OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 04:28:39 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: 16-year-old Latin whiz finds new liturgy language lacking  (Read 8010 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: November 03, 2011, 12:31:26 PM »

Is this kid correct about the Greek?

Quote
On the revised Roman missal
 
By Erik Baker
 
It's definitely a better translation. That's probably the biggest misconception that critics of the recent revision of the General Roman Missal have. They perceive the new translation as some sort of conservative formalization of the text that is only ostensibly more faithful to the Latin. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Though there are some changes that really are no better, and certainly tend towards archaic jargon, the vast majority of the dramatic shifts -- especially to the Confiteor, the Gloria, and the Nicene Creed -- are certainly far more accurate.
 
In fact, looking over the Latin, it’s quite clear that the former translation didn't even attempt to be literal. So the question clearly isn't "is it a better translation," if "better" is defined in terms of accuracy vis-a-vis the Latin. The question is "is a more accurate translation desirable?" For many that question will seem like a no-brainer. Of course we want to stay as close to the Latin as possible. And yet, I think it's valuable to use these changes as an opportunity to examine the value of the Latin Mass and ultimately the nature of the Mass itself. I think that the conclusions might be startling.
....
The next major change is to the Gloria. Most of the changes are innocuous enough, but there's one at the beginning of the prayer that seems bizarre to me. The familiar "and peace to his people on earth" is changed to "on earth peace to people of good will." Not only is the latter far more awkward in English, but there's also a problematic sentiment implicit in the new phrase. Why are we only praying that people "of good will" receive peace? This seems to say that people who are without "good will" are not deserving of peace.

But what is "good will"? It seems to me that it could either mean "good" in the virtuous sense of the word, or, more specifically, Catholic. In either case, it expresses a profoundly anti-Christian sentiment. The notion that only moral or Christian people deserve peace and our prayers is anathema to everything Jesus ever taught. There is simply no sound reason for abandoning "love your enemies" simply because it’s closer to the Latin. The original Greek text recognizes this, and expresses "goodwill to all people." Ironically, the Latin is then actually a mistranslation of the Greek. This just highlights the fact that the possibility of human error doesn’t disappear when writing church texts. It’s hard to see what inherent reason we have for respecting this highly fallible process.

Finally, I think the changes to the Nicene Creed merit some discussion. As before, all of them have good grounding in the Latin, but it's the Latin that's problematic. The first is the fact that all of the "believe"s are in the first person. This destroys the sense of communal vision found in the "we believe" of the previous translation. Faith becomes something of the individual, by the individual, for the individual -- ironically, a very Protestant idea. Catholicism is supposed to value unity and togetherness. 

« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 12:33:49 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2011, 12:50:53 PM »

Would seem to be. (Good will towards men in Greek)

Quote
Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία. Ὑμνοῦμέν σε, εὐλογοῦμέν σε, προσκυνοῦμέν σε, δοξολογοῦμέν σε, εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, διὰ τὴν μεγάλην σου δόξαν. Κύριε Βασιλεῦ, ἐπουράνιε Θεέ, Πάτερ παντοκράτορ, Κύριε Υἱὲ μονογενές, Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, καὶ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. Κύριε ὁ Θεός, ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ Υἱός τοῦ Πατρός, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, ὁ αἴρων τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ κόσμου. Πρόσδεξαι τὴν δέησιν ἡμῶν, ὁ καθήμενος ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Πατρός, καὶ ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς. Ὅτι σὺ εἶ μόνος Ἅγιος, σὺ εἶ μόνος Κύριος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ Πατρός. Ἀμήν.
http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Oro/Orthros.uni.htm


I don't know how modern this is though.  Grin Wink
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 12:51:34 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2011, 12:51:57 PM »

To be frank, this was nonsense.

The creed in Latin AND Greek liturgy has been done "I believe" ever since it was used in baptisms in the 4th century. There's nothing Protestant about it at all.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2011, 12:53:05 PM »

Also, nobody "deserves peace." It's a free unmerited gift of the Lord, and only those of good will are willing to receive it.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2011, 12:54:09 PM »

Ha. Just clicked the link. National "Catholic" Reporter. Why am I not surprised?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2011, 12:55:15 PM »

Ha. Just clicked the link. National "Catholic" Reporter. Why am I not surprised?

Fishwrap? lol...
Logged


I'm going to need this.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2011, 12:56:17 PM »

Is this kid correct about the Greek?

Quote
On the revised Roman missal


Finally, I think the changes to the Nicene Creed merit some discussion. As before, all of them have good grounding in the Latin, but it's the Latin that's problematic. The first is the fact that all of the "believe"s are in the first person. This destroys the sense of communal vision found in the "we believe" of the previous translation. Faith becomes something of the individual, by the individual, for the individual -- ironically, a very Protestant idea. Catholicism is supposed to value unity and togetherness. 



This kid's observations are pretty solid with regards to the Latin language, though I wouldn't call him a Latin whiz by any stretch of the imagination.

His objection to the Gloria translation is built on solid ground.  It's not a problem with being faithful to the Latin though since "peace to people of good will" is what the Latin says.  The problem is that St. Jerome got it screwed up and that has remained the "official" translation of the Roman Catholic Church ever since.  In fact, the kid does say that what's problematic is the Latin text in the first place.

But his last point is not built upon the actual Latin text.  His objection is more subjective.  The original "I believe" of the Greek and Latin texts of the Nicene Creed is first person--Pistevo in Greek; Credo in Latin.  His objection that "we believe" remains the communal nature of the Catholic Church and makes it Protestant is mistaken and is a straw man.  Can't have "I believe"--that's Protestant.  Oh, no! Wink  Now, unless I'm mistaken, only later did the Greeks change from the 1st person singular to the plural--Pistevo became pistevomen.  I don't know about other orthodox communions and their preference.

One is not saved by another's faith.  Saying "I believe" vs. "We believe" does not destroy community and promote individualism, as he contends.  A bunch of I's confessing the same faith is communal.  
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2011, 12:59:28 PM »

Also, nobody "deserves peace." It's a free unmerited gift of the Lord, and only those of good will are willing to receive it.

To be honest, I thought the 'assessment' was a bit thin, as well.

The Orthodox pray for "all Orthodox Christians". Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers". People of 'goodwill' are special because they live the word of God. It is fitting to pray for their blessing, or should I say "peace" with them.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2011, 01:00:41 PM »

But his last point is not built upon the actual Latin text.  His objection is more subjective.  The original "I believe" of the Greek and Latin texts of the Nicene Creed is first person--Pistevo in Greek; Credo in Latin.  
What about this statement from OrthoWiki:

Quote
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as it is recited in Orthodox worship today uses the first person ("I believe..."/"Πιστεύω") rather than the first person plural as it was enacted at the councils.


Was the "original" form first person plural?

(Perhaps the kid is "leaning East"?)
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 01:02:01 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2011, 01:07:40 PM »

Ha. Just clicked the link. National "Catholic" Reporter. Why am I not surprised?

Fishwrap? lol...

And his trashing of the Confiteor as too "negative" about humanity is idiotic. Who does this kid think he is?

It does say something though that the usual array of geriatric hippies at the Fishwrap make no better arguments than a confused teenager does.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2011, 01:08:12 PM »

The problem is that St. Jerome got it screwed up and that has remained the "official" translation of the Roman Catholic Church ever since.  

I've had a real problem with this stance, in all cases. It doesn't sit well with me, and it reeks of 'ad hominem' apologetics.

Besides, (1) the church of Rome was Greek at the time of the translation, and (2) the church of Rome was "Orthodox" at the time. To say the translation was bad is to deny the these statements.

Additionally, which is more probable:

(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.

OR

(2) That the translations to Latin encapsulates the original teaching of the Church by cross-referencing the Teachings of the Church in a second language.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2011, 01:09:39 PM »

In the Coptic Orthodox Church we say "we believe".
Logged

scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2011, 01:34:29 PM »

The problem is that St. Jerome got it screwed up and that has remained the "official" translation of the Roman Catholic Church ever since.  

I've had a real problem with this stance, in all cases. It doesn't sit well with me, and it reeks of 'ad hominem' apologetics.


St. Jerome made a bad translation in that particular passage. That's not ad hominem.  Any first year student of koine Greek and Latin would be able to tell you that.  Stop the histrionics.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2011, 01:36:11 PM »

Was the "original" form first person plural?

(Perhaps the kid is "leaning East"?)

No, the original was first person singular and only later was it first person plural.  I would like to know what the BUlgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Russians, Greeks, Arabs, etc all say now with regards to the first words of the creed. Is it "I believe" or "we believe?"

Maybe I'll make a poll question out of it.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
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: 37,866



« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2011, 01:36:57 PM »

Is this kid correct about the Greek?

Quote
On the revised Roman missal


Finally, I think the changes to the Nicene Creed merit some discussion. As before, all of them have good grounding in the Latin, but it's the Latin that's problematic. The first is the fact that all of the "believe"s are in the first person. This destroys the sense of communal vision found in the "we believe" of the previous translation. Faith becomes something of the individual, by the individual, for the individual -- ironically, a very Protestant idea. Catholicism is supposed to value unity and togetherness. 



This kid's observations are pretty solid with regards to the Latin language, though I wouldn't call him a Latin whiz by any stretch of the imagination.

His objection to the Gloria translation is built on solid ground.  It's not a problem with being faithful to the Latin though since "peace to people of good will" is what the Latin says.  The problem is that St. Jerome got it screwed up and that has remained the "official" translation of the Roman Catholic Church ever since.  In fact, the kid does say that what's problematic is the Latin text in the first place.

But his last point is not built upon the actual Latin text.  His objection is more subjective.  The original "I believe" of the Greek and Latin texts of the Nicene Creed is first person--Pistevo in Greek; Credo in Latin.  His objection that "we believe" remains the communal nature of the Catholic Church and makes it Protestant is mistaken and is a straw man.  Can't have "I believe"--that's Protestant.  Oh, no! Wink  Now, unless I'm mistaken, only later did the Greeks change from the 1st person singular to the plural--Pistevo became pistevomen.  I don't know about other orthodox communions and their preference.

One is not saved by another's faith.  Saying "I believe" vs. "We believe" does not destroy community and promote individualism, as he contends.  A bunch of I's confessing the same faith is communal.  

Actually, St. Jerome translated the Bible, not the Divine Liturgy, a fact that came immediately to a head as the Faithful, familiar with the old Latin texts, were confronted with St. Jerome's newly revised ones.  

The Creed was originally first person plural, as the Fathers were speaking for the Church, giving her voice.  It was changed to the first person when it was adapted (back) to indiviuals making the Faith of the Church their own in baptism/chrismation, when a bishop elect gave his testimony to it at his consecration, etc.
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
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2011, 01:39:05 PM »

^I didn't say that St. Jerome translated the liturgy. I was referring to his translation of the Lucan passage which has been rendered in the hymn, Gloria in Excelsis, "And on earth peace to men of good will."

I never mentioned St. Jerome in my appraisal of first person singular vs plural.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2011, 01:41:21 PM »


No, the original was first person singular and only later was it first person plural.  I would like to know what the BUlgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Russians, Greeks, Arabs, etc all say now with regards to the first words of the creed. Is it "I believe" or "we believe?"

Maybe I'll make a poll question out of it.


Take the poll here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,40766.msg664107.html#msg664107
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2011, 01:41:43 PM »

^I didn't say that St. Jerome translated the liturgy. I was referring to his translation of the Lucan passage which has been rendered in the hymn, Gloria in Excelsis, "And on earth peace to men of good will."

I never mentioned St. Jerome in my appraisal of first person singular vs plural.
But you did write: "the original was first person singular and only later was it first person plural".
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2011, 01:43:54 PM »

^I didn't say that St. Jerome translated the liturgy. I was referring to his translation of the Lucan passage which has been rendered in the hymn, Gloria in Excelsis, "And on earth peace to men of good will."

I never mentioned St. Jerome in my appraisal of first person singular vs plural.
But you did write: "the original was first person singular and only later was it first person plural".

I didn't say that was St. Jerome though.  Please read what I wrote:

But his last point is not built upon the actual Latin text.  His objection is more subjective.  The original "I believe" of the Greek and Latin texts of the Nicene Creed is first person--Pistevo in Greek; Credo in Latin.  His objection that "we believe" remains the communal nature of the Catholic Church and makes it Protestant is mistaken and is a straw man.  Can't have "I believe"--that's Protestant.  Oh, no! Wink  Now, unless I'm mistaken, only later did the Greeks change from the 1st person singular to the plural--Pistevo became pistevomen.  I don't know about other orthodox communions and their preference.

Do you see St. Jerome anywhere? 
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
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: 37,866



« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2011, 01:51:49 PM »

The problem is that St. Jerome got it screwed up and that has remained the "official" translation of the Roman Catholic Church ever since.  

I've had a real problem with this stance, in all cases. It doesn't sit well with me, and it reeks of 'ad hominem' apologetics.

Besides, (1) the church of Rome was Greek at the time of the translation,
no, Rome was moving on to Latin by the 4th century, and would more or less complete it with Vulgate.

and (2) the church of Rome was "Orthodox" at the time.
True enough, although it is apparent from St. Jerome's writings and elsewhere, that strange ideas were already floating around the west.

To say the translation was bad is to deny the these statements.
No, the translation can still be bad.  Look at Genesis 3:15, and the trouble it has helped cause.

Additionally, which is more probable:

(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.
Plenty of evidence there.  St. Augustine himself comes out and explicitely says that, and the history of the filioque demonstrates it.

OR

(2) That the translations to Latin encapsulates the original teaching of the Church by cross-referencing the Teachings of the Church in a second language.
It could, or it has been modified to reflect those innovations in the original teaching of the Church when "translating" (maybe better to say, "paraphrasing") it into a second language.
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
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2011, 01:54:34 PM »

^I didn't say that St. Jerome translated the liturgy. I was referring to his translation of the Lucan passage which has been rendered in the hymn, Gloria in Excelsis, "And on earth peace to men of good will."

I never mentioned St. Jerome in my appraisal of first person singular vs plural.
But you did write: "the original was first person singular and only later was it first person plural".

I didn't say that was St. Jerome though.  Please read what I wrote:

But his last point is not built upon the actual Latin text.  His objection is more subjective.  The original "I believe" of the Greek and Latin texts of the Nicene Creed is first person--Pistevo in Greek; Credo in Latin.  His objection that "we believe" remains the communal nature of the Catholic Church and makes it Protestant is mistaken and is a straw man.  Can't have "I believe"--that's Protestant.  Oh, no! Wink  Now, unless I'm mistaken, only later did the Greeks change from the 1st person singular to the plural--Pistevo became pistevomen.  I don't know about other orthodox communions and their preference.

Do you see St. Jerome anywhere? 
No, but I'm trying to see where you stand on the simple point of which was the original form of the creed: first person singular or plural.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
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: 37,866



« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2011, 01:54:57 PM »

^I didn't say that St. Jerome translated the liturgy. I was referring to his translation of the Lucan passage which has been rendered in the hymn, Gloria in Excelsis, "And on earth peace to men of good will."

I never mentioned St. Jerome in my appraisal of first person singular vs plural.
The paragraphs were seperate issues.

The translation of the hymn is attributed to St. Hilary of Poitiers, not St. Jerome.
Quote
The tradition is that it was translated into Latin by St. Hilary of Poitiers (d. 366). It is quite possible that he learned it during his exile in the East (360) and brought back a version of it with him (so Belethus, "Rationale divinorum officiorum", c. 36; Duandus "Rationale", IV, 13, who thinks that he only added from "Laudamus te" to the Mass, and notes that Innocent III attributes it to Telesphorus, others to Symmachus). In any case, the Latin version differs from the present Greek form. They correspond down to the end of the Latin, which however adds: "Tu solus altissimus" and "Cum sancto Spiritu". The Greek then goes on: "Every day I will bless thee and will glorify thy name for ever, and for ever and ever" and continues with ten more verses, chiefly from psalms, to the Trisagion and Gloria Patri.

