blog linked in the OP) is talking about?  Best I can gather, he is trying to bring in the "Caesaropapism" charge in the back window.
I do not really see much validity to the Christological criticisms lodged against the Byzantine liturgy, because the Byzantine liturgy - unlike the liturgy of the West - has been heavily influenced by the conciliar tradition (i.e., all Seven Ecumenical Councils) as a whole.  That said, the focus of worship - when talking about Christ - is, and always should be, the person of the Logos, and never His two natures in the abstract (see the seventh anathema against "The Three Chapters" of the Fifth Ecumenical Council).
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #96 on: October 28, 2011, 10:49:04 PM »

I found the article linked below informative:

"Eastern Presuppositions" and Western Liturgical Renewal
While you are here, Apotheoun: can you make heads or tails of Venuleius (the blog linked in the OP) is talking about?  Best I can gather, he is trying to bring in the "Caesaropapism" charge in the back window.
I do not really see much validity to the Christological criticisms lodged against the Byzantine liturgy, because the Byzantine liturgy - unlike the liturgy of the West - has been heavily influenced by the conciliar tradition (i.e., all Seven Ecumenical Councils) as a whole.  That said, the focus of worship - when talking about Christ - is, and always should be, the person of the Logos, and never His two natures in the abstract (see the seventh anathema against "The Three Chapters" of the Fifth Ecumenical Council).
Thanks.

Yeah, I'm not getting it either.  I don't find anything of Christ the King as a dominant theme in the liturgy of Rome (the fest of Christ the King wasn't instituted until 1925) as opposed to that of Constantinople.  Since the divine liturgy is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, I think he is reading to much into the Pantocrator in the dome.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #97 on: October 28, 2011, 11:03:13 PM »

I found the article linked below informative:

"Eastern Presuppositions" and Western Liturgical Renewal
While you are here, Apotheoun: can you make heads or tails of Venuleius (the blog linked in the OP) is talking about?  Best I can gather, he is trying to bring in the "Caesaropapism" charge in the back window.
I do not really see much validity to the Christological criticisms lodged against the Byzantine liturgy, because the Byzantine liturgy - unlike the liturgy of the West - has been heavily influenced by the conciliar tradition (i.e., all Seven Ecumenical Councils) as a whole.  That said, the focus of worship - when talking about Christ - is, and always should be, the person of the Logos, and never His two natures in the abstract (see the seventh anathema against "The Three Chapters" of the Fifth Ecumenical Council).
Thanks.

Yeah, I'm not getting it either.  I don't find anything of Christ the King as a dominant theme in the liturgy of Rome (the fest of Christ the King wasn't instituted until 1925) as opposed to that of Constantinople.  Since the divine liturgy is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, I think he is reading to much into the Pantocrator in the dome.
The assertion that the Byzantine liturgy is "de-incarnated" is nonsensical to me, because the whole economy of icons in worship is founded upon the incarnation.  When I see an icon of Christ the Pantokrator in the dome of a Church I am reminded immediately of the reality of the incarnation which alone made His iconic depiction possible.
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
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #98 on: October 29, 2011, 01:42:00 AM »

I found the article linked below informative:

"Eastern Presuppositions" and Western Liturgical Renewal
While you are here, Apotheoun: can you make heads or tails of Venuleius (the blog linked in the OP) is talking about?  Best I can gather, he is trying to bring in the "Caesaropapism" charge in the back window.
I do not really see much validity to the Christological criticisms lodged against the Byzantine liturgy, because the Byzantine liturgy - unlike the liturgy of the West - has been heavily influenced by the conciliar tradition (i.e., all Seven Ecumenical Councils) as a whole.  That said, the focus of worship - when talking about Christ - is, and always should be, the person of the Logos, and never His two natures in the abstract (see the seventh anathema against "The Three Chapters" of the Fifth Ecumenical Council).

when you say "two persons in the abstract" can you clarify that for us what you mean?
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #99 on: October 29, 2011, 01:43:36 AM »

I found the article linked below informative:

"Eastern Presuppositions" and Western Liturgical Renewal
While you are here, Apotheoun: can you make heads or tails of Venuleius (the blog linked in the OP) is talking about?  Best I can gather, he is trying to bring in the "Caesaropapism" charge in the back window.
I do not really see much validity to the Christological criticisms lodged against the Byzantine liturgy, because the Byzantine liturgy - unlike the liturgy of the West - has been heavily influenced by the conciliar tradition (i.e., all Seven Ecumenical Councils) as a whole.  That said, the focus of worship - when talking about Christ - is, and always should be, the person of the Logos, and never His two natures in the abstract (see the seventh anathema against "The Three Chapters" of the Fifth Ecumenical Council).
Thanks.

Yeah, I'm not getting it either.  I don't find anything of Christ the King as a dominant theme in the liturgy of Rome (the fest of Christ the King wasn't instituted until 1925) as opposed to that of Constantinople.  Since the divine liturgy is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, I think he is reading to much into the Pantocrator in the dome.