The "Liber pontificalis" says "Pope Telesphorus [128-139?] ordered that . . . on the Birth of the Lord Masses should be said at night . . . and that the angelic hymn, that is Gloria in Excelsis Deo, should be said before the sacrifice" (ed. Duchesne, I, 129); also "that Pope Symmachus [498-514] ordered that the hymn, Gloria in excelsis, should be said every Sunday and on the feasts [natalicia] of martyrs." The Gloria is to be said in its present place, after the "Introit" and "Kyrie", but only by bishops (ibid., 263). We see it then introduced first for Christmas, on the feast to which it specially belongs, then extended to Sundays and certain great feasts, but only for bishops.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06583a.htm

btw, the original Creed as issued by the Councils was in the first person plural.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 01:57:09 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
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2011, 01:58:58 PM »

No, but I'm trying to see where you stand on the simple point of which was the original form of the creed: first person singular or plural.

Personally, I say "I believe"--Credo or Pistevo.  That was the original and later it was changed.  Don't know the year. I also don't know what other jurisdictions use and whether their current usage stems from when they were first converted (e.g. Did the Russians under Vladimir learn "We believe" or "I believe."). 
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
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: 37,866



« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2011, 02:05:51 PM »

No, but I'm trying to see where you stand on the simple point of which was the original form of the creed: first person singular or plural.

Personally, I say "I believe"--Credo or Pistevo.  That was the original and later it was changed.  Don't know the year. I also don't know what other jurisdictions use and whether their current usage stems from when they were first converted (e.g. Did the Russians under Vladimir learn "We believe" or "I believe."). 
What do you mean by "the original"?  The creeds that were adapted by the Fathers at Nicea and Constantinople, or the Creed issued by the Fathers at those Councils?
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
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,042



« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2011, 02:07:22 PM »

^The former.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2011, 02:58:43 PM »


(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.


What does that say about all the Greek speaking heretics, such as the arch-heretics Nestorius and Arius, a patriarch and a priest (and therefore "well catechized")?
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,065



« Reply #26 on: November 03, 2011, 04:40:02 PM »

I don't think that kid's analysis is that great, and let's face it; it is a kid's paper.  When I was a kid we could have our theories and points but they weren't added into adult conversation.  With the advent of the internet every kid that can speak or writes thinks he is on par with an adult and is entitled to be accepted as one.  Maybe I grew up in a different society where you had growing up to do and that included learning how to form full and thoughtful opinions and then proving yourself as a young adult and finally having your say, opinions, etc.. accepted on the same merit as the elders in the community. 
Therefore, I don't care what this kid thinks.  He is a kid.  The folks that worked on the translation are educated folk.  He quotes protestanism as being individualistic but in essence that is what he is doing by critiquing the new translation.  I think the new translation was done rather well.  And yes, I know a thing or two about Latin.
Logged

William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Time-wasting self-embarrassing anti-Christian hater
Posts: 4,352



« Reply #27 on: November 03, 2011, 04:53:06 PM »

To be frank, this was nonsense.

The creed in Latin AND Greek liturgy has been done "I believe" ever since it was used in baptisms in the 4th century. There's nothing Protestant about it at all.

Agreed. His comments about "I believe" vs "we believe" bothered me.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
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: 37,866



« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2011, 05:48:35 PM »

I don't think that kid's analysis is that great, and let's face it; it is a kid's paper.  When I was a kid we could have our theories and points but they weren't added into adult conversation.  With the advent of the internet every kid that can speak or writes thinks he is on par with an adult and is entitled to be accepted as one.  Maybe I grew up in a different society where you had growing up to do and that included learning how to form full and thoughtful opinions and then proving yourself as a young adult and finally having your say, opinions, etc.. accepted on the same merit as the elders in the community. 
Therefore, I don't care what this kid thinks.  He is a kid.  The folks that worked on the translation are educated folk.  He quotes protestanism as being individualistic but in essence that is what he is doing by critiquing the new translation.  I think the new translation was done rather well.  And yes, I know a thing or two about Latin.
To be fair, I've seen plenty of adults voice the same analysis as the kid.  So I can't fault it because he is a kid. I fault it because he doesn't know what he is talking about (which might be connected with him being a kid.  The adults of the same opinion have other, varying excuses).
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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2011, 06:57:06 PM »


(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.


What does that say about all the Greek speaking heretics, such as the arch-heretics Nestorius and Arius, a patriarch and a priest (and therefore "well catechized")?

I'm sorry, I don't follow.
Logged


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

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



WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2011, 07:08:01 PM »

The problem is that St. Jerome got it screwed up and that has remained the "official" translation of the Roman Catholic Church ever since. 

I've had a real problem with this stance, in all cases. It doesn't sit well with me, and it reeks of 'ad hominem' apologetics.

Besides, (1) the church of Rome was Greek at the time of the translation,
no, Rome was moving on to Latin by the 4th century, and would more or less complete it with Vulgate.

and (2) the church of Rome was "Orthodox" at the time.
True enough, although it is apparent from St. Jerome's writings and elsewhere, that strange ideas were already floating around the west.

To say the translation was bad is to deny the these statements.
No, the translation can still be bad.  Look at Genesis 3:15, and the trouble it has helped cause.

Additionally, which is more probable:

(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.
Plenty of evidence there.  St. Augustine himself comes out and explicitely says that, and the history of the filioque demonstrates it.

OR

(2) That the translations to Latin encapsulates the original teaching of the Church by cross-referencing the Teachings of the Church in a second language.
It could, or it has been modified to reflect those innovations in the original teaching of the Church when "translating" (maybe better to say, "paraphrasing") it into a second language.

So for, what, 600 years there were (apparently big) bad teaching secretly brewing in the west. All the while with constant exchange with the east, AND with byzantine bishops becoming Pope. Yet, no one noticed until recently?

And Gen 3:15. Isn't the Greek ambiguous to the gender?
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 07:13:28 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2011, 07:38:01 PM »


(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.


What does that say about all the Greek speaking heretics, such as the arch-heretics Nestorius and Arius, a patriarch and a priest (and therefore "well catechized")?

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

You seem to be insinuating that the reason the West "was in heresy a lot early on" was due to their inability to read Greek and not being very well catechized.  Considering that Rome had a reputation "early on" for being a bulwark of the True Faith while the Greek speaking East was dabbling in all sorts of heresies, especially the two big ones that damn near buried the early Church, I'm asking for clarification of your point here.  The Greek East engaged in far more heresy than the Latin West did during the first 800 years of the Church.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2011, 07:51:19 PM »


(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.


What does that say about all the Greek speaking heretics, such as the arch-heretics Nestorius and Arius, a patriarch and a priest (and therefore "well catechized")?

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

You seem to be insinuating that the reason the West "was in heresy a lot early on" was due to their inability to read Greek and not being very well catechized.  Considering that Rome had a reputation "early on" for being a bulwark of the True Faith while the Greek speaking East was dabbling in all sorts of heresies, especially the two big ones that damn near buried the early Church, I'm asking for clarification of your point here.  The Greek East engaged in far more heresy than the Latin West did during the first 800 years of the Church.

Oh. I was being sarcastic, actually. I was playing on that Rome was rarely, if ever, in heresy early on, and lauded by the Fathers for this.

That being said. I meant it doesn't seem right to say they could be so wrong, not causing question with anyone else until near the schism.

Especially considering this was all done before the split of even the OO.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 03, 2011, 07:53:46 PM »


(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.


What does that say about all the Greek speaking heretics, such as the arch-heretics Nestorius and Arius, a patriarch and a priest (and therefore "well catechized")?

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

You seem to be insinuating that the reason the West "was in heresy a lot early on" was due to their inability to read Greek and not being very well catechized.  Considering that Rome had a reputation "early on" for being a bulwark of the True Faith while the Greek speaking East was dabbling in all sorts of heresies, especially the two big ones that damn near buried the early Church, I'm asking for clarification of your point here.  The Greek East engaged in far more heresy than the Latin West did during the first 800 years of the Church.

Oh. I was being sarcastic, actually. I was playing on that Rome was rarely, if ever, in heresy early on, and lauded by the Fathers for this.

That being said. I meant it doesn't seem right to say they could be so wrong, not causing question with anyone else until near the schism.

Especially considering this was all done before the split of even the OO.

Gotcha.  I thought your post sounded a little odd.  I suppose just asking you if you were being sarcastic would have been better, but I've made it a habit of being obtuse and argumentative, as of late. Smiley
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #34 on: November 03, 2011, 08:22:30 PM »

I remember hearing about this new translation of the Gloria and thinking how strange it was. I've never heard it rendered that way. All of the Bibles I've read the passage in or the Orthodox services I've been to that include it have always said some variation on, "...and on earth, peace and good will towards men." This is true to the Greek, as was posted above. The new translation for the Mass is surely not accurate, though I can see how people that don't know Greek very well could mess it up. The whole phrase is:

"Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

to give a parallel:

"Glory in highest to God and upon Earth peace in men goodwill."

Taken from that, I can see getting either translation, but what makes it mean what it does is wrapped up in the use of case and preposition. The prepositional phrase we're looking at is:

"ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

The word ἀνθρώποις is in the dative, meaning "to men" (i.e., humankind, for the P.C. folks Wink) the preposition "ἐν" can mean quite a lot, as most Greek preposition can mean quite a lot. We can understand it as "on, in, to, towards, etc." but "of" (as in "men of goodwill") isn't really in the right tenor of the word. It has this connotation of approaching, being within, etc. it's a state of relation, not a state of being, if that makes sense. We can't really use this word to talk about the quality of a noun, only it's relationship to something. This can't really mean that we're only talking about people who are of goodwill (i.e., "εὐδοκία" which could also be understood as "good tidings" or "blessings.")

As for the Latin...I don't have a clue. I've not studied Latin nearly as much as I have Greek. Nor do I know the history of the Gloria in Latin translation.

----

As for the Creed, it has always been my understanding that Nicaea I wrote it as "We believe", thus speaking in consensus as a Council on behalf of the whole Church. When It was adopted into the baptismal service and the Liturgy, it was changed to the singular "I believe" so that those reciting it were confessing their own belief in the Creed, thus displaying that they hold to the Orthodox Faith as members of the Church. I have never been to an Orthodox Liturgy in which the Creed was recited "We believe."

Personally, I prefer it be "I believe" in the Liturgy, as that is how it is done traditionally. The comments of this kid are really quite unfounded on this particular assertion.

Anyway...just my two cents...
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 08:23:32 PM by Benjamin the Red » Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #35 on: November 03, 2011, 08:35:58 PM »

In the Coptic Orthodox Church we say "we believe".

go figure...
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 03, 2011, 08:45:10 PM »

"ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

The word ἀνθρώποις is in the dative, meaning "to men" (i.e., humankind, for the P.C. folks Wink) the preposition "ἐν" can mean quite a lot, as most Greek preposition can mean quite a lot. We can understand it as "on, in, to, towards, etc." but "of" (as in "men of goodwill") isn't really in the right tenor of the word. It has this connotation of approaching, being within, etc. it's a state of relation, not a state of being, if that makes sense. We can't really use this word to talk about the quality of a noun, only it's relationship to something. This can't really mean that we're only talking about people who are of goodwill (i.e., "εὐδοκία" which could also be understood as "good tidings" or "blessings.")

As for the Latin...I don't have a clue. I've not studied Latin nearly as much as I have Greek. Nor do I know the history of the Gloria in Latin translation.

"et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis"

"and on Earth, peace to men of good will."

"Bonae voluntatis" is in the Genitive form. So literally "men whom have good will".

Can ἐν be understood as 'with', whereas you'd say "to men with good will" or "to men 'in the direction of' good will"? I'm not very well versed in Greek.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 08:45:43 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
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: 37,866



« Reply #37 on: November 03, 2011, 09:46:05 PM »

The problem is that St. Jerome got it screwed up and that has remained the "official" translation of the Roman Catholic Church ever since. 

I've had a real problem with this stance, in all cases. It doesn't sit well with me, and it reeks of 'ad hominem' apologetics.

Besides, (1) the church of Rome was Greek at the time of the translation,
no, Rome was moving on to Latin by the 4th century, and would more or less complete it with Vulgate.

and (2) the church of Rome was "Orthodox" at the time.
True enough, although it is apparent from St. Jerome's writings and elsewhere, that strange ideas were already floating around the west.

To say the translation was bad is to deny the these statements.
No, the translation can still be bad.  Look at Genesis 3:15, and the trouble it has helped cause.

Additionally, which is more probable:

(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.
Plenty of evidence there.  St. Augustine himself comes out and explicitely says that, and the history of the filioque demonstrates it.

OR

(2) That the translations to Latin encapsulates the original teaching of the Church by cross-referencing the Teachings of the Church in a second language.
It could, or it has been modified to reflect those innovations in the original teaching of the Church when "translating" (maybe better to say, "paraphrasing") it into a second language.

So for, what, 600 years there were (apparently big) bad teaching secretly brewing in the west. All the while with constant exchange with the east, AND with byzantine bishops becoming Pope. Yet, no one noticed until recently?

It is interesting how the Vatican's followers claim ignorance when convenient:
Quote
Further, on account of the anti-Pelagian leaning which it had inherited from Saint Augustine, western theology from the very beginning places the emphasis on the absolute universality of original sin. In addition, the barbarian invasions and public disturbances of many different kinds were not favorable to study and speculation. Finally, it must be remembered that the Greek language was almost unknown in the West, and consequently the theologians in the West knew nothing of the development of ideas which had taken place in the Oriental church after the Council of Ephesus, concerning the complete sanctity of the Mother of God.

In the light of the foregoing facts, it is not to be wondered at if, in this first theological epoch, we find few or no explicit testimonies which coincide exactly with the doctrine of the dogmatic Bull, Ineffabilis Deus.
http://www.marymediatrix-resourceonline.com/library/files/scholastic/ic_history.htm

And Gen 3:15. Isn't the Greek ambiguous to the gender?
No. Not at all.
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
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #38 on: November 03, 2011, 10:09:54 PM »

"ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

The word ἀνθρώποις is in the dative, meaning "to men" (i.e., humankind, for the P.C. folks Wink) the preposition "ἐν" can mean quite a lot, as most Greek preposition can mean quite a lot. We can understand it as "on, in, to, towards, etc." but "of" (as in "men of goodwill") isn't really in the right tenor of the word. It has this connotation of approaching, being within, etc. it's a state of relation, not a state of being, if that makes sense. We can't really use this word to talk about the quality of a noun, only it's relationship to something. This can't really mean that we're only talking about people who are of goodwill (i.e., "εὐδοκία" which could also be understood as "good tidings" or "blessings.")

As for the Latin...I don't have a clue. I've not studied Latin nearly as much as I have Greek. Nor do I know the history of the Gloria in Latin translation.

"et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis"

"and on Earth, peace to men of good will."

"Bonae voluntatis" is in the Genitive form. So literally "men whom have good will".

Can ἐν be understood as 'with', whereas you'd say "to men with good will" or "to men 'in the direction of' good will"? I'm not very well versed in Greek.

Interesting. I guess they're being true to the Latin, then. Meaning...the Latin is not a very good translation of the Greek, and should be fixed!

That's a different way to look at it. Indeed, ἐν can be translated sometimes as "with," meaning something like, "those who reside in" or "those who are within." However, this is to be taken in relation to something, and not being in possession of something. Perhaps, another way to say it is "those who are within a certain limit" or "those inside a greater whole." So, I suppose it would be more like the English "men within good will" or "men moving towards good will." In a sense, the good will possesses the men, the men do not possess the good will (i.e., they are not "men of good will" as if good will is an attribute ascribed to them).