IIRC, the Pantocrator dome itself is supposed to imply that God is with us and around us, as opposed to a pointed steeple which points to a distant God high up in the clouds, so I don't get that criticism at all.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 01:44:26 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
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 #100 on: October 29, 2011, 02:32:35 AM »

I found the article linked below informative:

"Eastern Presuppositions" and Western Liturgical Renewal
While you are here, Apotheoun: can you make heads or tails of Venuleius (the blog linked in the OP) is talking about?  Best I can gather, he is trying to bring in the "Caesaropapism" charge in the back window.
I do not really see much validity to the Christological criticisms lodged against the Byzantine liturgy, because the Byzantine liturgy - unlike the liturgy of the West - has been heavily influenced by the conciliar tradition (i.e., all Seven Ecumenical Councils) as a whole.  That said, the focus of worship - when talking about Christ - is, and always should be, the person of the Logos, and never His two natures in the abstract (see the seventh anathema against "The Three Chapters" of the Fifth Ecumenical Council).

when you say "two persons in the abstract" can you clarify that for us what you mean?
I didn't say "two persons in the abstract"; instead, I spoke of "two natures in the abstract."  To speak of Christ's natures as if they exist separately is a form of Nestorianism, and as such it must always be avoided.  Christian worship is directed to Christ as a single divine person.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #101 on: October 29, 2011, 10:49:54 AM »

I found the article linked below informative:

"Eastern Presuppositions" and Western Liturgical Renewal
While you are here, Apotheoun: can you make heads or tails of Venuleius (the blog linked in the OP) is talking about?  Best I can gather, he is trying to bring in the "Caesaropapism" charge in the back window.
I do not really see much validity to the Christological criticisms lodged against the Byzantine liturgy, because the Byzantine liturgy - unlike the liturgy of the West - has been heavily influenced by the conciliar tradition (i.e., all Seven Ecumenical Councils) as a whole.  That said, the focus of worship - when talking about Christ - is, and always should be, the person of the Logos, and never His two natures in the abstract (see the seventh anathema against "The Three Chapters" of the Fifth Ecumenical Council).
Thanks.

Yeah, I'm not getting it either.  I don't find anything of Christ the King as a dominant theme in the liturgy of Rome (the fest of Christ the King wasn't instituted until 1925) as opposed to that of Constantinople.  Since the divine liturgy is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, I think he is reading to much into the Pantocrator in the dome.
The assertion that the Byzantine liturgy is "de-incarnated" is nonsensical to me, because the whole economy of icons in worship is founded upon the incarnation.  When I see an icon of Christ the Pantokrator in the dome of a Church I am reminded immediately of the reality of the incarnation which alone made His iconic depiction possible.

In fact the icon, often found behind the altar, of the Theotokos of the Sign is a direct iconic symbol of the Incarnation.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #102 on: October 29, 2011, 11:06:08 AM »

I found the article linked below informative:

"Eastern Presuppositions" and Western Liturgical Renewal
While you are here, Apotheoun: can you make heads or tails of Venuleius (the blog linked in the OP) is talking about?  Best I can gather, he is trying to bring in the "Caesaropapism" charge in the back window.
I do not really see much validity to the Christological criticisms lodged against the Byzantine liturgy, because the Byzantine liturgy - unlike the liturgy of the West - has been heavily influenced by the conciliar tradition (i.e., all Seven Ecumenical Councils) as a whole.  That said, the focus of worship - when talking about Christ - is, and always should be, the person of the Logos, and never His two natures in the abstract (see the seventh anathema against "The Three Chapters" of the Fifth Ecumenical Council).
Thanks.

Yeah, I'm not getting it either.  I don't find anything of Christ the King as a dominant theme in the liturgy of Rome (the fest of Christ the King wasn't instituted until 1925) as opposed to that of Constantinople.  Since the divine liturgy is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, I think he is reading to much into the Pantocrator in the dome.
The assertion that the Byzantine liturgy is "de-incarnated" is nonsensical to me, because the whole economy of icons in worship is founded upon the incarnation.  When I see an icon of Christ the Pantokrator in the dome of a Church I am reminded immediately of the reality of the incarnation which alone made His iconic depiction possible.

In fact the icon, often found behind the altar, of the Theotokos of the Sign is a direct iconic symbol of the Incarnation.

M.
Indeed.  And the Icon of the Annunciation, usually flanking the Royal Doors, and the Theotokos icon on the one side. 
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
KShaft
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 244



« Reply #103 on: October 30, 2011, 12:24:16 AM »

Christ, in Orthodox thought (or, at least, a popularized articulation of Orthodox thought), possess [sic] a cosmic Kingship; He is the “brooding omnipresence in the dome” of any properly constructed Orthodox temple, which leaves sufficient room for a more apt “doxological” cry from the kliros: “We have no king but Caesar!” There is a strange, almost disturbing, inversion of what Eric Voegelin called the “cosmological empire”: Orthodox society (more imagined than real) is not structured as a reflection of the cosmos; the cosmos under Christ is structured like a Byzantine court, with an earthly ceremonial ritual transformed into a liturgy that is given, by title, a divine status.
...
Venuleius (blog author): I’ve toyed (and, really, that’s all this is — toying) with the thesis that Christ is effectively “de-Incarnated” in popularized Orthodox thought, piety, liturgics, etc. So to assert, as Catholicism does (or, at least, did until Vatican II), that Christ is King in this world is an almost incomprehensible assertion for the Orthodox. Christ is Heaven (“the dome”), not here on earth;
...
Also, for reasons of historical accident more than anything else, it seems (I’m speculating here) that Orthodox piety centralized a cosmic, transcendent Christ over an earthly, suffering Christ (who was also, paradoxically, kingly). It’s almost as if Christ’s Kingship can’t be understand when he was “just” leading the Apostles around Galilee or “just” enduring questioning, mockery, physical assault, etc. He had to be positioned in the Heavens, with a choir of angels and Saints, to be a King.

How would you respond to this assertion that Orthodoxy (as opposed to Catholicism) de-incarnates Christ, that we relegate Him to a 'mystical/cosmological' role detached from this world? Is there any merit to this critique? He makes some very provocative, to say the least, assertions: for example, the claim that the Orthodox stand in the position of the Jews exclaiming we have no king but Caesar.

Quote
Venuleius: The question of Christ’s humanity in Orthodox (popular) thought is a difficult one to unravel, though I thought Fr. Patrick Reardon’s recent lecture on the Orthodox Western Rite where he notes that the Liturgy of St. John reflects a pre-Chalcedonian Christology offers a clue into the different “emphases” one finds in Eastern and Western Christian piety and liturgics. I discussed this matter with a friend of mine, and he noted that the humanity of Christ only becomes “front and center” during the liturgical offices of Holy Week, but by Holy Saturday it’s pulled back. (On this point I keep thinking of the Byzatine icon of Christ simultaneously “in the Heavens” and “in the Tomb”; there’s a powerful demand that people never forget that Christ is still God, which is theologically correct, though one could argue that it detracts from the very real (human) suffering and death he endured.)
...
Francis: I hear you and remember one of Balthasars’ critiques of slavic Byzantine iconography being deincarnated.

Would you go so far as to say or see a functional Monophysitism?

 Shocked

Note how he admits that the demand to never forget the Divinity of Christ is "theologically" correct, but still seems uncomfortable with it. Hate to be facile and dismissive, but, well, you know, the N word...
Nonsense?

Because that is what it is.  Odd coming from an Ultramontanist, given that they need-and demand we need-a "visible head," while we have no problem with Christ ruling the Church as the "invisible Head." Seems like another attempt to attack the Orthodox as somehow deficient in not having a "Vicar of Christ" "tanking the place of God on earth." Simple: He is ever present in the Orthodox Church, so He-and we-don't need a "Vicar."

And He is present physically-deincarnation would cause the whole very visible role of the Holy Icons to collapse in Orthodoxy.  Since I haven't seen that, I have no idea where they are getting this "deincarnation" in the Orthodox Church from.

Maybe he is upset that we do not share the Vatican's thirst for gore, the fetish for displaying body parts or the obsession to put His mother on a par with Him.  Oh, well. That's their problem, not ours.

There is also not a too thinly disguised swipe at Orthodoxy as "Caesaropapism."  Of course, besides the transformation of the church into a Papal state-despite the clear words during that passion he refers to "My Kingdom is not of this world"-the Vatican is always selective in its condemnation of "Caesaropapism."  It of course defends to the death the act of the Germanic kings in overturning the Tradition of Orthodox Rome, reiterated by Popes and inscribed on the doors of St. Peter's itself, in the insertion of the filioque in the mass at Rome, praises the Emperors of the Romans who dragged the bishops from the Orthodox patriarchates to submit to the Vatican in return for armies to defend their kingdom of this world, and celebrates the imposition of "union" by the Polish King (at the time trying to overturn the reformation in his native Sweden, and promising Polish lords Russian lands to make up for those lost to Sweden).  It isn't upset that we allegedly say "we have no king but Caesar," but that we refuse to recognize Caesar's successor as pontifex maximus as "Caesar" and "Supreme Pontiff."

I've been to many Orthodox Churches which had no Pantocrator in the dome.  I've never been to one which did not have an Icon of the Theotokos and Child (how He came) flanking the altar (how He comes now).

"It’s almost as if Christ’s Kingship can’t be understand when he was “just” leading the Apostles around Galilee or “just” enduring questioning, mockery, physical assault, etc. He had to be positioned in the Heavens, with a choir of angels and Saints, to be a King." Nearly every large Orthodox Cross I've seen has, above the Crucifixed Christ the inscription "King of Glory."

No, there is no merit in this "critique." Just an agenda.

Ah ImAllMisery once again uses a Predator missle strike into a market crowded place when a suppressed .22 behind the ear would be sufficient. Damn Germans and all. 

Funny thing is I totally agree with him. Where did this come from? Not left field but somewhere past the foul pole, maybe the parking lot.... Yeah the damn Franks & Germans too (on account of their never obeying Rome pertaining to Orthdoxy untill they take it over then they demand submission from everybody else....).
Logged
MCE
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #104 on: October 30, 2011, 07:42:26 PM »

I got a kick out of this response (which I agree with)
Quote
Personally, enjoy the “Jesus went down, punched the devil in the nose, and kicked down the gates of hell” side of the story more than the “He was bleeding all over the place” side. But I’m an insecure Cubs fan and enjoy being on the winning side for once.


This way of thinking ISTM assumes, though, that the Divinity of Christ "went down, punched the devil in the nose, and kicked down the gates of hell". Helpless humanity is stuck bleeding while Divinity is taking care of business. For Venuleius, the emphasis on punching the devil in the nose is part of the "powerful demand that people never forget that Christ is still God", when in reality, isn't the Gospel message that all humanity, in Christ Jesus, went down, punched the devil in the nose, and kicked down the gates of hell?

Pascha is our victory.

Say WHAT?! CHRIST IS THE ONE AND ONLY HUMAN WHO DID SO.
that He could do so is because He is GOD as well as human.

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #105 on: October 30, 2011, 08:36:22 PM »

I got a kick out of this response (which I agree with)
Quote
Personally, enjoy the “Jesus went down, punched the devil in the nose, and kicked down the gates of hell” side of the story more than the “He was bleeding all over the place” side. But I’m an insecure Cubs fan and enjoy being on the winning side for once.


This way of thinking ISTM assumes, though, that the Divinity of Christ "went down, punched the devil in the nose, and kicked down the gates of hell". Helpless humanity is stuck bleeding while Divinity is taking care of business. For Venuleius, the emphasis on punching the devil in the nose is part of the "powerful demand that people never forget that Christ is still God", when in reality, isn't the Gospel message that all humanity, in Christ Jesus, went down, punched the devil in the nose, and kicked down the gates of hell?