In other words, ἐν is a preposition of location, not of attribution. You can't answer the question "who" with it, but rather the question "where." If that makes sense. To understand "with" in the sense of attribution, perhaps μετά with the dative would be a better preposition to convey that idea? Of course, there are probably others that are better at it. Greek has an abundance of prepositions which can be used a variety of ways, depending on the case, number and even inherent meanings of the individual noun in question. It's a very highly nuanced, and confusing, system. I have to admit to consulting my Greek dictionaries to answer you! Grin
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #39 on: November 03, 2011, 10:11:20 PM »

Can ἐν be understood as 'with', whereas you'd say "to men with good will" or "to men 'in the direction of' good will"? I'm not very well versed in Greek.

Off the top of my head, I don't think so.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 03, 2011, 10:17:26 PM »

"ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

The word ἀνθρώποις is in the dative, meaning "to men" (i.e., humankind, for the P.C. folks Wink) the preposition "ἐν" can mean quite a lot, as most Greek preposition can mean quite a lot. We can understand it as "on, in, to, towards, etc." but "of" (as in "men of goodwill") isn't really in the right tenor of the word. It has this connotation of approaching, being within, etc. it's a state of relation, not a state of being, if that makes sense. We can't really use this word to talk about the quality of a noun, only it's relationship to something. This can't really mean that we're only talking about people who are of goodwill (i.e., "εὐδοκία" which could also be understood as "good tidings" or "blessings.")

As for the Latin...I don't have a clue. I've not studied Latin nearly as much as I have Greek. Nor do I know the history of the Gloria in Latin translation.

"et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis"

"and on Earth, peace to men of good will."

"Bonae voluntatis" is in the Genitive form. So literally "men whom have good will".

Can ἐν be understood as 'with', whereas you'd say "to men with good will" or "to men 'in the direction of' good will"? I'm not very well versed in Greek.

Interesting. I guess they're being true to the Latin, then. Meaning...the Latin is not a very good translation of the Greek, and should be fixed!

That's a different way to look at it. Indeed, ἐν can be translated sometimes as "with," meaning something like, "those who reside in" or "those who are within." However, this is to be taken in relation to something, and not being in possession of something. Perhaps, another way to say it is "those who are within a certain limit" or "those inside a greater whole." So, I suppose it would be more like the English "men within good will" or "men moving towards good will." In a sense, the good will possesses the men, the men do not possess the good will (i.e., they are not "men of good will" as if good will is an attribute ascribed to them).

In other words, ἐν is a preposition of location, not of attribution. You can't answer the question "who" with it, but rather the question "where." If that makes sense. To understand "with" in the sense of attribution, perhaps μετά with the dative would be a better preposition to convey that idea? Of course, there are probably others that are better at it. Greek has an abundance of prepositions which can be used a variety of ways, depending on the case, number and even inherent meanings of the individual noun in question. It's a very highly nuanced, and confusing, system. I have to admit to consulting my Greek dictionaries to answer you! Grin

Thanks for the detailed response.

I ask because I take "peace to men of good will" to be similar to the beatitude "blessed are the peacemakers". Whereas, just as the last ICEL translation was not literal (and peace to his people on Earth), it still conveyed a similar thought. So if the Greek could be understood as with a similar thought, though not necessarily literal, then perhaps it wasn't necessarily a wrong translation, just not a literal one.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 10:18:50 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #41 on: November 03, 2011, 10:37:09 PM »

"ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

The word ἀνθρώποις is in the dative, meaning "to men" (i.e., humankind, for the P.C. folks Wink) the preposition "ἐν" can mean quite a lot, as most Greek preposition can mean quite a lot. We can understand it as "on, in, to, towards, etc." but "of" (as in "men of goodwill") isn't really in the right tenor of the word. It has this connotation of approaching, being within, etc. it's a state of relation, not a state of being, if that makes sense. We can't really use this word to talk about the quality of a noun, only it's relationship to something. This can't really mean that we're only talking about people who are of goodwill (i.e., "εὐδοκία" which could also be understood as "good tidings" or "blessings.")

As for the Latin...I don't have a clue. I've not studied Latin nearly as much as I have Greek. Nor do I know the history of the Gloria in Latin translation.

"et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis"

"and on Earth, peace to men of good will."

"Bonae voluntatis" is in the Genitive form. So literally "men whom have good will".

Can ἐν be understood as 'with', whereas you'd say "to men with good will" or "to men 'in the direction of' good will"? I'm not very well versed in Greek.

Interesting. I guess they're being true to the Latin, then. Meaning...the Latin is not a very good translation of the Greek, and should be fixed!

That's a different way to look at it. Indeed, ἐν can be translated sometimes as "with," meaning something like, "those who reside in" or "those who are within." However, this is to be taken in relation to something, and not being in possession of something. Perhaps, another way to say it is "those who are within a certain limit" or "those inside a greater whole." So, I suppose it would be more like the English "men within good will" or "men moving towards good will." In a sense, the good will possesses the men, the men do not possess the good will (i.e., they are not "men of good will" as if good will is an attribute ascribed to them).

In other words, ἐν is a preposition of location, not of attribution. You can't answer the question "who" with it, but rather the question "where." If that makes sense. To understand "with" in the sense of attribution, perhaps μετά with the dative would be a better preposition to convey that idea? Of course, there are probably others that are better at it. Greek has an abundance of prepositions which can be used a variety of ways, depending on the case, number and even inherent meanings of the individual noun in question. It's a very highly nuanced, and confusing, system. I have to admit to consulting my Greek dictionaries to answer you! Grin

Thanks for the detailed response.

I ask because I take "peace to men of good will" to be similar to the beatitude "blessed are the peacemakers". Whereas, just as the last ICEL translation was not literal (and peace to his people on Earth), it still conveyed a similar thought. So if the Greek could be understood as with a similar thought, though not necessarily literal, then perhaps it wasn't necessarily a wrong translation, just not a literal one.

I would say "peace to his people on Earth" while not literal, is in a similar vein to "peace and goodwill towards men." It bugs me as a Greek nerd a bit because they just totally eliminated "goodwill" from the phrase altogether. Honestly, it sounds like a compromise translation, like one camp wanted "peace and goodwill towards men" and another wanted "peace to men of goodwill" so they just dropped the goodwill altogether! Still, though it is quite different, and I don't like it at all, it's still closer than the "men of goodwill" bit, at least insomuch as it ignores the issue, whereas the new translation is simply wrong. Perhaps we could say one is wrong by omission, the other by commission? Tongue

Interesting. I went ahead and pulled that Beatitude for us! It reads:

"Μακάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοὶ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ θεοῦ κληθήσονται"

Parallel: "Blessed the peacemakers, because they sons of God shall be called."

There's actually no preposition here at all. Whereas the new translation of the Gloria still uses a prepositional phrase "of" meaning, "have possession of", "those with the attribute of", etc. there's not even a verb in the phrase, "Μακάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοὶ" much less any prepositional phrase. Simply an adjective, the definite article, and the noun. The "to be" is understood. IIRC, Latin does a similar thing.

So, while in English I think we could understand "peace to men of goodwill" and "blessed are the peacemakers" in a similar vein, both of them displaying attributes of the people, the two phrases when considered in the Greek are vastly different. Not to mention the nuanced meaning of the Gloria, and the very straightforward and simple meaning of the Beatitude. Of course, in the Gloria, both "peace" and "goodwill" are nouns, not adjectives. In the Beatitude, "Blessed" is adjectival, thus describing the peacemakers.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really have a theological problem with the new Mass translation, as the kid seems to have. I think his tantrum about how it means peace is only deserved by men of good will is quite contrived. But, the translation is sadly unrepresentative of the Greek. it seems honest to the Latin, though, if that's any consultation to the Roman Church. Of course, the Latin is unrepresentative of the Greek, from which it is translated, so...yeah. I love Rome, but they seem to have fumbled the ball on this one.  Sad
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 10:47:02 PM by Benjamin the Red » Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Clare G.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 90


« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2011, 05:10:50 AM »

The whole phrase is:

"Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

A variant reading in Lk 2:14 has the genitive "εὐδοκίας": now that could definitely be construed "on earth peace to men of good will" = pax hominibus bonae voluntatis in the Latin.

But in contrast, if we retain "εὐδοκία", I would read it (with The Eastern Orthodox Bible New Testament) as
"on earth peace, [and] good will to men": making a parallelism of the two clauses.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2011, 01:42:24 PM »

The whole phrase is:

"Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

A variant reading in Lk 2:14 has the genitive "εὐδοκίας": now that could definitely be construed "on earth peace to men of good will" = pax hominibus bonae voluntatis in the Latin.

But in contrast, if we retain "εὐδοκία", I would read it (with The Eastern Orthodox Bible New Testament) as
"on earth peace, [and] good will to men": making a parallelism of the two clauses.

Interesting!
Logged


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

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



WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2011, 01:51:31 PM »

So for, what, 600 years there were (apparently big) bad teaching secretly brewing in the west. All the while with constant exchange with the east, AND with byzantine bishops becoming Pope. Yet, no one noticed until recently?

It is interesting how the Vatican's followers claim ignorance when convenient:
Quote
Further, on account of the anti-Pelagian leaning which it had inherited from Saint Augustine, western theology from the very beginning places the emphasis on the absolute universality of original sin. In addition, the barbarian invasions and public disturbances of many different kinds were not favorable to study and speculation. Finally, it must be remembered that the Greek language was almost unknown in the West, and consequently the theologians in the West knew nothing of the development of ideas which had taken place in the Oriental church after the Council of Ephesus, concerning the complete sanctity of the Mother of God.

In the light of the foregoing facts, it is not to be wondered at if, in this first theological epoch, we find few or no explicit testimonies which coincide exactly with the doctrine of the dogmatic Bull, Ineffabilis Deus.
http://www.marymediatrix-resourceonline.com/library/files/scholastic/ic_history.htm

I don't think he's referring to the 4th century, but schism to post schism.

And Gen 3:15. Isn't the Greek ambiguous to the gender?
No. Not at all.

Would someone mind learn'n me some Greek? Benjamin the Red or other?

From multiple translations, and from what I could tell of the language, it uses a neuter pronoun. Though I'm not very familiar with Greek.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
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: 37,866



« Reply #45 on: November 04, 2011, 02:02:25 PM »

So for, what, 600 years there were (apparently big) bad teaching secretly brewing in the west. All the while with constant exchange with the east, AND with byzantine bishops becoming Pope. Yet, no one noticed until recently?

It is interesting how the Vatican's followers claim ignorance when convenient:
Quote
Further, on account of the anti-Pelagian leaning which it had inherited from Saint Augustine, western theology from the very beginning places the emphasis on the absolute universality of original sin. In addition, the barbarian invasions and public disturbances of many different kinds were not favorable to study and speculation. Finally, it must be remembered that the Greek language was almost unknown in the West, and consequently the theologians in the West knew nothing of the development of ideas which had taken place in the Oriental church after the Council of Ephesus, concerning the complete sanctity of the Mother of God.

In the light of the foregoing facts, it is not to be wondered at if, in this first theological epoch, we find few or no explicit testimonies which coincide exactly with the doctrine of the dogmatic Bull, Ineffabilis Deus.
http://www.marymediatrix-resourceonline.com/library/files/scholastic/ic_history.htm

I don't think he's referring to the 4th century, but schism to post schism.
The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus took place when?
And Gen 3:15. Isn't the Greek ambiguous to the gender?
No. Not at all.
Would someone mind learn'n me some Greek? Benjamin the Red or other?

From multiple translations, and from what I could tell of the language, it uses a neuter pronoun. Though I'm not very familiar with Greek.
καὶ ἔχθραν θήσω ἀνὰ μέσον σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν
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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 04, 2011, 02:11:45 PM »

So for, what, 600 years there were (apparently big) bad teaching secretly brewing in the west. All the while with constant exchange with the east, AND with byzantine bishops becoming Pope. Yet, no one noticed until recently?

It is interesting how the Vatican's followers claim ignorance when convenient:
Quote
Further, on account of the anti-Pelagian leaning which it had inherited from Saint Augustine, western theology from the very beginning places the emphasis on the absolute universality of original sin. In addition, the barbarian invasions and public disturbances of many different kinds were not favorable to study and speculation. Finally, it must be remembered that the Greek language was almost unknown in the West, and consequently the theologians in the West knew nothing of the development of ideas which had taken place in the Oriental church after the Council of Ephesus, concerning the complete sanctity of the Mother of God.

In the light of the foregoing facts, it is not to be wondered at if, in this first theological epoch, we find few or no explicit testimonies which coincide exactly with the doctrine of the dogmatic Bull, Ineffabilis Deus.
http://www.marymediatrix-resourceonline.com/library/files/scholastic/ic_history.htm

I don't think he's referring to the 4th century, but schism to post schism.
The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus took place when?

Disregard...

I was thinking Council of Florence with Mark of Ephesus.

I still find that difficult to accept. Just doesn't seem right.

And Gen 3:15. Isn't the Greek ambiguous to the gender?
No. Not at all.
Would someone mind learn'n me some Greek? Benjamin the Red or other?

From multiple translations, and from what I could tell of the language, it uses a neuter pronoun. Though I'm not very familiar with Greek.
καὶ ἔχθραν θήσω ἀνὰ μέσον σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν

I got that far, but I'm not familiar enough with the declensions to understand the gender. And the cyber-translator/dictionaries weren't much help. I need a 101 breakdown when it comes to Greek.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 02:15:40 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
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: 37,866



« Reply #47 on: November 04, 2011, 03:13:32 PM »

And Gen 3:15. Isn't the Greek ambiguous to the gender?
No. Not at all.
Would someone mind learn'n me some Greek? Benjamin the Red or other?

From multiple translations, and from what I could tell of the language, it uses a neuter pronoun. Though I'm not very familiar with Greek.
καὶ ἔχθραν θήσω ἀνὰ μέσον σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν

I got that far, but I'm not familiar enough with the declensions to understand the gender. And the cyber-translator/dictionaries weren't much help. I need a 101 breakdown when it comes to Greek.
αὐτός is masculine.  The only nouns in the sentence are feminine or neuter.

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: 37,866



« Reply #48 on: November 04, 2011, 03:13:47 PM »

btw
I got inspired by this recent thread
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,40765.msg664370.html#msg664370
to draft a full translation of the letter from Pope Leo IX to EP Michael Cerularius.  I take the Latin as official, no matter the Greek translation. The Biblical verses I take it are the Vulgate:I translate from the letter. The Latin I take from here:
http://books.google.com/books?dq=Cornelius+Will+%22acta+et+scripta%22&jtp=65&pg=PA65&id=rIkEAAAAQAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
The letter runs 41 paragraphs/chapters, so I'll translate, Lord willing, off and on when I'm in the mood (or someone finds a translation already done, and posts).


Quote
Leo IX
Epistle to Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, against him and the unheard of presumpitons and excessive vanities of Leo bishop of Ohrid.


Leo, bishop, Servant of the Servants of God
to Michael and Leo bishops of Constantinople and Ohrid.

I. On earth peace to men of good will [Luke 2:14]...
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 03:14:09 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
Clare G.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 90


« Reply #49 on: November 04, 2011, 05:05:23 PM »

And Gen 3:15. Isn't the Greek ambiguous to the gender?
No. Not at all.

Quote from: Aindriú
Would someone mind learn'n me some Greek? Benjamin the Red or other?
From multiple translations, and from what I could tell of the language, it uses a neuter pronoun. Though I'm not very familiar with Greek.

Perhaps I've missed something, but I can't see how Genesis 3:15 is relevant to the rest of what is being discussed here. I agree, though, that the pronouns in the Greek are not ambiguous as to gender. You might find it helpful to look at a Greek/English interlinear Bible: this one http://www.apostolicbible.com/text.htm uses the Septuagint (although it lacks the 'apocrypha/deuterocanonical books'), and it can be downloaded for free.
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: 37,866



« Reply #50 on: November 05, 2011, 03:22:35 PM »

And Gen 3:15. Isn't the Greek ambiguous to the gender?
No. Not at all.

Quote from: Aindriú
Would someone mind learn'n me some Greek? Benjamin the Red or other?
From multiple translations, and from what I could tell of the language, it uses a neuter pronoun. Though I'm not very familiar with Greek.