Pascha is our victory.

Say WHAT?! CHRIST IS THE ONE AND ONLY HUMAN WHO DID SO.
that He could do so is because He is GOD as well as human.


On this we are agreed. Venuleius, well....
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #106 on: October 30, 2011, 08:39:53 PM »

Christ, in Orthodox thought (or, at least, a popularized articulation of Orthodox thought), possess [sic] a cosmic Kingship; He is the “brooding omnipresence in the dome” of any properly constructed Orthodox temple, which leaves sufficient room for a more apt “doxological” cry from the kliros: “We have no king but Caesar!” There is a strange, almost disturbing, inversion of what Eric Voegelin called the “cosmological empire”: Orthodox society (more imagined than real) is not structured as a reflection of the cosmos; the cosmos under Christ is structured like a Byzantine court, with an earthly ceremonial ritual transformed into a liturgy that is given, by title, a divine status.
...
Venuleius (blog author): I’ve toyed (and, really, that’s all this is — toying) with the thesis that Christ is effectively “de-Incarnated” in popularized Orthodox thought, piety, liturgics, etc. So to assert, as Catholicism does (or, at least, did until Vatican II), that Christ is King in this world is an almost incomprehensible assertion for the Orthodox. Christ is Heaven (“the dome”), not here on earth;
...
Also, for reasons of historical accident more than anything else, it seems (I’m speculating here) that Orthodox piety centralized a cosmic, transcendent Christ over an earthly, suffering Christ (who was also, paradoxically, kingly). It’s almost as if Christ’s Kingship can’t be understand when he was “just” leading the Apostles around Galilee or “just” enduring questioning, mockery, physical assault, etc. He had to be positioned in the Heavens, with a choir of angels and Saints, to be a King.

How would you respond to this assertion that Orthodoxy (as opposed to Catholicism) de-incarnates Christ, that we relegate Him to a 'mystical/cosmological' role detached from this world? Is there any merit to this critique? He makes some very provocative, to say the least, assertions: for example, the claim that the Orthodox stand in the position of the Jews exclaiming we have no king but Caesar.

Quote
Venuleius: The question of Christ’s humanity in Orthodox (popular) thought is a difficult one to unravel, though I thought Fr. Patrick Reardon’s recent lecture on the Orthodox Western Rite where he notes that the Liturgy of St. John reflects a pre-Chalcedonian Christology offers a clue into the different “emphases” one finds in Eastern and Western Christian piety and liturgics. I discussed this matter with a friend of mine, and he noted that the humanity of Christ only becomes “front and center” during the liturgical offices of Holy Week, but by Holy Saturday it’s pulled back. (On this point I keep thinking of the Byzatine icon of Christ simultaneously “in the Heavens” and “in the Tomb”; there’s a powerful demand that people never forget that Christ is still God, which is theologically correct, though one could argue that it detracts from the very real (human) suffering and death he endured.)
...
Francis: I hear you and remember one of Balthasars’ critiques of slavic Byzantine iconography being deincarnated.

Would you go so far as to say or see a functional Monophysitism?

 Shocked

Note how he admits that the demand to never forget the Divinity of Christ is "theologically" correct, but still seems uncomfortable with it. Hate to be facile and dismissive, but, well, you know, the N word...
Nonsense?

Because that is what it is.  Odd coming from an Ultramontanist, given that they need-and demand we need-a "visible head," while we have no problem with Christ ruling the Church as the "invisible Head." Seems like another attempt to attack the Orthodox as somehow deficient in not having a "Vicar of Christ" "tanking the place of God on earth." Simple: He is ever present in the Orthodox Church, so He-and we-don't need a "Vicar."

And He is present physically-deincarnation would cause the whole very visible role of the Holy Icons to collapse in Orthodoxy.  Since I haven't seen that, I have no idea where they are getting this "deincarnation" in the Orthodox Church from.

Maybe he is upset that we do not share the Vatican's thirst for gore, the fetish for displaying body parts or the obsession to put His mother on a par with Him.  Oh, well. That's their problem, not ours.

There is also not a too thinly disguised swipe at Orthodoxy as "Caesaropapism."  Of course, besides the transformation of the church into a Papal state-despite the clear words during that passion he refers to "My Kingdom is not of this world"-the Vatican is always selective in its condemnation of "Caesaropapism."  It of course defends to the death the act of the Germanic kings in overturning the Tradition of Orthodox Rome, reiterated by Popes and inscribed on the doors of St. Peter's itself, in the insertion of the filioque in the mass at Rome, praises the Emperors of the Romans who dragged the bishops from the Orthodox patriarchates to submit to the Vatican in return for armies to defend their kingdom of this world, and celebrates the imposition of "union" by the Polish King (at the time trying to overturn the reformation in his native Sweden, and promising Polish lords Russian lands to make up for those lost to Sweden).  It isn't upset that we allegedly say "we have no king but Caesar," but that we refuse to recognize Caesar's successor as pontifex maximus as "Caesar" and "Supreme Pontiff."

I've been to many Orthodox Churches which had no Pantocrator in the dome.  I've never been to one which did not have an Icon of the Theotokos and Child (how He came) flanking the altar (how He comes now).

"It’s almost as if Christ’s Kingship can’t be understand when he was “just” leading the Apostles around Galilee or “just” enduring questioning, mockery, physical assault, etc. He had to be positioned in the Heavens, with a choir of angels and Saints, to be a King." Nearly every large Orthodox Cross I've seen has, above the Crucifixed Christ the inscription "King of Glory."

No, there is no merit in this "critique." Just an agenda.

Ah ImAllMisery once again uses a Predator missle strike into a market crowded place when a suppressed .22 behind the ear would be sufficient. Damn Germans and all. 

Funny thing is I totally agree with him. Where did this come from? Not left field but somewhere past the foul pole, maybe the parking lot.... Yeah the damn Franks & Germans too (on account of their never obeying Rome pertaining to Orthdoxy untill they take it over then they demand submission from everybody else....).

Funny, I don't find Isa to be miserable at all. Perhaps you are erroneously equivocating the misery he causes you to feel with his actual being.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #107 on: October 30, 2011, 08:41:31 PM »

Perhaps he is referring to the endless block quotes?  Huh
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #108 on: October 30, 2011, 08:43:33 PM »

Perhaps he is referring to the endless block quotes?  Huh

I personally love seeing gigantic quotes. They eventually become like puzzles when they get big enough.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #109 on: October 30, 2011, 09:20:53 PM »

Perhaps he is referring to the endless block quotes?  Huh

I personally love seeing gigantic quotes. They eventually become like puzzles when they get big enough.

Aha!  A maze-lover!!
Logged

KShaft
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 244



« Reply #110 on: October 30, 2011, 11:27:26 PM »

Perhaps he is referring to the endless block quotes?  Huh

Or perhaps the comments dripping with disdain and condescension? I know I know its hard to pick up (for blind folks) but its there quite often, honest! Especially when dealing with the pesky plebeian Latins...

Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #111 on: October 31, 2011, 11:01:32 AM »

I got a kick out of this response (which I agree with)
Quote
Personally, enjoy the “Jesus went down, punched the devil in the nose, and kicked down the gates of hell” side of the story more than the “He was bleeding all over the place” side. But I’m an insecure Cubs fan and enjoy being on the winning side for once.


This way of thinking ISTM assumes, though, that the Divinity of Christ "went down, punched the devil in the nose, and kicked down the gates of hell". Helpless humanity is stuck bleeding while Divinity is taking care of business. For Venuleius, the emphasis on punching the devil in the nose is part of the "powerful demand that people never forget that Christ is still God", when in reality, isn't the Gospel message that all humanity, in Christ Jesus, went down, punched the devil in the nose, and kicked down the gates of hell?

Pascha is our victory.

Say WHAT?! CHRIST IS THE ONE AND ONLY HUMAN WHO DID SO.
that He could do so is because He is GOD as well as human.



Romans 5:15-19 (KJV)
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. [16] And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. [17] For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) [18] Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. [19] For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
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 #112 on: October 31, 2011, 10:52:08 PM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 10:52:41 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #113 on: October 31, 2011, 11:20:41 PM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #114 on: November 01, 2011, 10:23:33 AM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.

I understand, but just as we participate in Adam's fall, don't we participate in Christ's victory over sin, death, and the devil because of our having the same nature?
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #115 on: November 01, 2011, 10:35:01 AM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.

I understand, but just as we participate in Adam's fall, don't we participate in Christ's victory over sin, death, and the devil because of our having the same nature?

Not because of our same nature, per se.

We participate in Adam's fall because he is our parent. Our parent's cannot give us what they don't have. They lack communion and so do we.

Jesus (God), however redeemed humanity through our form, but we also are redeemed by our faith (trust) in Him through prayer and the sacraments (Eucharist).
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #116 on: November 01, 2011, 11:45:26 AM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.

Follow that logic through and it makes the Holy Spirit an energy of the Father and then we can REALLY talk about subordinationism.
Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #117 on: November 01, 2011, 11:48:31 AM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.

Follow that logic through and it makes the Holy Spirit an energy of the Father and then we can REALLY talk about subordinationism.

Doesn't the Nicene Creed specifically state procession and begotten from 'the Father', though?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #118 on: November 01, 2011, 12:05:56 PM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.

Follow that logic through and it makes the Holy Spirit an energy of the Father and then we can REALLY talk about subordinationism.

Doesn't the Nicene Creed specifically state procession and begotten from 'the Father', though?

It does.  But the question is, how is one to understand that...That is always the question.  And it is for the Church and not human logic, or illogic, to answer.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #119 on: November 01, 2011, 12:31:38 PM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.

Follow that logic through and it makes the Holy Spirit an energy of the Father and then we can REALLY talk about subordinationism.
no, WE can't, but YOU all already have.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #120 on: November 01, 2011, 12:35:25 PM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.

Follow that logic through and it makes the Holy Spirit an energy of the Father and then we can REALLY talk about subordinationism.

Doesn't the Nicene Creed specifically state procession and begotten from 'the Father', though?

It does.  But the question is, how is one to understand that...That is always the question.
And the Fathers have already answered it. In 381.  Not in 589.

And it is for the Church and not human logic, or illogic, to answer.
And she had: too bad your scholastics confused the two.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #121 on: November 03, 2011, 11:08:35 AM »

I came across this post and thought of this thread
The Lutherans and the Vatican?
Why are you always talking about this tiny city-state surround by Rome?  Grin

Monarch envy
No.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #122 on: November 03, 2011, 02:46:13 PM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.

Follow that logic through and it makes the Holy Spirit an energy of the Father and then we can REALLY talk about subordinationism.

Doesn't the Nicene Creed specifically state procession and begotten from 'the Father', though?

It does.  But the question is, how is one to understand that...That is always the question.
And the Fathers have already answered it. In 381.  Not in 589.

And it is for the Church and not human logic, or illogic, to answer.
And she had: too bad your scholastics confused the two.

This is all just Ooo-Rah for Orthodoxy.

It has no substance and when you try to GIVE it substance you can only do it by distorting Catholic teaching.

That's pretty darn shabby...intellectually and spiritually.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #123 on: November 03, 2011, 03:33:33 PM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.