Perhaps I've missed something, but I can't see how Genesis 3:15 is relevant to the rest of what is being discussed here. I agree, though, that the pronouns in the Greek are not ambiguous as to gender. You might find it helpful to look at a Greek/English interlinear Bible: this one http://www.apostolicbible.com/text.htm uses the Septuagint (although it lacks the 'apocrypha/deuterocanonical books'), and it can be downloaded for free.
St. Jerome screwed up the translation and it became "she will crush your head," and it became one of the great prooftexts of the IC.

For how this came up:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,40765.msg664305.html#msg664305
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 03:23:57 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 07, 2011, 01:28:46 PM »

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum8&recnu=1&number=563958

"The differences result from the ambiguity of the Hebrew as to who will do the crushing and whose heel will be struck at. The pronouns in question refer to the preceding subject in the sentence; however, there are two subjects, the woman and her seed. “It” takes a neutral path (“seed” is grammatically neutral), “she” assumes that it refers to the woman, and “he” assumes that it refers to the seed, whom we know to be Jesus Christ. Jerome, perhaps based on the Septuagint, or theological considerations, we don’t know, chose to translate it is as “she”. Most modern translations choose “he”. Some translations use “it”.

When Pope John Paul II published the latest version of the Vulgate in 1999, the Latin reflects this ambiguity. It says “ipsum conteret” (he or it will crush), as does what follows “eius calcaneum” (his to its heel). While his promulgation of the Vulgate merely confirms the ambiguity of the scholarly trend, it is not one that should trouble Catholics. If the text says, “he shall crush the head of the serpent and it shall strike at his heel,” it merely affirms what the Catholic faith has always affirmed, the defeat of Satan is the work of Christ. In this, Mary’s role as his singular cooperator, as the Woman, the New Eve, is contained, not diminished. As many saints and mystics have said, her role will be uniquely important preceding the Second Coming, as it was preceding the First. That role depends on who and what she is in salvation history, and not on this text."


Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 07, 2011, 01:31:55 PM »

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum8&recnu=1&number=563958

"The differences result from the ambiguity of the Hebrew as to who will do the crushing and whose heel will be struck at. The pronouns in question refer to the preceding subject in the sentence; however, there are two subjects, the woman and her seed. “It” takes a neutral path (“seed” is grammatically neutral), “she” assumes that it refers to the woman, and “he” assumes that it refers to the seed, whom we know to be Jesus Christ. Jerome, perhaps based on the Septuagint, or theological considerations, we don’t know, chose to translate it is as “she”. Most modern translations choose “he”. Some translations use “it”.

When Pope John Paul II published the latest version of the Vulgate in 1999, the Latin reflects this ambiguity. It says “ipsum conteret” (he or it will crush), as does what follows “eius calcaneum” (his to its heel). While his promulgation of the Vulgate merely confirms the ambiguity of the scholarly trend, it is not one that should trouble Catholics. If the text says, “he shall crush the head of the serpent and it shall strike at his heel,” it merely affirms what the Catholic faith has always affirmed, the defeat of Satan is the work of Christ. In this, Mary’s role as his singular cooperator, as the Woman, the New Eve, is contained, not diminished. As many saints and mystics have said, her role will be uniquely important preceding the Second Coming, as it was preceding the First. That role depends on who and what she is in salvation history, and not on this text."

This is the understanding that I have had, as well. Which is why I wanted help with the Greek in the other thread.
Logged


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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 07, 2011, 01:33:02 PM »

Another good discussion of the Genesis 3 translation here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZTgRsMX4O80C&pg=PA351&lpg=PA351&dq=Genesis+3:15,+mistranslation&source=bl&ots=DuBoKNncqN&sig=AypHgq1eQCfOaoiXZnnYhDxPo5E&hl=en&ei=UBS4TpORA6fi0QGY7ZjCBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

AND

http://www.unitypublishing.com/SheWillCrush.htm


http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum8&recnu=1&number=563958

"The differences result from the ambiguity of the Hebrew as to who will do the crushing and whose heel will be struck at. The pronouns in question refer to the preceding subject in the sentence; however, there are two subjects, the woman and her seed. “It” takes a neutral path (“seed” is grammatically neutral), “she” assumes that it refers to the woman, and “he” assumes that it refers to the seed, whom we know to be Jesus Christ. Jerome, perhaps based on the Septuagint, or theological considerations, we don’t know, chose to translate it is as “she”. Most modern translations choose “he”. Some translations use “it”.

When Pope John Paul II published the latest version of the Vulgate in 1999, the Latin reflects this ambiguity. It says “ipsum conteret” (he or it will crush), as does what follows “eius calcaneum” (his to its heel). While his promulgation of the Vulgate merely confirms the ambiguity of the scholarly trend, it is not one that should trouble Catholics. If the text says, “he shall crush the head of the serpent and it shall strike at his heel,” it merely affirms what the Catholic faith has always affirmed, the defeat of Satan is the work of Christ. In this, Mary’s role as his singular cooperator, as the Woman, the New Eve, is contained, not diminished. As many saints and mystics have said, her role will be uniquely important preceding the Second Coming, as it was preceding the First. That role depends on who and what she is in salvation history, and not on this text."



« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 01:35:24 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 07, 2011, 01:43:48 PM »


p361 - 363 in particular
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #55 on: November 19, 2012, 09:01:20 PM »

One year later, some reactions from the pews about the new Missal translation:

1. The following best describes my current attitude toward the new Mass translations:

I still dislike the new translations and am unhappy that I’ll have to put up with them for the foreseeable future. - 49%

I don’t particularly like the new translations, but I’ve come to accept them and they’re not that big of a deal to me. - 17%

I personally enjoy the new translations as much as, if not more than, the old version. - 17%

I was unsure about it at first, but I’ve grown accustomed to the new translations. - 6%

Other - 11%
....
5. The hardest wording in the new translations for me to get used to has been:

“Consubstantial with the Father.” - 56%

“I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof.” - 46%

“Incarnate of the Virgin Mary.” - 44%

“Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.” - 36%

“This is the chalice of my Blood.” - 36%

“And with your spirit.” - 30%

“I believe” instead of “We believe.” - 29%

“It is right and just.” - 20%

Other - 17%
....
7.   I wish we could just go back to using the old translations.

Agree - 54%

Disagree - 29%

Other - 17%
« Last Edit: November 19, 2012, 09:05:04 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #56 on: November 19, 2012, 09:28:00 PM »

One year later, some reactions from the pews about the new Missal translation:

1. The following best describes my current attitude toward the new Mass translations:

I still dislike the new translations and am unhappy that I’ll have to put up with them for the foreseeable future. - 49%

I don’t particularly like the new translations, but I’ve come to accept them and they’re not that big of a deal to me. - 17%

I personally enjoy the new translations as much as, if not more than, the old version. - 17%

I was unsure about it at first, but I’ve grown accustomed to the new translations. - 6%

Other - 11%
....
5. The hardest wording in the new translations for me to get used to has been:

“Consubstantial with the Father.” - 56%

“I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof.” - 46%

“Incarnate of the Virgin Mary.” - 44%

“Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.” - 36%

“This is the chalice of my Blood.” - 36%

“And with your spirit.” - 30%

“I believe” instead of “We believe.” - 29%

“It is right and just.” - 20%

Other - 17%
....
7.   I wish we could just go back to using the old translations.

Agree - 54%

Disagree - 29%

Other - 17%

U.S. Catholic has a liberal lean so I don't know that I trust their poll.  I would bet 10% hate it, 10% love it, 10% aren't aware there was a change, and remaining 70% don't care one way or another.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #57 on: November 19, 2012, 09:32:58 PM »


U.S. Catholic has a liberal lean so I don't know that I trust their poll.  I would bet 10% hate it, 10% love it, 10% aren't aware there was a change, and remaining 70% don't care one way or another.

Cynic  Smiley
Logged

Frederic
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholicism > Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 88


St Frederick of Utrecht


« Reply #58 on: November 19, 2012, 09:50:16 PM »

The whole phrase is:

"Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

A variant reading in Lk 2:14 has the genitive "εὐδοκίας": now that could definitely be construed "on earth peace to men of good will" = pax hominibus bonae voluntatis in the Latin.

But in contrast, if we retain "εὐδοκία", I would read it (with The Eastern Orthodox Bible New Testament) as
"on earth peace, [and] good will to men": making a parallelism of the two clauses.

Luc 2:14 Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία(ς).

In the Codex Sinaiticus, εὐδοκία appears in the nominative but we can see a correction after the final α, suggesting that the initial version was εὐδοκίας, but a scribe corrected what he felt was a mistake.

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit Query&book=35&chapter=2&imageType=raking&imageType=standard&lid=en&manuscript=true&phd=true&side=r&transcription=true&transcriptionType=page&transcriptionType=verse&translation=true&verse=14&zoomSlider=0#35-2-15-17

(Copy and paste the whole passage to have the direct link to the page.)
Logged

«One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.» (George Bernanos)
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #59 on: November 20, 2012, 02:52:15 AM »

The whole phrase is:

"Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

A variant reading in Lk 2:14 has the genitive "εὐδοκίας": now that could definitely be construed "on earth peace to men of good will" = pax hominibus bonae voluntatis in the Latin.

But in contrast, if we retain "εὐδοκία", I would read it (with The Eastern Orthodox Bible New Testament) as
"on earth peace, [and] good will to men": making a parallelism of the two clauses.

Luc 2:14 Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία(ς).

In the Codex Sinaiticus, εὐδοκία appears in the nominative but we can see a correction after the final α, suggesting that the initial version was εὐδοκίας, but a scribe corrected what he felt was a mistake.

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit Query&book=35&chapter=2&imageType=raking&imageType=standard&lid=en&manuscript=true&phd=true&side=r&transcription=true&transcriptionType=page&transcriptionType=verse&translation=true&verse=14&zoomSlider=0#35-2-15-17

(Copy and paste the whole passage to have the direct link to the page.)

Thank you both for clarifying this madness by doing what everyone else should have done first: look up textual sources to see where the two versions come from.
Logged
Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #60 on: November 20, 2012, 05:27:39 AM »

1. Their new translation is far more accurate.
2. There is no justification at all for "peace to his people on earth." That's just playing loose with ancient texts. We might as well translate the Gospel words, "I am the light of the world," as "I am really important." Anyone see a problem with that?
3. Only those of good will can receive and preserve the peace from above.
4. Erik Baker says good will "could... mean... Catholic." This seems quite the non sequitur.
5. The idea of exclusivity of some things is not "anathema to everything Jesus ever taught." After all, "he that believeth not shall be condemned," and "I pray for them; I pray not for the world," etc., etc., etc. But all are invited.
6. To say "people of good will" is not "abandoning 'love your enemies.'" That's quite an irrational leap.
7. The original Greek text had two forms, one with evdokia, one with evdokias, as the patristic Latin text has it. Both are legit. The Latin is not a mistranslation.
8. The Greek (he refers to evdokia) does not express "goodwill to all people." That is, it does not state "all." It is true that there was good will among men at the coming of Christ, but not all men - Herod was not flowing with good will, for one example.
9. The original creed as issued from the Councils had "We believe" and in most of Christendom this was soon "operationalized" to "I believe." The Mozarabic and Coptic usages retain "We believe." Both forms are legit depending on the rite.
10. There is no connection or causality linking "I believe" (5th-6th c. usage?) and Protestantism (modern times).
11. Bishop Jerome said when he went to the Antiochian church in Pittsburg years ago, they sang the doxology in Greek - with "evdokias."
12. De gustibus non est disputandum.
Logged
Frederic
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholicism > Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 88


St Frederick of Utrecht


« Reply #61 on: November 20, 2012, 11:15:51 AM »

"Good will" makes the verse more obscure, but an obscure reading is often likely to be the original reading.

In Roman Catholic parishes in France, et in terra pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis is rendered into "et paix sur la terre aux hommes qu'Il aime" (= and peace on earth to the men He loves). It is the Lord's good will. Is this akin to predestination?
Logged

«One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.» (George Bernanos)
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: 37,866



« Reply #62 on: November 20, 2012, 11:29:03 AM »

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum8&recnu=1&number=563958

"The differences result from the ambiguity of the Hebrew as to who will do the crushing and whose heel will be struck at. The pronouns in question refer to the preceding subject in the sentence; however, there are two subjects, the woman and her seed. “It” takes a neutral path (“seed” is grammatically neutral), “she” assumes that it refers to the woman, and “he” assumes that it refers to the seed, whom we know to be Jesus Christ. Jerome, perhaps based on the Septuagint, or theological considerations, we don’t know, chose to translate it is as “she”. Most modern translations choose “he”. Some translations use “it”.

When Pope John Paul II published the latest version of the Vulgate in 1999, the Latin reflects this ambiguity. It says “ipsum conteret” (he or it will crush), as does what follows “eius calcaneum” (his to its heel). While his promulgation of the Vulgate merely confirms the ambiguity of the scholarly trend, it is not one that should trouble Catholics. If the text says, “he shall crush the head of the serpent and it shall strike at his heel,” it merely affirms what the Catholic faith has always affirmed, the defeat of Satan is the work of Christ. In this, Mary’s role as his singular cooperator, as the Woman, the New Eve, is contained, not diminished. As many saints and mystics have said, her role will be uniquely important preceding the Second Coming, as it was preceding the First. That role depends on who and what she is in salvation history, and not on this text."
Your supreme pontiff thought otherwise.
Quote
INTERPRETERS OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURE

The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin's supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind -- words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, "I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed" -- taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm
Sic Ineffibilis Deus dixit. 8 December 1854

Btw, as I have pointed out before, you EWTN evidently doesn't know Hebrew, which (like the LXX) emphasizes and underlines that "He" is the one doing the crushing.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 11:33:26 AM 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
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: 37,866



« Reply #63 on: November 20, 2012, 11:47:03 AM »

Their knowledge of Hebrew in particular and Scripture in general is even worse, though they have a nice quote that they amply demonstrate:"It is worse still to be ignorant of your ignorance."-Jerome

This is telling:
Quote
this is only our opinion - because we are Knights of the Immaculata. Our interpretation of this translation is demonstrative of our loyalty to our oath as Knights of the Immaculate, and to our fidelity to the intentions of St. Maximillian Kolbe.
father of the semi-incarnation of the Virgin.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 11:51:21 AM 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #64 on: November 20, 2012, 12:40:41 PM »

Quote

Btw, as I have pointed out before, you EWTN evidently doesn't know Hebrew, which (like the LXX) emphasizes and underlines that "He" is the one doing the crushing.

Unless you are happy to skew all Catholic texts... laugh

It should be pretty clear that the text is used to teach a double truth...It is not a heretical teaching.  But then you'd have to read ALL of the EWTN text, not just the half that you want to attack.
Logged

Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #65 on: November 20, 2012, 12:54:49 PM »

There's enough heresy in the Roman Church of today to last a lifetime. So no need to look for heresy under every rock.

This variant in the Vulgate is an ancient Orthodox version, given a blessing by great Orthodox Saints, in place for many hundreds of years before Rome's schism. The Peshitta also has variants and the Greek texts sometimes have variants. Orthodoxy is a big tent.
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: 37,866



« Reply #66 on: November 20, 2012, 01:05:10 PM »

Quote

Btw, as I have pointed out before, you EWTN evidently doesn't know Hebrew, which (like the LXX) emphasizes and underlines that "He" is the one doing the crushing.

Unless you are happy to skew all Catholic texts... laugh

It should be pretty clear that the text is used to teach a double truth...It is not a heretical teaching.  But then you'd have to read ALL of the EWTN text, not just the half that you want to attack.
I read it. Very few diamond chips among the heaps of the dunghill.
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 #67 on: November 20, 2012, 01:34:19 PM »

Quote

Btw, as I have pointed out before, you EWTN evidently doesn't know Hebrew, which (like the LXX) emphasizes and underlines that "He" is the one doing the crushing.

Unless you are happy to skew all Catholic texts... laugh

It should be pretty clear that the text is used to teach a double truth...It is not a heretical teaching.  But then you'd have to read ALL of the EWTN text, not just the half that you want to attack.
I read it. Very few diamond chips among the heaps of the dunghill.

There's something wrong with you Misry, and only an act of God will heal it.  Lord have mercy on my wounded brother.
Logged

Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #68 on: November 20, 2012, 01:47:14 PM »

Also, I thought the EWTN article was just fine, couldn't find anything wrong with it from an Orthodox theological viewpoint.
Logged
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #69 on: November 20, 2012, 01:59:46 PM »

The link in the OP gives me a 404.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 02:01:13 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Fr.Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR)
Posts: 503


Ds. superbis resistit; humilibus autem dat gratiam


WWW
« Reply #70 on: November 20, 2012, 02:25:10 PM »

I followed this:

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum8&recnu=1&number=563958
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: 37,866



« Reply #71 on: November 20, 2012, 03:21:38 PM »

There's enough heresy in the Roman Church of today to last a lifetime. So no need to look for heresy under every rock.

This variant in the Vulgate is an ancient Orthodox version, given a blessing by great Orthodox Saints, in place for many hundreds of years before Rome's schism. The Peshitta also has variants and the Greek texts sometimes have variants. Orthodoxy is a big tent.
As St. John of Damascus warns, Father, a small thing is not a small thing, if it leads to something great.

St. Jerome's heterodox abandonment of the LXX for a Hebrew text was criticized by great Orthodox Saints in his day, not the least St. Augustine.  The Protestants only carried to a logical conclusion the rock St. Jerome started rolling (the great St. Filaret repeated this mistake 15 centuries in translating into Russian).  So we need not look under rocks, as the heresy has crawled around from under it and born poisonous fruit out in the open, e.g. the IC.
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: 37,866



« Reply #72 on: November 20, 2012, 03:36:47 PM »

Quote

Btw, as I have pointed out before, you EWTN evidently doesn't know Hebrew, which (like the LXX) emphasizes and underlines that "He" is the one doing the crushing.

Unless you are happy to skew all Catholic texts... laugh

It should be pretty clear that the text is used to teach a double truth...It is not a heretical teaching.  But then you'd have to read ALL of the EWTN text, not just the half that you want to attack.
I read it. Very few diamond chips among the heaps of the dunghill.

There's something wrong with you Misry, and only an act of God will heal it.  Lord have mercy on my wounded brother.
Thanks, but there is nothing wrong with me on this point.  As for healing I'm in His Hospital, the Orthodox Church, and Doctor P. Aeternus  has to heal himself.

Your EWTN text contradicts your
Quote
...most take the pronoun to be masculine, referring to our Lord as the one to "bruise" or "crush", the head of the serpent, rather than "she", referring to Our Lady. Some may think this a "small" difference, but in fact it is very great indeed. For from this prophecy in the Douay-Rheims comes a longstanding Catholic tradition that toward the End of Time the Blessed Virgin Mary will crush the head of Satan, after her devotees have promoted her honor and devotion and directed countless prayers for her intercession during a long period of that time. This ancient tradition, which is based on Genesis 3:15, is in danger of being relegated to the scrap heap if we accept these non-traditional translations.

The Holy Father Blessed Pius IX wrote on this score in his bull Ineffabilis Deus, declaring the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary [December 8, 1854] stated: "Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with Him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was with Him and through Him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumped over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot."

With all of this in mind, why do the modern translations mistranslate the truth, and what do you think accounts for this change in meaning?

As to EWTN's assertion "“seed” is grammatically neutral", it might be so in English, but it is not in Hebrew (masculine).  It is neuter in Greek and Latin, but neither the LXX nor the Vulgate use neuter agreement, the LXX using masculine, the Latin the feminine.  There is no ambiguity on it at all, as the Hebrew uses an independent pronoun (masculine), and the LXX and Vulgate follow suit, where the appearance of the independent pronoun, not being required, emphasizes who is being referred to, i.e. "He."
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
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #73 on: November 20, 2012, 04:10:48 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



Kids these days..

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #74 on: November 20, 2012, 04:22:50 PM »

There's enough heresy in the Roman Church of today to last a lifetime.
Cheesy  Oh, you guys.... Wink
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 04:23:11 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,801



« Reply #75 on: November 20, 2012, 04:57:03 PM »

There's enough heresy in the Roman Church of today to last a lifetime.
Cheesy  Oh, you guys.... Wink


Wouldn't you say exactly the same?
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #76 on: November 20, 2012, 05:00:55 PM »

There's enough heresy in the Roman Church of today to last a lifetime.
Cheesy  Oh, you guys.... Wink


Wouldn't you say exactly the same?
Not that there is enough heresy to last a life time. Certainly, there are areas in which I think the EO and OO Churches are wrong. But I don't think they are drowning and swiming in heresy. Basically, I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it. These are real and serious differences, but that would not justify me in saying that there is enough heresy in the EO Church of today to last a life time.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #77 on: November 20, 2012, 05:03:39 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 05:04:16 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #78 on: November 20, 2012, 05:05:55 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
I'd have to study the issue more. But there are quite a few EOs who insist that the Catholics are in heresy over this matter.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 37,866



« Reply #79 on: November 20, 2012, 05:18:59 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
dogmatizing a heresy and requiring the belief thereof is rather extreme.
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
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #80 on: November 20, 2012, 05:23:41 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
dogmatizing a heresy and requiring the belief thereof is rather extreme.

Saying that the Theotokos had always been free of sin is heretical? Because that's what their dogma basically comes down to.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 05:23:48 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #81 on: November 20, 2012, 05:27:53 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
dogmatizing a heresy and requiring the belief thereof is rather extreme.

Saying that the Theotokos had always been free of sin is heretical? Because that's what their dogma basically comes down to.

Is it really any one's place to comment on other people's supposed sins?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 05:28:25 PM by sheenj » Logged
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #82 on: November 20, 2012, 05:30:11 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
dogmatizing a heresy and requiring the belief thereof is rather extreme.

Saying that the Theotokos had always been free of sin is heretical? Because that's what their dogma basically comes down to.

Is it really any one's place to comment on other people's supposed sins?

No. I never said it was wise to dogmatise it, quite the contrary.
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
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: 37,866



« Reply #83 on: November 20, 2012, 05:30:36 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
dogmatizing a heresy and requiring the belief thereof is rather extreme.

Saying that the Theotokos had always been free of sin is heretical?
Yes.
Because that's what their dogma basically comes down to.
It leads to more than that, e.g. Maxmillian Kolbe's teaching of the semi-incarnation of the Holy Theotokos. Somewhere we have a thread on that.
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
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #84 on: November 20, 2012, 05:33:03 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
dogmatizing a heresy and requiring the belief thereof is rather extreme.

Saying that the Theotokos had always been free of sin is heretical?
Yes.

Did the Theotokos sin?
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #85 on: November 20, 2012, 05:47:37 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
dogmatizing a heresy and requiring the belief thereof is rather extreme.

Saying that the Theotokos had always been free of sin is heretical?
Yes.

Did the Theotokos sin?

I don't think any man alive can, our really should, say for sure.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 06:16:54 PM by sheenj » Logged
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #86 on: November 20, 2012, 06:00:36 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
dogmatizing a heresy and requiring the belief thereof is rather extreme.

Saying that the Theotokos had always been free of sin is heretical? Because that's what their dogma basically comes down to.

Don't you think there's a difference, though, between saying the Theotokos never sinned and saying that the Theotokos was basically rendered incapable of sinning from conception? If you render it impossible that she be able to sin, then what does it matter that she didn't -- in other words, how is she a model of purity and sinlessness? It seems like it places her outside of human nature, which makes me wonder what it means to say that Christ took flesh from her...

So from where I'm sitting the problems with the IC aren't so much that it says something ultimately different than Orthodoxy says (since both groups believe that the Theotokos never sinned), but that the means by which it makes that assertion leads to some really troubling questions that seem to warp or at least jeopardize the proper view of the incarnation.
Logged

JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,129


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #87 on: November 20, 2012, 06:35:21 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
I'd have to study the issue more. But there are quite a few EOs who insist that the Catholics are in heresy over this matter.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 06:35:57 PM by JoeS2 » Logged
Justin Kolodziej
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: I agree with the Church
Jurisdiction: Huh
Posts: 291


St. Leo III, Defender of Orthodoxy


« Reply #88 on: November 20, 2012, 06:39:37 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
dogmatizing a heresy and requiring the belief thereof is rather extreme.

Saying that the Theotokos had always been free of sin is heretical? Because that's what their dogma basically comes down to.

Don't you think there's a difference, though, between saying the Theotokos never sinned and saying that the Theotokos was basically rendered incapable of sinning from conception? If you render it impossible that she be able to sin, then what does it matter that she didn't -- in other words, how is she a model of purity and sinlessness? It seems like it places her outside of human nature, which makes me wonder what it means to say that Christ took flesh from her...

So from where I'm sitting the problems with the IC aren't so much that it says something ultimately different than Orthodoxy says (since both groups believe that the Theotokos never sinned), but that the means by which it makes that assertion leads to some really troubling questions that seem to warp or at least jeopardize the proper view of the incarnation.
I don't think the actual dogma (as opposed to what many of us Catholics may think) says Mary was incapable of sinning.

The dogma says that the Theotokos "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

The "stain" for us Roman Catholics would be both the guilt and concupisence, or the passions the rest of us have to constantly fight to avoid sinning. In other words, she would have been like Eve before the Fall when it comes to sinning. Not that she could not choose to sin...Adam and Eve were created without original sin, and apparently they could sin  Wink

So, I don't think she's outside human nature, merely fallen human nature, which in itself is hard enough to imagine.
Logged

Where even the last two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in their midst.
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #89 on: November 20, 2012, 06:59:00 PM »

But how can you separate nature into human nature v. fallen human nature when the Theotokos was born after the fall which affected that human nature?

For what reason do RC theologians say that the Theotokos needed a savior, if her nature was not affected by the fall?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2012, 07:07:37 PM by dzheremi » 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: 37,866



« Reply #90 on: November 20, 2012, 07:12:51 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
dogmatizing a heresy and requiring the belief thereof is rather extreme.

Saying that the Theotokos had always been free of sin is heretical? Because that's what their dogma basically comes down to.

Don't you think there's a difference, though, between saying the Theotokos never sinned and saying that the Theotokos was basically rendered incapable of sinning from conception? If you render it impossible that she be able to sin, then what does it matter that she didn't -- in other words, how is she a model of purity and sinlessness? It seems like it places her outside of human nature, which makes me wonder what it means to say that Christ took flesh from her...

So from where I'm sitting the problems with the IC aren't so much that it says something ultimately different than Orthodoxy says (since both groups believe that the Theotokos never sinned), but that the means by which it makes that assertion leads to some really troubling questions that seem to warp or at least jeopardize the proper view of the incarnation.
I don't think the actual dogma (as opposed to what many of us Catholics may think) says Mary was incapable of sinning.

The dogma says that the Theotokos "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

The "stain" for us Roman Catholics would be both the guilt and concupisence, or the passions the rest of us have to constantly fight to avoid sinning. In other words, she would have been like Eve before the Fall when it comes to sinning. Not that she could not choose to sin...Adam and Eve were created without original sin, and apparently they could sin  Wink

So, I don't think she's outside human nature, merely fallen human nature, which in itself is hard enough to imagine.
"For He made Him Who knew no sin to be sin for us" II Cor. 5:21

No room for an "immaculate conception."  Were it needed, there is no reason why God couldn't so exempt every one from Eve to the Theotokos. Indeed, why shouldn't He?

Eve before the Fall was to live forever.  Hence the Immortalists of the Vatican, who believe she did not die, yet another heresy borne of the "Immaculate Conception."

The IC requires an intervention in creation, preventing the Holy Theotokos from being born from Adam and Eve.  Which defeats the purpose of the Incarnation.
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
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #91 on: November 21, 2012, 04:02:34 AM »

But how can you separate nature into human nature v. fallen human nature when the Theotokos was born after the fall which affected that human nature?

For what reason do RC theologians say that the Theotokos needed a savior, if her nature was not affected by the fall?

There were Church Fathers, perhaps it was St. Gregory of Nyssa, who said that Christ would have become incarnate even if humankind did't fall to pull humankind closer to God. I can't remember who exactly said this though.

Eve before the Fall was to live forever.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But you seem to argue an Augustinian understanding of original sin.

I don't think any man alive can, our really should, say for sure.

Many hymns of the Church seem to indicate otherwise with words like panagia, hyperagia, achrantos, panagni and all those other superlatives. Would it therefore be strange to say that the Theotokos was free from sin? Lex orandi, lex credendi you know.

  Which defeats the purpose of the Incarnation.

Well, no, not exactly.

Note: I do not argue in favor of the IC dogma or its wording, I'm only saying that it isn't that bad as what it is often made out to be in polemics.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 04:24:23 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #92 on: November 21, 2012, 04:47:09 AM »

There were Church Fathers, perhaps it was St. Gregory of Nyssa, who said that Christ would have become incarnate even if humankind did't fall to pull humankind closer to God. I can't remember who exactly said this though.

Indeed. I have read similar things as well, but it is important to notice that this is not what happened. Humanity did fall, and the Theotokos possessed that same human nature, did she not? She was not some other type of being or what have you. So I would like to know what RC folk have to say about this given what did actually happen, because I don't see how you can say, as we (all) do, that Christ took flesh from the Theotokos and was really and truly man if that flesh that He took was somehow something other than human.
Logged

Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #93 on: November 21, 2012, 04:55:29 AM »

There were Church Fathers, perhaps it was St. Gregory of Nyssa, who said that Christ would have become incarnate even if humankind did't fall to pull humankind closer to God. I can't remember who exactly said this though.

Indeed. I have read similar things as well, but it is important to notice that this is not what happened. Humanity did fall, and the Theotokos possessed that same human nature, did she not? She was not some other type of being or what have you. So I would like to know what RC folk have to say about this given what did actually happen, because I don't see how you can say, as we (all) do, that Christ took flesh from the Theotokos and was really and truly man if that flesh that He took was somehow something other than human.

Was the flesh of Eve pre-fall different than her flesh post-fall? Did Eve even have flesh pre-fall? (I think Origen denied this, but it's early in the morning so I can't think clearly now - forgive me if I'm wrong in saying Origen claimed this)
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 04:56:16 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #94 on: November 21, 2012, 05:19:23 AM »

That I don't know. I'm not very up on Origen, other than a few modern historical texts on his time as the head of the school at Alexandria.
Logged

jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #95 on: November 21, 2012, 05:24:32 AM »

There were Church Fathers, perhaps it was St. Gregory of Nyssa, who said that Christ would have become incarnate even if humankind did't fall to pull humankind closer to God. I can't remember who exactly said this though.

Indeed. I have read similar things as well, but it is important to notice that this is not what happened. Humanity did fall, and the Theotokos possessed that same human nature, did she not? She was not some other type of being or what have you. So I would like to know what RC folk have to say about this given what did actually happen, because I don't see how you can say, as we (all) do, that Christ took flesh from the Theotokos and was really and truly man if that flesh that He took was somehow something other than human.

Was the flesh of Eve pre-fall different than her flesh post-fall? Did Eve even have flesh pre-fall? (I think Origen denied this, but it's early in the morning so I can't think clearly now - forgive me if I'm wrong in saying Origen claimed this)

Human nature is more than just flesh and Christ assumed a complete human nature - He was not God wrapped in human flesh but fully God and fully man. We Orthodox believe that what is not assumed is not saved. If Christ's human nature was something other than our human nature, if it was free from  the effects of the fall because the Theotokos from whom He took it was peculiarly spared the effects of the Ancestral Sin, then you and I, who are undoubtedly fallen humans, have no hope of salvation. The Immaculate Conception is every bit as bad as people make it out to be. I have no doubts whatsoever that to say that the Theotokos was born with an unfallen human nature is heresy.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #96 on: November 21, 2012, 05:35:00 AM »


Human nature is more than just flesh and Christ assumed a complete human nature - He was not God wrapped in human flesh but fully God and fully man.