Follow that logic through and it makes the Holy Spirit an energy of the Father and then we can REALLY talk about subordinationism.

Doesn't the Nicene Creed specifically state procession and begotten from 'the Father', though?

It does.  But the question is, how is one to understand that...That is always the question.
And the Fathers have already answered it. In 381.  Not in 589.

And it is for the Church and not human logic, or illogic, to answer.
And she had: too bad your scholastics confused the two.

This is all just Ooo-Rah for Orthodoxy.
Go ORTHODOX!

YEAH JESUS!

It has no substance and when you try to GIVE it substance you can only do it by distorting Catholic teaching.
I never distort Catholic teaching. I never even distort the Vatican's teaching, just dispute it.

That's pretty darn shabby...intellectually and spiritually.
+Sic dixit Maria Nov. 3, 2011

I always found it shabby to make assertions and to refuse to even try to substantiate them. filioque, IC, papal supremacy, papal infallibility and accusations of "de-incarnated" Orthodox Christology....the argument from (Vatican) authority-particularly by those who deny that they have part in its "magisterium"-does not lend any credence to ignoring plain facts.

"proceeds from the Father." period. "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father's essence, not having been generated but simply proceeding (John 15:26) For this is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the nature of the generation and the procession is quite beyond comprehension."  Full stop.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm
"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."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm
Quote
Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son: the object of equal adoration and glorification with the Father and Son, since He is co-essential and co-eternal : the Spirit of God, direct, authoritative , the fountain of wisdom, and life, and holiness: God existing and addressed along with Father and Son: uncreate, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord : deifying, not deified : filling, not filled: shared in, not sharing in: sanctifying, not sanctified: the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all: in all things like to the Father and Son: proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son, and participated in by all creation, through Himself creating, and investing with essence and sanctifying, and maintaining the universe: having subsistence, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, inseparable and indivisible from Father and Son, and possessing all the qualities that the Father and Son possess, save that of not being begotten or born. For the Father is without cause and unborn: for He is derived from nothing, but derives from Himself His being, nor does He derive a single quality from another. Rather He is Himself the beginning and cause of the existence of all things in a definite and natural manner. But the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous.

All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being : and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father , that is, because of the Father's existence , the Son and the Spirit exist , and through the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted. For in these hypo static or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence.

Further we say that each of the three has a perfect subsistence, that we may understand not one compound perfect nature made up of three imperfect elements, but one simple essence, surpassing and preceding perfection, existing in three perfect subsistences. For all that is composed of imperfect elements must necessarily be compound. But from perfect subsistences no compound can arise. Wherefore we do not speak of the form as from subsistences, but as in subsistences. But we speak of those things as imperfect which do not preserve the form of that which is completed out of them. For stone and wood and iron are each perfect in its own nature, but with reference to the building that is completed out of them each is imperfect: for none of them is in itself a house.

The subsistences then we say are perfect, that we may not conceive of the divine nature as compound. For compoundness is the beginning of separation. And again we speak of the three subsistences as being in each other , that we may not introduce a crowd and multitude of Gods. Owing to the three subsistences, there is no compoundness or confusion: while, owing to their having the same essence and dwelling in one another, and being the same in will, and energy, and power, and authority, and movement, so to speak, we recognise the indivisibility and the unity of God. For verily there is one God, and His word and Spirit.
filioque distorts the substance of that Catholic teaching.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #124 on: November 10, 2011, 03:12:56 PM »

Sorry I didn't get to this earlier.  I thought I owed Gabriel/Venuleius a response first.
Thanks for a great response, but let me play devil's advocate.

Nonsense?

Because that is what it is.  Odd coming from an Ultramontanist, given that they need-and demand we need-a "visible head," while we have no problem with Christ ruling the Church as the "invisible Head."

I think he might see invisibility as a sign of 'disincarnation'. ISTM he's working off an incarnate=visible idea.
Stepping back a moment, before the age of photography and mass media-indeed, maybe even back to before the invention of mass printing, how much more visible was the Vatican's "visible head" than Christ?  The present celebrity status of the sovereing of the Vatican, where perhaps even to the last hut in deepest, darkest Africa inhabited by a follower has a picture of his supreme pontiff-or at least knows what he looks like-does not reach back more than  two centuries, if that.  Such visibility did exist: the emperors, both pagan and Christian, had their image mass produced, and disfiguring one was capital offense (there is an amusing anecdote during the early Islamic conquests, where a Muslim inadvertedly shot a statue of the emperor on a border pillar, and the Muslims, to settle the matter, agreed to the Romans to carve a statue of the caliph-being Bedouin, the Muslims had no such things (not yet)-so that it could have a arrow shot in it to settle the score).  Caesar's image was on the coin of the realm for a reason: it is said that the switch to profile from full face (the medieval practice, the idea being similar to the canon of iconography of having the image in full engagement with the viewer by showing both eyes) came after the War of the Rose: profiles identiy the person better, and King Henry, after the civil war, wanted it clear who was the boss (later, King Louis XVI would rue that: he was recognized from the currency when he tried to escape France).  With the Gregorian Reform taking place during and after the Vatican's schism, the supreme pontiff pretty much settled down in Rome/Italy-when he was not in Avignon-so that nearly none of his followers would not recognize him if they looked him in the eye.  And then, who was the visible head here?