I am aware of that.


We Orthodox believe that what is not assumed is not saved.

St. Gregory the Theologian, epistle 101: to Cledonius. I'm well aware of that, yes.

If Christ's human nature was something other than our human nature, if it was free from  the effects of the fall because the Theotokos from whom He took it was peculiarly spared the effects of the Ancestral Sin, then you and I, who are undoubtedly fallen humans, have no hope of salvation. The Immaculate Conception is every bit as bad as people make it out to be. I have no doubts whatsoever that to say that the Theotokos was born with an unfallen human nature is heresy.

Well, here I think you're wrong. Christ did not have ancestral sin yet assumed human nature. According to your post that means we aren't saved. So was human nature different after the fall? I don't think so. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 05:35:51 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #97 on: November 21, 2012, 05:40:51 AM »


Human nature is more than just flesh and Christ assumed a complete human nature - He was not God wrapped in human flesh but fully God and fully man.

I am aware of that.


We Orthodox believe that what is not assumed is not saved.

St. Gregory the Theologian, epistle 101: to Cledonius. I'm well aware of that, yes.

If Christ's human nature was something other than our human nature, if it was free from  the effects of the fall because the Theotokos from whom He took it was peculiarly spared the effects of the Ancestral Sin, then you and I, who are undoubtedly fallen humans, have no hope of salvation. The Immaculate Conception is every bit as bad as people make it out to be. I have no doubts whatsoever that to say that the Theotokos was born with an unfallen human nature is heresy.

Well, here I think you're wrong. Christ did not have ancestral sin yet assumed human nature. According to your post that means we aren't saved. So was human nature different after the fall? I don't think so. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.



In my opinion, you're undoubtedly wrong. The point is that Christ assumed fallen human nature. What makes you think He did not? If He did not, as you say, and yet you agree that what is not assumed is not saved then how can we be saved? We certainly have a fallen human nature.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #98 on: November 21, 2012, 05:41:42 AM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #99 on: November 21, 2012, 05:45:03 AM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

Could you explain what you mean by the question? One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #100 on: November 21, 2012, 06:16:06 AM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 06:25:50 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #101 on: November 21, 2012, 06:26:21 AM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

Could you explain what you mean by the question? One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

I always thought that Christ became like us in everthing but sin.

But the effect of the Ancestral Sin is not sin. That's, it seems to me, you coming at the idea from a western point of view. The effect of Ancestral Sin is such things as mortality, it's not that we're born guilty of Adam's sin, just that we suffer the consequences of it. The fact that we can believe that the Theotokos was born with a sinful nature and yet never sinned should illustrate what I mean clearly. We simply don't hold to an idea of sin being hereditary (that's a peculiarity of certain western streams of thought that even the RCC now seems to have moved away from).

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #102 on: November 21, 2012, 06:30:01 AM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

Could you explain what you mean by the question? One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

I always thought that Christ became like us in everthing but sin.

But the effect of the Ancestral Sin is not sin. That's, it seems to me, you coming at the idea from a western point of view. The effect of Ancestral Sin is such things as mortality, it's not that we're born guilty of Adam's sin, just that we suffer the consequences of it. The fact that we can believe that the Theotokos was born with a sinful nature and yet never sinned should illustrate what I mean clearly. We simply don't hold to an idea of sin being hereditary (that's a peculiarity of certain western streams of thought that even the RCC now seems to have moved away from).

James

I do know that but I can't see how the IC is incompatible with the Orthodox understanding. Perhaps I'm just plain stupid.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 06:30:12 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #103 on: November 21, 2012, 06:31:53 AM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.

But that's really not what IC says at all. It may be how some people try to make the idea fit in a modern church that has pretty much turned its back on an Augustinian idea of Original Sin, but it doesn't really work. In any case, however you choose to understand the ins and outs of it, it basically says that the Theotokos was different to us, she had a different nature to us. If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion), but it means that Christ's human nature was different than ours. That is to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt, heresy.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #104 on: November 21, 2012, 06:40:44 AM »

I'm interested in what Papist has to say about this.
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Justin Kolodziej
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: I agree with the Church
Jurisdiction: Huh
Posts: 291


St. Leo III, Defender of Orthodoxy


« Reply #105 on: November 21, 2012, 01:43:27 PM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.

But that's really not what IC says at all. It may be how some people try to make the idea fit in a modern church that has pretty much turned its back on an Augustinian idea of Original Sin, but it doesn't really work. In any case, however you choose to understand the ins and outs of it, it basically says that the Theotokos was different to us, she had a different nature to us. If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion), but it means that Christ's human nature was different than ours. That is to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt, heresy.

James
A question, if I may: Did Adam and Eve have a different nature from us?
Logged

Where even the last two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in their midst.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #106 on: November 21, 2012, 02:00:40 PM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.

But that's really not what IC says at all. It may be how some people try to make the idea fit in a modern church that has pretty much turned its back on an Augustinian idea of Original Sin, but it doesn't really work. In any case, however you choose to understand the ins and outs of it, it basically says that the Theotokos was different to us, she had a different nature to us. If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion), but it means that Christ's human nature was different than ours. That is to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt, heresy.

James
A question, if I may: Did Adam and Eve have a different nature from us?

I would say no.
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #107 on: November 21, 2012, 02:11:43 PM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.

But that's really not what IC says at all. It may be how some people try to make the idea fit in a modern church that has pretty much turned its back on an Augustinian idea of Original Sin, but it doesn't really work. In any case, however you choose to understand the ins and outs of it, it basically says that the Theotokos was different to us, she had a different nature to us. If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion), but it means that Christ's human nature was different than ours. That is to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt, heresy.

James
A question, if I may: Did Adam and Eve have a different nature from us?

I would say no.

You would be correct.  And you would also be correct to say that Jesus did not assume a fallen human nature.  In fact you'd be correct to say that this conversation, in the main, demonstrates a very poor understanding of human nature in the first place...a very protestant one in fact. 

The "stain" of original sin, according to the Holy Fathers, including Augustine, was the darkening of the intellect/nous and the weakening of the will.  This "stain" was inherited but it did NOT mean that man's human nature had been entirely spoiled or changed from that which God created that was Good.

Most of the people here would not understand this as the long teaching of the Catholic Church because they do not KNOW the long teaching of the Catholic Church and are more than happy to parrot what they hear.

The Immaculate Conception means that at the very moment the Mother of God became a person, she had no darkened intellect and no weakened will.  That does NOT mean that she does not have a human nature any more than the fact that Jesus did not become the Incarnation with original sin as a part of his human nature means that He was any less human.

Also the Mother of God was liable to temptation and liable to death and corruption and to the feelings of sorrow and suffering.

God bless us all as we struggle to comprehend the incomprehensible.

M.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 02:12:33 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #108 on: November 21, 2012, 02:46:31 PM »

Perhaps I'm just plain stupid.

The only stupid thing that I can recall you posting.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #109 on: November 21, 2012, 02:48:11 PM »

I'm interested in what Papist has to say about this.

Why? You have EM now.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 02:48:27 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #110 on: November 21, 2012, 03:08:50 PM »

Perhaps I'm just plain stupid.

The only stupid thing that I can recall you posting.

 Wink +1
Logged

dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #111 on: November 21, 2012, 03:12:21 PM »

It's sort of interesting...in the exposition on original sin found in the fifth session of the Council of Trent, you find statements such as: "If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own...", then at the end of the section a sort of hasty out for St. Mary: "This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God."

If I understand this correctly, 'propagation' is sexual reproduction. So we must wonder: If "all", even though it says "all", does not in fact include St. Mary, then what was different about Joachim and Anna's union? How far back does this exception go? Because it seems like the exception exists to ensure that Christ would be born without the 'stain' or original sin, but again, if you accept that St. Mary just didn't commit any sins, I don't see why you need to make this kind of ontological exception for her, which seems to destroy the Catholic Church's own doctrine, as quoted above... Undecided
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #112 on: November 21, 2012, 03:15:40 PM »

If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion)
How responsible are any of us for our own holiness? Any time we resist sin in any way, it is only through God's Grace. Obviously, our free will has to cooperate with Grace, but we can never do it apart from Grace. Also, as others have already mentioned, the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with the Theotokos' sinlessness throughout her life. Adam and Eve were immaculate before the fall, and they still fell. The Immaculate Conception did not render the Theotokos incapable of sinning. She still had free will, just as Adam and Eve did.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #113 on: November 21, 2012, 03:17:33 PM »

It's sort of interesting...in the exposition on original sin found in the fifth session of the Council of Trent, you find statements such as: "If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own...", then at the end of the section a sort of hasty out for St. Mary: "This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God."

If I understand this correctly, 'propagation' is sexual reproduction. So we must wonder: If "all", even though it says "all", does not in fact include St. Mary, then what was different about Joachim and Anna's union? How far back does this exception go? Because it seems like the exception exists to ensure that Christ would be born without the 'stain' or original sin, but again, if you accept that St. Mary just didn't commit any sins, I don't see why you need to make this kind of ontological exception for her, which seems to destroy the Catholic Church's own doctrine, as quoted above... Undecided

The Mother of God is exceptional in so very many many ways.  It seems odd that you cannot seem to accept only one...very odd indeed... Wink
Logged

dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #114 on: November 21, 2012, 03:20:39 PM »

Oh, what's that? A non-answer? Oh, okay...
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #115 on: November 21, 2012, 03:23:13 PM »

Oh, what's that? A non-answer? Oh, okay...

It is that simple however.  She is exceptional.  That is hardly a non-answer.  It is just one that you do not like too much...oh...well...OK!!  Cool
Logged

orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #116 on: November 21, 2012, 03:31:53 PM »

It's sort of interesting...in the exposition on original sin found in the fifth session of the Council of Trent, you find statements such as: "If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own...", then at the end of the section a sort of hasty out for St. Mary: "This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God."

If I understand this correctly, 'propagation' is sexual reproduction. So we must wonder: If "all", even though it says "all", does not in fact include St. Mary, then what was different about Joachim and Anna's union? How far back does this exception go? Because it seems like the exception exists to ensure that Christ would be born without the 'stain' or original sin, but again, if you accept that St. Mary just didn't commit any sins, I don't see why you need to make this kind of ontological exception for her, which seems to destroy the Catholic Church's own doctrine, as quoted above... Undecided

My head is killing me so I want to talk more about pants size then dogma.

I have a simple question, do I recall correctly that you were an RC?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #117 on: November 21, 2012, 04:44:20 PM »

Yes. I was RC for about 5 or 6 years.
Logged

jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #118 on: November 22, 2012, 04:29:24 AM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.

But that's really not what IC says at all. It may be how some people try to make the idea fit in a modern church that has pretty much turned its back on an Augustinian idea of Original Sin, but it doesn't really work. In any case, however you choose to understand the ins and outs of it, it basically says that the Theotokos was different to us, she had a different nature to us. If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion), but it means that Christ's human nature was different than ours. That is to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt, heresy.

James
A question, if I may: Did Adam and Eve have a different nature from us?

After the fall, no. Before, they were not fallen, were not mortal, so how could they not? I suspect that those of you who are of the contrary opinion mean nature in some different way and hence we are talking past one another. If you think the Fall had no effect on human nature, please could you explain what effect you think it did have (and I'm addressing this question to all of you)? Rome clearly, so, I've been led to believe, no longer adheres to the idea of inheritable sin, so if the fall had no effect on human nature and we don't inherit Adam's guilt, I struggle to see what you believe it did do and what exactly the Incarnation achieved. I know what I believe it did, and I know what I believe is Orthodox. I have absolutely no idea any more what you people seem to believe.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #119 on: November 22, 2012, 01:56:17 PM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.

But that's really not what IC says at all. It may be how some people try to make the idea fit in a modern church that has pretty much turned its back on an Augustinian idea of Original Sin, but it doesn't really work. In any case, however you choose to understand the ins and outs of it, it basically says that the Theotokos was different to us, she had a different nature to us. If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion), but it means that Christ's human nature was different than ours. That is to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt, heresy.

James
A question, if I may: Did Adam and Eve have a different nature from us?

After the fall, no. Before, they were not fallen, were not mortal, so how could they not? I suspect that those of you who are of the contrary opinion mean nature in some different way and hence we are talking past one another. If you think the Fall had no effect on human nature, please could you explain what effect you think it did have (and I'm addressing this question to all of you)? Rome clearly, so, I've been led to believe, no longer adheres to the idea of inheritable sin, so if the fall had no effect on human nature and we don't inherit Adam's guilt, I struggle to see what you believe it did do and what exactly the Incarnation achieved. I know what I believe it did, and I know what I believe is Orthodox. I have absolutely no idea any more what you people seem to believe.

James

I am not intending to be patronizing when I say that you should, for a while, not think too much about it.  I have learned in the many years that I've cracked my head against these kinds of things that when I am totally confused it is best to go and immerse myself in prayer and fasting and liturgy and not worry so much about the details.  Then later go back to it refreshed.  It does help.

In the meantime it might be ok to realize that you really do not understand the Catholic perspective and that it may not be what you think it is.

Human nature is not the same as expressions of that nature.  I can express my humanity in many ways that are good and many ways that are not good.  Either way I am still human and not something other.  Barring fatal accident, it often takes a great deal of sin to result directly in physical death.  But even at that level of depravity, nature is still human.  It is also fallen, but fallen nature is still good.  On the other hand, with great grace, my nature can be perfected and become united to the divine nature in such a way that we can be participants in the divine life, but in that my nature remains a human nature.  That is something close to the Catholic position.  I say close because I have expressed things in very simple language.

The fact that my body can die or that I can suffer great sorrow or pain as the result of the fall does not make me less human than Adam or than Eve....for example.

M.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 01:57:28 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #120 on: November 22, 2012, 02:11:39 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #121 on: November 22, 2012, 03:07:54 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

It is fully protestant to say that human nature was changed rather than it was wounded, as it is said in the Catholic Church whose patrimony is the Holy Fathers of East and West.  Can you show us from the holy fathers, where human nature was destroyed by the ancestral sin and come into being outside of paradise as something other than what it was prior to the fall?

That is more of a rhetorical question than anything else...

You neglected to tell us what your religious affiliation was prior to your passing through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy...

M.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 03:08:50 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #122 on: November 22, 2012, 03:14:55 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

It is fully protestant to say that human nature was changed rather than it was wounded, as it is said in the Catholic Church whose patrimony is the Holy Fathers of East and West.  Can you show us from the holy fathers, where human nature was destroyed by the ancestral sin and come into being outside of paradise as something other than what it was prior to the fall?

That is more of a rhetorical question than anything else...

You neglected to tell us what your religious affiliation was prior to your passing through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy...

M.

It's fully protestant to throw out "It's fully protestant" as a response to anything. It's something even less to take "I believe that the fall had an effect on human nature" and assume that I'm suddenly a Calvinist and have said that it was "destroyed", or anything even close to that. Go away.
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 #123 on: November 22, 2012, 03:17:04 PM »

Don't you think there's a difference, though, between saying the Theotokos never sinned and saying that the Theotokos was basically rendered incapable of sinning from conception? If you render it impossible that she be able to sin, then what does it matter that she didn't -- in other words, how is she a model of purity and sinlessness? It seems like it places her outside of human nature, which makes me wonder what it means to say that Christ took flesh from her...
There was a rather lively discussion about this in the thread linked below:

Immaculate Conception
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
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #124 on: November 22, 2012, 03:22:01 PM »

Thank you for the link, Apotheoun. Very interesting stuff in there, particularly the quotes you have shared from Fr. Hardon.
Logged

William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Time-wasting self-embarrassing anti-Christian hater
Posts: 4,352



« Reply #125 on: November 22, 2012, 03:38:55 PM »

I think they are wrong about the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, and that's about it.