In contrast, one had a better than even chance of seeing the local bishop.  As Pope St. Leo observed "what was visible in our Savior has passed over into His Mysteries," St. Ignatius exhorted that "where the bishop is, let the people be, as where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church," and Christ Himself said "he who receives you receives Me."  As such, Christ the one highpriest resides in "the episcopate," which, as St. Cyprian observed, "is one, each one holding it for the whole."  This says it all:

(that's the real pope, btw).
Quote
Seems like another attempt to attack the Orthodox as somehow deficient in not having a "Vicar of Christ" "tanking the place of God on earth." Simple: He is ever present in the Orthodox Church,

He might say, as sacerdotium but not as regnum. His critique seems to be that the Orthodox Church acts a dispenser of sacraments, but does not image Christ's Kingship over creation. How do you address that? What is Christ's Kingship? How does it differ from earthly kingship? How is it similar? How does He exercise it? How does the Orthodox Church show it forth?
The Romans, taking their cue from Christ's own words "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's" had their answer:

"In God We Trust" (for the non-Americans, that is the slogan on all US coins/money).  It seems that Gabriel/Venuleius has this in mind

for "Christ the King" (a rather odd point of attact on the Orthodox, given that the Vatican instituted it less than a century ago, by the same sovereign of the Vatican who signed the Lateran treaty with Mussolini).  You will note that he wears a tiara, with a secular crown at His feet. Perhaps remembering the good ol' days

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
Christ Himself, however has ruled out theocracy, which is what Gabriel/Venuleius seems to be putting up as an ideal:"My Kingdom is not of this world."  It is for that reason that, although a monarchist, I cannot agree with those who argue that there must be a "God anointed sovereign."  St. Paul wrote to the Romans "honor the emperor" when he was Nero.  So too, I cannot agree with identifying political parties with the Church, nor forms of governance.

So, about Christ's kingship over creation, one needs only to go to the Great Blessing of water (unlike "Christ the King," a celebration of great antiquity) to find that:
Quote
Great are you, O Lord, and wonderful your works, and no word is adequate to sing the praise ofyour wonders. (Three times)
For by your own will you brought the universe from non-existence into being, you hold creationtogether by your might, and by your providence you direct the world. You composed creation from four elements; with four seasons you crowned the circle of the year. All the spiritual Powers tremble before you. The sun sings your praise, the moon glorifies you, the stars entreat you, thelight obeys you, the deeps tremble before you, the springs are your servants. You stretched out theheavens on the waters; you walled in the sea with sand; you poured out the air for breathing. Angelic Powers minister to you. The choirs of the Archangels worship you. The many-eyedCherubim and the six-winged Seraphim as they stand and fly around you hide their faces in fear ofyour unapproachable glory. For you, being God uncircumscribed, without beginning andinexpressible, came upon earth, taking the form of a servant, being found in the likeness of man. For you could not bear, O Master, in the compassion of your mercy to watch mankind beingtyrannised by the devil, but you came and saved us. We acknowledge your grace, we proclaim your mercy, we do not conceal your benevolence. You freed the generations of our race. Yousanctified a virgin womb by your birth. All creation sang your praise when you appeared. For youare our God, who appeared on earth and lived among men. You sanctified the streams of Jordan bysending down from heaven your All-holy Spirit and you crushed the heads of the dragons thatlurked there.

(And the Priest says this verse three times, blessing the water with his hand at each verse):Therefore, O King, lover of mankind, be present now too through the visitation of your Holy Spirit,and sanctify this water

There is more I can say on the subject of Christian kingship (e.g. the Legend of the Last Roman Emperor, who conquers the world and then goes to Jerusalem to lay his crown down on Calvary), which I'll have to leave now for later.

Quote
so He-and we-don't need a "Vicar."

And He is present physically-deincarnation would cause the whole very visible role of the Holy Icons to collapse in Orthodoxy.  Since I haven't seen that, I have no idea where they are getting this "deincarnation" in the Orthodox Church from.

He mentions the idea that Orthodox icons are too 'ascetical' or 'mystical'. Again the idea that incarnate=visible (in this case in the sense of 'realistic').

The problem is that the sanctity of the saint, invisible to invisible eyes, is no less real.  That is why a photo is not an icon: it doesn't capture that.

infrared photos are don't look like a photograph either

are they any less real or of this physical reality thereby?

Quote
Maybe he is upset that we do not share the Vatican's thirst for gore,

I think he might say what we see as a thirst for gore is a real, thoroughgoing commitment to the real, true, literal humanity of Christ.
The Christians of the first millenium, even in the West and Rome itself, were not slacking in commitment to the real, true, literal humanity of Christ, yet we see none of this obsession with body parts and "bleeding all over the place" as someone put it, until after Rome ran off the rails 1054 or thereabouts.  There is an emphasis on the Eucharist being a bloodless sacrifice. We should all hold that thought, as it entails no denial of Christ's humanity.  The gore seems a derivative of the mentality of the Tenebrae service, conducted as if we did not know how the story ends.

Quote
the fetish for displaying body parts or the obsession to put His mother on a par with Him.  Oh, well. That's their problem, not ours.

There is also not a too thinly disguised swipe at Orthodoxy as "Caesaropapism."  Of course, besides the transformation of the church into a Papal state-despite the clear words during that passion he refers to "My Kingdom is not of this world"

He seems to draw a distinction between "of this world", "in this world". He seems to think Orthodoxy, in stressing that Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, has pushed it altogether out of this world. For him, Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, but is in this world. I would tend to agree with that. But if not the Vatican, what does Christ's not-of-but-in-this-world Kingdom look like?
In our present world in the USA? Voting your conscience.  Symphonia is a Christian concept to the core.  The papal states is not, any more than the Holy Governing Synod is.