Really? I don't see that much of a difference between the RC and EO position. It was silly to dogmatise, but still I think the IC issue is blown way out of proportion by rhetoric and polemics.
dogmatizing a heresy and requiring the belief thereof is rather extreme.

Saying that the Theotokos had always been free of sin is heretical? Because that's what their dogma basically comes down to.

No, not really. It says that Mary was conceived without original sin, that she was not conceived in the same state as everyone else except Christ Himself.

I am vehemently opposed to the idea that Mary ever committed personal sins. Just ask Clemente or witega. But the Immaculate Conception is heresy.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 03:39:11 PM by William » Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
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 #126 on: November 22, 2012, 03:41:47 PM »

Thank you for the link, Apotheoun. Very interesting stuff in there, particularly the quotes you have shared from Fr. Hardon.
Yes, the information provided by Fr. Hardon was interesting, and what he said seems to be in basic agreement with the texts I quoted from more than twenty other Roman Catholic theologians.
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: 37,866



« Reply #127 on: November 22, 2012, 06:32:16 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

It is fully protestant to say that human nature was changed rather than it was wounded, as it is said in the Catholic Church whose patrimony is the Holy Fathers of East and West.
Yes, we are.
Can you show us from the holy fathers, where human nature was destroyed by the ancestral sin and come into being outside of paradise as something other than what it was prior to the fall?

That is more of a rhetorical question than anything else...
Then why ask it?  Especially as the IC isn't the answer.

You neglected to tell us what your religious affiliation was prior to your passing through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy...
Neglected?  That implies an obligation, which he is not laboring under.

And passing into Orthodoxy means to pass into the Catholic Church.
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 #128 on: November 22, 2012, 06:57:59 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

It is fully protestant to say that human nature was changed rather than it was wounded, as it is said in the Catholic Church whose patrimony is the Holy Fathers of East and West.
Yes, we are.
Can you show us from the holy fathers, where human nature was destroyed by the ancestral sin and come into being outside of paradise as something other than what it was prior to the fall?

That is more of a rhetorical question than anything else...
Then why ask it?  Especially as the IC isn't the answer.

You neglected to tell us what your religious affiliation was prior to your passing through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy...
Neglected?  That implies an obligation, which he is not laboring under.

And passing into Orthodoxy means to pass into a Catholic Church.

Yes...one of them
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #129 on: November 22, 2012, 07:04:31 PM »

Don't you think there's a difference, though, between saying the Theotokos never sinned and saying that the Theotokos was basically rendered incapable of sinning from conception? If you render it impossible that she be able to sin, then what does it matter that she didn't -- in other words, how is she a model of purity and sinlessness? It seems like it places her outside of human nature, which makes me wonder what it means to say that Christ took flesh from her...
There was a rather lively discussion about this in the thread linked below:

Immaculate Conception

I said at the time and it is still true:

Father Hardon has never been recognized by the Church as being representative of either pre- or post-Vatican II teaching.  So all of your "wowing" is actually for nothing.

I will add this much only: There was an element in the Church from about the mid-1700s to the beginning of the 20th century who taught in such a way that free will was compromised.  That teaching has not withstood the test of time and though it remains in individuals who continue to think and teach that way, it has never been picked up as a formal part of Church teaching.

Dom Marmion has, for example.  Find his works and read them and you will see a very different approach from the French and Irish Jansenists who influenced Father Hardon.

If you are not that interested, don't bother, but don't expect to find much traction for your ideas outside of these kinds of venues where the history of the Catholic Church in any real accurate detail, is virtually unknown.

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: 37,866



« Reply #130 on: November 22, 2012, 07:05:39 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

It is fully protestant to say that human nature was changed rather than it was wounded, as it is said in the Catholic Church whose patrimony is the Holy Fathers of East and West.  Can you show us from the holy fathers, where human nature was destroyed by the ancestral sin and come into being outside of paradise as something other than what it was prior to the fall?

That is more of a rhetorical question than anything else...

You neglected to tell us what your religious affiliation was prior to your passing through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy...

M.

It's fully protestant to throw out "It's fully protestant" as a response to anything. It's something even less to take "I believe that the fall had an effect on human nature" and assume that I'm suddenly a Calvinist and have said that it was "destroyed", or anything even close to that. Go away.
EM has to pigeon hole everything into Protestantism, as the Vatican's apologists, not being able to take us on, practice on knocking down their Protestant kin.
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: 37,866



« Reply #131 on: November 22, 2012, 07:08:34 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

It is fully protestant to say that human nature was changed rather than it was wounded, as it is said in the Catholic Church whose patrimony is the Holy Fathers of East and West.
Yes, we are.
Can you show us from the holy fathers, where human nature was destroyed by the ancestral sin and come into being outside of paradise as something other than what it was prior to the fall?

That is more of a rhetorical question than anything else...
Then why ask it?  Especially as the IC isn't the answer.

You neglected to tell us what your religious affiliation was prior to your passing through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy...
Neglected?  That implies an obligation, which he is not laboring under.

And passing into Orthodoxy means to pass into a Catholic Church.

Yes...one of them
Well we have 15 of them.  All the same.
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
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #132 on: November 22, 2012, 07:15:28 PM »

Quote
EM has to pigeon hole everything into Protestantism, as the Vatican's apologists, not being able to take us on, practice on knocking down their Protestant kin.

I'm just saying she seems to be able to smell her own, since she's so sure I'm a protestant even though my reception into the Coptic Orthodox Church was quite a public event (I kept that day's bulletin from the church, St. Mark COC in Phoenix/Scottsdale, which I guess I might need now in case Maria makes any further demands that I identify myself!).

So com'on, Maria...let's be Protestants together! I'll protest the gross deformation of traditional ecclesiology and soteriology by the Roman Catholic Church, and you can continue to protest figments of Calvinism that you have constructed in your own mind and tried to force into my posts...sound good?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #133 on: November 22, 2012, 07:38:00 PM »

Quote
EM has to pigeon hole everything into Protestantism, as the Vatican's apologists, not being able to take us on, practice on knocking down their Protestant kin.

I'm just saying she seems to be able to smell her own, since she's so sure I'm a protestant even though my reception into the Coptic Orthodox Church was quite a public event (I kept that day's bulletin from the church, St. Mark COC in Phoenix/Scottsdale, which I guess I might need now in case Maria makes any further demands that I identify myself!).

So com'on, Maria...let's be Protestants together! I'll protest the gross deformation of traditional ecclesiology and soteriology by the Roman Catholic Church, and you can continue to protest figments of Calvinism that you have constructed in your own mind and tried to force into my posts...sound good?

I had said that what you are talking about has been most clearly defined outside of the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy.  That's just a simple fact of the history of theology.

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: 37,866



« Reply #134 on: November 22, 2012, 08:52:46 PM »

So Christ did have ancestral sin according to you?

One can't 'have ancestral sin' but if Christ assumed fallen human nature then His human nature certainly suffered the effects of the Ancestral Sin. If you say that He didn't then I struggle to see exactly how you understand the Incarnation.

James

Exactly. I think we misunderstood eachother. But you must see the IC in the light of Latin-Augustinian traditions. They basically say that the Theotokos did (correct me when wrong) suffer the effects of the ancestral curse but that she was free of any sin herself.

But that's really not what IC says at all. It may be how some people try to make the idea fit in a modern church that has pretty much turned its back on an Augustinian idea of Original Sin, but it doesn't really work. In any case, however you choose to understand the ins and outs of it, it basically says that the Theotokos was different to us, she had a different nature to us. If this is the case not only does it mean that the Theotokos is effectively not responsible for her own sinlessness (which seriously diminishes her in my opinion), but it means that Christ's human nature was different than ours. That is to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt, heresy.

James
A question, if I may: Did Adam and Eve have a different nature from us?

I would say no.

You would be correct.  And you would also be correct to say that Jesus did not assume a fallen human nature.  In fact you'd be correct to say that this conversation, in the main, demonstrates a very poor understanding of human nature in the first place...a very protestant one in fact.
You mean Calvinist, and no, it hasn't as a whole.

The "stain" of original sin, according to the Holy Fathers, including Augustine, was the darkening of the intellect/nous and the weakening of the will.  This "stain" was inherited but it did NOT mean that man's human nature had been entirely spoiled or changed from that which God created that was Good.

Most of the people here would not understand this as the long teaching of the Catholic Church because they do not KNOW the long teaching of the Catholic Church and are more than happy to parrot what they hear.
Although parroting what the Catholic Church doesn't represent the ideal, it could suffice for the simple. As to swallowing what the Vatican and its Scholastics want to regurgitate down the gullets of unsuspecting chicks...that's a different bird.

The Immaculate Conception means that at the very moment the Mother of God became a person, she had no darkened intellect and no weakened will.  That does NOT mean that she does not have a human nature any more than the fact that Jesus did not become the Incarnation with original sin as a part of his human nature means that He was any less human.
In Christ He was not any less divine, and as such His human nature united with and in His divine Person, thereby preserving His human nature.  For the IC to work, it requires hypostatic modification, rendering her the great exception rather than the great example, placing her outside of the progeny of Adam and Eve.  But then Maxmillian Kolbe solved that with his semi-incarnation doctrine.

Also the Mother of God was liable to temptation and liable to death and corruption and to the feelings of sorrow and suffering.
She died.  Subject to ancestral sin.  Not a voluntary sacrifice as her Son offered.
God bless us all as we struggle to comprehend the incomprehensible.
Like why people would make up problems to think ingenious solutions to their non-existent problem.
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: 37,866



« Reply #135 on: November 22, 2012, 08:57:30 PM »

Don't you think there's a difference, though, between saying the Theotokos never sinned and saying that the Theotokos was basically rendered incapable of sinning from conception? If you render it impossible that she be able to sin, then what does it matter that she didn't -- in other words, how is she a model of purity and sinlessness? It seems like it places her outside of human nature, which makes me wonder what it means to say that Christ took flesh from her...
There was a rather lively discussion about this in the thread linked below:

Immaculate Conception

I said at the time and it is still true:

Father Hardon has never been recognized by the Church as being representative of either pre- or post-Vatican II teaching.  So all of your "wowing" is actually for nothing.

I will add this much only: There was an element in the Church from about the mid-1700s to the beginning of the 20th century who taught in such a way that free will was compromised.  That teaching has not withstood the test of time and though it remains in individuals who continue to think and teach that way, it has never been picked up as a formal part of Church teaching.

Dom Marmion has, for example.  Find his works and read them and you will see a very different approach from the French and Irish Jansenists who influenced Father Hardon.

If you are not that interested, don't bother, but don't expect to find much traction for your ideas outside of these kinds of venues where the history of the Catholic Church in any real accurate detail, is virtually unknown.
The ideas are certainly alive and well in the CCD, RCIA and Religion classes taught by the Vatican's school system, where we have come across 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
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #136 on: November 23, 2012, 04:29:11 AM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

Thank goodness. I was starting to think I must have missed something major for the last decade. My understanding was always that in the Incarnation Christ assumed our fallen human nature, thus reconciling it with God (so reversing the Fall which was a separation from God) and healing it. If I reread 'On the Incarnation' I still see the same thing so as far as I'm concerned my objection to the IC remains. I'm perfectly happy to admit that I don't completely understand Roman Catholicism, though (I just don't think I need to to see the heresy in the IC). I don't know (m)any Roman Catholics who do either judging from EM's posts, though.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #137 on: November 23, 2012, 04:39:25 AM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

It is fully protestant to say that human nature was changed rather than it was wounded, as it is said in the Catholic Church whose patrimony is the Holy Fathers of East and West.  Can you show us from the holy fathers, where human nature was destroyed by the ancestral sin and come into being outside of paradise as something other than what it was prior to the fall?

That is more of a rhetorical question than anything else...

You neglected to tell us what your religious affiliation was prior to your passing through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy...

M.

How is a wound not a change? Why do you seem to think that if we say changed we mean destroyed, or that there must a complete change? If I get a sun tan I'm changed, so I'm pretty sure becoming mortal and all the rest of what the Fall entailed can quite rightly be described as a change in human nature, particularly as it is a heritable change and therefore part and parcel of that nature in a way that my sun tan example is not. I don't think that any of us said human nature was destroyed (in fact I'm almost certain nobody here did). Incidentally, I'm an ex-Protestant being brought up kind of Lutheran at home while mostly attending Anglican churches and I never ever heard anyone teach the view you call 'fully protestant' at all, not in either church. I certainly don't hold to it and never have. In fact, in my Protestant days I would have never been familiar with the idea of the Incarnation as healing human nature at all, rather I'd have seen Christ as paying the price of our sins on the Cross in our place. I think any idea of changes in human nature at the fall would have been an after thought if that and certainly of no real soteriological significance.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #138 on: November 23, 2012, 08:20:07 AM »

Is it really Orthodox teaching that human nature was changed in the fall? If so, wouldn't probably mean that Adam wasn't consubstantion with us or even a different being altogether?
« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 08:40:44 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #139 on: November 23, 2012, 09:01:12 AM »

Is it really Orthodox teaching that human nature was changed in the fall? If so, wouldn't probably mean that Adam wasn't consubstantion with us or even a different being altogether?

What are you asking? Adam fell and after the Fall he was different to before - surely this is not controversial. We inherited Adam's nature, which by that point was fallen, so we are fallen too. It doesn't mean we aren't of the same substance as Adam (indeed exactly the opposite) and nor does it mean he was 'a different being altogether' before the Fall. Why do you seem to insist, like EM, that any change must be complete or no change at all? I'm really struggling to see anything that would lead you and EM to such a point.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Justin Kolodziej
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: I agree with the Church
Jurisdiction: Huh
Posts: 291


St. Leo III, Defender of Orthodoxy


« Reply #140 on: November 23, 2012, 12:44:20 PM »

I agree 100% that Christ assumed our human nature, to say otherwise is heresy.

Here is a quote that states the crucial point of the IC, in my view: source http://newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Quote
The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

So, it sounds to me like she was restored spiritually at the first moment of her existence to the state Adam and Eve were created in. Therefore it makes a massive difference whether that state amounts to having a different nature to us, or if it is the same nature but wounded.

If the two states are different enough that they are two different natures, say "unfallen human nature" and "fallen human nature", and if the IC is true, then everything collapses. For, if Mary was like Adam and Eve spiritually, then she had an unfallen human nature. Therefore, the Christ born of her would have also had an unfallen human nature, different from our fallen human nature. So, we would not be saved.

Now, you have been stating that Christ took on fallen human nature. But if Christ had a fallen human nature, it would appear that would include having all the same "depraved emotions, passions, and debilities" as any of us, as well as the physical consequences, and that would clearly be blasphemy and heresy to claim.

Therefore, I would say there is only one human nature, damaged at the Fall, restored to Mary by the Immaculate Conception, transmitted to Christ by the Incarnation so that He was "like us in all things but sin".

However, I also have to grant that if there was no damage to human nature at the Fall at all, then there is no need for an Immaculate Conception. But I think only Pelagians would say that.

Feel free to point out all the errors in the above statements  Grin
Logged

Where even the last two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in their midst.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #141 on: November 23, 2012, 01:01:02 PM »

Now, you have been stating that Christ took on fallen human nature. But if Christ had a fallen human nature, it would appear that would include having all the same "depraved emotions, passions, and debilities" as any of us, as well as the physical consequences, and that would clearly be blasphemy and heresy to claim.

I stated that He took on fallen human nature and in uniting it with God healed it. Now you can call it wounded rather than fallen if you like but that seems like semantics to me. What I did not say is that Christ's human nature was fallen, as His assumption of that nature is what results in the reconciliation with God. There is no difference one way or the other in the eventual nature of Christ. Either way His human nature is healed. The difference between what I am saying and the IC is that in the IC God heals the human nature of the Theotokos miraculously and individually at her conception so that she is a 'fit' mother for Christ whereas what I'm saying is that in the Incarnation God healed fallen human nature by uniting it with His Divinity. There's no need to invent a two stage process, diminishing the Theotokos in the process and, frankly, I still can't see in what way one could possibly look at the IC, from an Orthodox perspective, and not see heresy. We believe what is not assumed is not healed (as has been mentioned earlier), so if He did not assume fallen human nature, He didn't heal the effects of the Fall and we are not saved. You are left having to come up with some other mechanism of salvation (which has certainly often been true in the west - witness PSA) but it simply will not mesh with Incarnational soteriology, which is the Orthodox view, a view I find in the Fathers while noting an absence of the IC.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #142 on: November 23, 2012, 01:32:50 PM »


However, I also have to grant that if there was no damage to human nature at the Fall at all, then there is no need for an Immaculate Conception. But I think only Pelagians would say that.