Quote
-the Vatican is always selective in its condemnation of "Caesaropapism."  It of course defends to the death the act of the Germanic kings in overturning the Tradition of Orthodox Rome, reiterated by Popes and inscribed on the doors of St. Peter's itself, in the insertion of the filioque in the mass at Rome, praises the Emperors of the Romans who dragged the bishops from the Orthodox patriarchates to submit to the Vatican in return for armies to defend their kingdom of this world, and celebrates the imposition of "union" by the Polish King (at the time trying to overturn the reformation in his native Sweden, and promising Polish lords Russian lands to make up for those lost to Sweden).  It isn't upset that we allegedly say "we have no king but Caesar," but that we refuse to recognize Caesar's successor as pontifex maximus as "Caesar" and "Supreme Pontiff."

I've been to many Orthodox Churches which had no Pantocrator in the dome.  I've never been to one which did not have an Icon of the Theotokos and Child (how He came) flanking the altar (how He comes now).

"It’s almost as if Christ’s Kingship can’t be understand when he was “just” leading the Apostles around Galilee or “just” enduring questioning, mockery, physical assault, etc. He had to be positioned in the Heavens, with a choir of angels and Saints, to be a King." Nearly every large Orthodox Cross I've seen has, above the Crucifixed Christ the inscription "King of Glory."

The N word I was thinking was Nestorian. It seems there is a similar concern for defending the integrity of humanity in the Incarnation, and a similar result: the Word of God assuming not humanity but a man (as you said, a visible Vicar of Christ, "taking the place of God on earth").
Yes, btw the elaborate rituals that surrounded the sovereign of the Vatican until lately, are largely taken from the court of Caesar (like the office of "supreme pontiff") and of New Rome.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2011, 03:15:09 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #125 on: November 13, 2011, 02:25:09 AM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.
I agree.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #126 on: November 13, 2011, 11:47:01 AM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.
I agree.

Would you say that he proceeds in substance from the Person of the Father?
Logged

Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #127 on: November 13, 2011, 04:07:14 PM »

Isa, Tenebrae is a quite ancient service, well before the Rome went off the rails, as you put it, well before the 800s even. How are you connecting it to the "gore"?
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #128 on: November 13, 2011, 05:09:53 PM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.
I agree.

Would you say that he proceeds in substance from the Person of the Father?
I'm not Apotheoun, whom I am convinced is far more brilliant than I am when it comes to this sort of stuff, but I think there would first have to be an agreement on what substance (ousia) is. I think the East and West disagree on this, from my limited experience.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2011, 05:11:07 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,151


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #129 on: November 13, 2011, 05:19:37 PM »

Isa, Tenebrae is a quite ancient service, well before the Rome went off the rails, as you put it, well before the 800s even. How are you connecting it to the "gore"?

I know of the existence of Tenebrae, but am unfamiliar with its form and content. However, I can say that even the Orthodox Matins of Holy Saturday (conducted on Great Friday evening), while commemorating perhaps the darkest phase of the Passion of Christ - His entombment - still contain glimmers of anticipation of the inexpressible joy and brightness of the Resurrection. All is not beyond hope. Here's an example:

O my Son and my God, though I am wounded to the core and torn to the heart as I see You dead, yet confident in Your resurrection, I magnify You.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #130 on: November 13, 2011, 05:25:31 PM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.
I agree.

Would you say that he proceeds in substance from the Person of the Father?
I'm not Apotheoun, whom I am convinced is far more brilliant than I am when it comes to this sort of stuff, but I think there would first have to be an agreement on what substance (ousia) is. I think the East and West disagree on this, from my limited experience.

You think we disagree on the substance/essence of God?

Well that is quite something!

 Smiley

Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #131 on: November 14, 2011, 01:26:30 AM »

Isa, Tenebrae is a quite ancient service, well before the Rome went off the rails, as you put it, well before the 800s even. How are you connecting it to the "gore"?
It's general tenor, once Rome had gone off the rails and having nothing to anchor it, drifted towards the "Jesus bled all over the place" as someone posted in the linked blog, the emphasis of the Crucifixion being seperated from the Resurrection-as if we do not know how the story ends-would heighten the elements of the Good Friday story, which has a lot of blood in it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #132 on: November 14, 2011, 09:15:32 AM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.
I agree.

Would you say that he proceeds in substance from the Person of the Father?
No, I would say that He proceeds hypostatically from the Father, which means that He receives His subsistence and essence from the person of the Father alone.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #133 on: November 14, 2011, 10:53:28 AM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.
I agree.

Would you say that he proceeds in substance from the Person of the Father?
No, I would say that He proceeds hypostatically from the Father, which means that He receives His subsistence and essence from the person of the Father alone.

Is the essence of the Holy Spirit not the essence of the Father?

And is the essence of the Son not the essence of the Father?

And is the essence of the Father not the essence of the Holy Spirit and the Son?

Are there THREE essences?
« Last Edit: November 14, 2011, 10:58:40 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #134 on: November 14, 2011, 10:57:42 AM »

It was not "divinity" nor was it "humanity" in some abstract sense that defeated the devil; instead, it was Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, who defeated death (and the devil) by dying and rising from the dead.

Natures do not act, only persons act, and it is a form of Nestorianism to say otherwise.
In a similar vein, the importance of the filioque: the Spirit does not proceed from the divine nature, but from the Person of the Father.
I agree.

Would you say that he proceeds in substance from the Person of the Father?
No, I would say that He proceeds hypostatically from the Father, which means that He receives His subsistence and essence from the person of the Father alone.

Is the essence of the Holy Spirit not the essence of the Father?
So the Spirit begets the Son?

And is not the essence of the Son not the essence of the Father?
So the Father is begotten?

And is not the essence of the Father not the essence of the Holy Spirit and the Son?
Are you arguing for modalism?

Are there THREE essences?
ONE in essence.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  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 0.239 seconds with 72 queries.