Our will is damaged, perhaps. But I doubt it whether human nature (as in physis) changed.  A change of physis would for me mean that a new creature has come into being. Perhaps I'm wrong though.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 01:33:12 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #143 on: November 23, 2012, 01:56:05 PM »

"Thus, then, God has made man, and willed that he should abide in incorruption; but men, having despised and rejected the contemplation of God, and devised and contrived evil for themselves (as was said in the former treatise), received the condemnation with which they had been threatened; and from thenceforth no longer remained as they had been made, but were being corrupted according to their devices; and death had the mastery over them as a king." -- St. Athanasius the Apostolic, On the Incarnation (A. Robinson, Trans., 1885; emphasis added)

I'm with James...you can call it a "wound" or a "change" or whatever you want, but you can't seriously say that we remained the same as we had been before.
Logged

Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #144 on: November 23, 2012, 02:21:06 PM »

"This, then, was the plight of men. God had not only made them out of nothing, but had also graciously bestowed on them His own life by the grace of the Word. Then, turning from eternal things to things corruptible, by counsel of the devil, they had become the cause of their own corruption in death; for, as I said before, though they were by nature subject to corruption, the grace of their union with the Word made them capable of escaping from the natural law, provided that they retained the beauty of innocence with which they were created. That is to say, the presence of the Word with them shielded them even from natural corruption, as also Wisdom says: God created man for incorruption and as an image of His own eternity; but by envy of the devil death entered into the world." - St. Athanasius the Apostolic, On the Incarnation (tr. Sister Penelope Lawson, emphasis mine)

I interpret this as that human nature didn't change, yet "the grace of their union with the Word made them capable  of escaping from the natural law" and "even from natural corruption" but that "but by envy of the devil death entered into the world" and that our union with the Word was damaged by which we lost our good state from before the fall.

This thread is pretty off topic, though. My fault, I admit it.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 02:24:10 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
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: 37,866



« Reply #145 on: November 23, 2012, 03:13:44 PM »

"Thus, then, God has made man, and willed that he should abide in incorruption; but men, having despised and rejected the contemplation of God, and devised and contrived evil for themselves (as was said in the former treatise), received the condemnation with which they had been threatened; and from thenceforth no longer remained as they had been made, but were being corrupted according to their devices; and death had the mastery over them as a king." -- St. Athanasius the Apostolic, On the Incarnation (A. Robinson, Trans., 1885; emphasis added)

I'm with James...you can call it a "wound" or a "change" or whatever you want, but you can't seriously say that we remained the same as we had been before.
For one thing, if we had, what is this "singular grace and privilege" that the IC supposedly conferred?
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
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #146 on: November 23, 2012, 03:18:32 PM »

"Thus, then, God has made man, and willed that he should abide in incorruption; but men, having despised and rejected the contemplation of God, and devised and contrived evil for themselves (as was said in the former treatise), received the condemnation with which they had been threatened; and from thenceforth no longer remained as they had been made, but were being corrupted according to their devices; and death had the mastery over them as a king." -- St. Athanasius the Apostolic, On the Incarnation (A. Robinson, Trans., 1885; emphasis added)

I'm with James...you can call it a "wound" or a "change" or whatever you want, but you can't seriously say that we remained the same as we had been before.
For one thing, if we had, what is this "singular grace and privilege" that the IC supposedly conferred?

I wonder too.
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #147 on: November 23, 2012, 03:36:32 PM »

I'm not sure how to answer your question, James, since I do believe that the fall had an effect on human nature. That's the unspoken assumption that I've held in my replies in this thread, as I had assumed that this was relatively basic theology. You know, "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved" and all that.

It is fully protestant to say that human nature was changed rather than it was wounded, as it is said in the Catholic Church whose patrimony is the Holy Fathers of East and West.  Can you show us from the holy fathers, where human nature was destroyed by the ancestral sin and come into being outside of paradise as something other than what it was prior to the fall?

That is more of a rhetorical question than anything else...

You neglected to tell us what your religious affiliation was prior to your passing through the Catholic Church into Orthodoxy...

M.


How is a wound not a change? Why do you seem to think that if we say changed we mean destroyed, or that there must a complete change? If I get a sun tan I'm changed, so I'm pretty sure becoming mortal and all the rest of what the Fall entailed can quite rightly be described as a change in human nature, particularly as it is a heritable change and therefore part and parcel of that nature in a way that my sun tan example is not. I don't think that any of us said human nature was destroyed (in fact I'm almost certain nobody here did). Incidentally, I'm an ex-Protestant being brought up kind of Lutheran at home while mostly attending Anglican churches and I never ever heard anyone teach the view you call 'fully protestant' at all, not in either church. I certainly don't hold to it and never have. In fact, in my Protestant days I would have never been familiar with the idea of the Incarnation as healing human nature at all, rather I'd have seen Christ as paying the price of our sins on the Cross in our place. I think any idea of changes in human nature at the fall would have been an after thought if that and certainly of no real soteriological significance.

James

Again...If I fall and cut my leg open, laying the muscles bare, or if I fall and my leg breaks and tears out of the skin ripping muscle and tendon in the process...I am wounded...badly wounded...incapacitated....I cannot use that leg. 

Is it any less a leg...has it's nature changed?  Or has the expression of its substantial nature changed?

That is the point that is missing here.  It is why I say that many times these discussions bog down due to very inadequate understandings of the nature of nature.

M.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 03:37:11 PM by elijahmaria » 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 #148 on: November 23, 2012, 09:23:06 PM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability
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
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,326


« Reply #149 on: November 23, 2012, 09:55:38 PM »

Cyrillic: I think we're talking about two different things at this point. You seem to be focusing on the means by which man came to be corrupted, saying that it did not involve a change in our nature, as we were "by nature" subject to corruption. Fair enough. I'm looking at it with more a "before and after" view, emphasizing the point that, as both of our quotes show, man was created in incorruption and to remain in incorruption, and so the fact that we did not remain in the incorruption in which we were created to live is itself all the necessary proof that a change/wound/whatever you want to call it did in fact occur. And, of course, the corruption that entered the world did not only effect Adam and Eve, but effects us all, even as we do not bare any personal guilt for their particular sin. 
Logged

Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #150 on: November 24, 2012, 06:28:46 AM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2012, 06:29:25 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #151 on: November 24, 2012, 06:43:45 AM »

Fair enough. I'm looking at it with more a "before and after" view, emphasizing the point that, as both of our quotes show, man was created in incorruption and to remain in incorruption, and so the fact that we did not remain in the incorruption in which we were created to live is itself all the necessary proof that a change/wound/whatever you want to call it did in fact occur.

The quote of St. Athanasius that I gave seemed to imply that it was God's grace which made us incorruptible, not our nature because according to nature we are corruptible, even before the fall, but in the fall we lost grace. The change then, I think, is the loss of grace, not a change of nature.
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
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 #152 on: November 24, 2012, 08:23:07 AM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.
Who I am to believe?  You?  Or Catholic theologians of high repute?  I guess I will go with the Catholic theologians.
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 #153 on: November 24, 2012, 02:38:43 PM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.

I am a little confused by this...

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #154 on: November 24, 2012, 02:41:33 PM »

Fair enough. I'm looking at it with more a "before and after" view, emphasizing the point that, as both of our quotes show, man was created in incorruption and to remain in incorruption, and so the fact that we did not remain in the incorruption in which we were created to live is itself all the necessary proof that a change/wound/whatever you want to call it did in fact occur.

The quote of St. Athanasius that I gave seemed to imply that it was God's grace which made us incorruptible, not our nature because according to nature we are corruptible, even before the fall, but in the fall we lost grace. The change then, I think, is the loss of grace, not a change of nature.

This is something interesting isn't it.  How can something that God creates become corrupted...?  I am pleased that you see this.  It is a necessary correction to the idea that the good corrupts without God's hand in it or in this case...withdrawn from it.

M.
Logged

Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #155 on: November 24, 2012, 02:55:39 PM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.

I am a little confused by this...

M.

Apotheoun was implying RC's believe St. Mary was incapable of sinning
« Last Edit: November 24, 2012, 02:56:27 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #156 on: November 24, 2012, 03:23:57 PM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.

I am a little confused by this...

M.

Apotheoun was implying RC's believe St. Mary was incapable of sinning

It may be a pious belief of some but it is not the formal teaching of the Church.  They say that the Mother of God had free will and could be tempted and leave it at that.

I am sure that you know that the desert fathers teach that as a soul gains in grace and holiness here on earth it becomes ever increasingly difficult for that soul to yield to temptation...It becomes near impossible to sin.  It is in that spirit that some Catholics teach that the Mother of God could not sin.  It was that her will was so aligned with the will of God that it would have been nearly impossible for her to sin, not that she COULD not have sinned.

Do you see?
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: 37,866



« Reply #157 on: November 24, 2012, 03:40:49 PM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.
Au contraire. Back in the day, the IC wasn't the teaching of the Vatican.  Its theologians changed that.
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 #158 on: November 24, 2012, 03:43:31 PM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.
Au contraire. Back in the day, the IC wasn't the teaching of the Vatican.  Its theologians changed that.

This is just ignorance based in animus.  Or it is purposefully designed to mislead and then it is something else...

It is very difficult for me to not just say it is stupid.

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: 37,866



« Reply #159 on: November 24, 2012, 03:45:19 PM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.

I am a little confused by this...

M.

Apotheoun was implying RC's believe St. Mary was incapable of sinning

It may be a pious belief of some but it is not the formal teaching of the Church.
 
The same may be said of the IC for 90% of your church's existence.

They say
who's "they"?

that the Mother of God had free will and could be tempted and leave it at that.
They should leave it at that.

I am sure that you know that the desert fathers teach that as a soul gains in grace and holiness here on earth it becomes ever increasingly difficult for that soul to yield to temptation...It becomes near impossible to sin.  It is in that spirit that some Catholics teach that the Mother of God could not sin.  It was that her will was so aligned with the will of God that it would have been nearly impossible for her to sin, not that she COULD not have sinned.

Do you see?
The Desert Fathers' point? Yes.  The IC? 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
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,323


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #160 on: November 24, 2012, 03:52:51 PM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.
Au contraire. Back in the day, the IC wasn't the teaching of the Vatican.  Its theologians changed that.

If I remember correctly, Bernard of Clairvaux mentioned the IC a lot.
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
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: 37,866



« Reply #161 on: November 24, 2012, 03:53:24 PM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.
Au contraire. Back in the day, the IC wasn't the teaching of the Vatican.  Its theologians changed that.

This is just ignorance based in animus.  Or it is purposefully designed to mislead and then it is something else...

It is very difficult for me to not just say it is stupid.
It is very easy for me to just say that is denial.

I would say that it is just ignorance based in apologia, but I know you know the facts.  You're just denying them, purposefully designed to mislead to what end we know
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: 37,866



« Reply #162 on: November 24, 2012, 03:53:44 PM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.
Au contraire. Back in the day, the IC wasn't the teaching of the Vatican.  Its theologians changed that.

If I remember correctly, Bernard of Clairvaux mentioned the IC a lot.
Yes, to condemn 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
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: 1,606



« Reply #163 on: November 26, 2012, 02:25:34 AM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.

This argument I find problematic. This would be like saying that St. Basil's appropriation of the term hypostasis to describe the threeness (for lack of a better term) of God was not until the Second Council of Constantinople an official teaching of the Church, but rather a private (and possibly heretical) opinion introduced by St. Basil and shared by some of the Church's most eminent theologians, since the Creed of Nicaea specifically condemns the proposition that the Son is of another hypostasis or ousia, and also since, to my knowledge, neither the Nicene Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, nor the Chalcedonian Definition specifically teach that God is trihypostatic. But this argument is flawed because the Christological use of the term hypostasis already presupposes that God is a triad of hypostases. To deny this would be to make the Chalcedonian Definition and the teaching of the hypostatic union to be meaningless utterances.

If so many respectable Roman Catholic theologians expound upon the Mariology of the Roman Catholic Church by teaching that the Virgin is made impeccable by a unique grace of God bestowed upon her (one bestowed from her very conception), what reason do we have to believe that they are only expressing a private opinion? It is unfair, I think, to decontextualize the Immaculate Conception in an attempt to make it orthodox. Should we not evaluate the belief on the terms that the Roman Catholics understand it, rather than evaluating what we think it should mean? If the Roman Catholics understand it in an orthodox manner, then we should rejoice in knowing that it presents no barrier to reestablishing communion, and if they understand it in a heterodox manner, then we should reject the teaching as an error, but let us not out of a good desire for peace and unity fool ourselves by robbing the teaching of its meaning, or reading our own meanings into it, when a perfectly viable hermeneutic tradition for understanding the teaching already exists.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
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: 37,866



« Reply #164 on: December 11, 2012, 12:55:00 PM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.

This argument I find problematic. This would be like saying that St. Basil's appropriation of the term hypostasis to describe the threeness (for lack of a better term) of God was not until the Second Council of Constantinople an official teaching of the Church, but rather a private (and possibly heretical) opinion introduced by St. Basil and shared by some of the Church's most eminent theologians, since the Creed of Nicaea specifically condemns the proposition that the Son is of another hypostasis or ousia, and also since, to my knowledge, neither the Nicene Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, nor the Chalcedonian Definition specifically teach that God is trihypostatic. But this argument is flawed because the Christological use of the term hypostasis already presupposes that God is a triad of hypostases. To deny this would be to make the Chalcedonian Definition and the teaching of the hypostatic union to be meaningless utterances.

If so many respectable Roman Catholic theologians expound upon the Mariology of the Roman Catholic Church by teaching that the Virgin is made impeccable by a unique grace of God bestowed upon her (one bestowed from her very conception), what reason do we have to believe that they are only expressing a private opinion? It is unfair, I think, to decontextualize the Immaculate Conception in an attempt to make it orthodox. Should we not evaluate the belief on the terms that the Roman Catholics understand it, rather than evaluating what we think it should mean? If the Roman Catholics understand it in an orthodox manner, then we should rejoice in knowing that it presents no barrier to reestablishing communion, and if they understand it in a heterodox manner, then we should reject the teaching as an error, but let us not out of a good desire for peace and unity fool ourselves by robbing the teaching of its meaning, or reading our own meanings into it, when a perfectly viable hermeneutic tradition for understanding the teaching already exists.
It can be understood only in a heretical manner.

Christ existed as a hypostasis before His Incarnation.  His divine will could and did freely will to unite with human nature.  That human nature and its will (and other faculties) never existed apart from the incarnated divine hypostasis and its will (if it ever did, Nestorius would have been right).  Human nature, and ancestral sin that clings to it, is not transmitted by the will, and hence the human will is not involved in it: no one man can will to beget anything but a human (as Father Adam, the First Adam did: Genesis 5:1-3)-he can't beget a sheep, for instance-and no woman can will to bear a sheep rather than a man, as Mother Eve, the First Eve-exclaimed (Genesis 4:1).  Hence the human nature and its will that the divine hypostasis of the Son was not violated when it conformed to the divine will to which it was united from the first moment of its existence, which had freely chosen the Incarnation into fallen human nature and its mission, and born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God, although born in blood and flesh and with the will of a man.

Despite what the good Fr. Kolbe said (and the writings of this "Doctor of the Church" as the Vatican calls him shows that the IC is understood in the terms the Vatican believe in a heretical manner, hence why we should reject it as error), the Holy Theotokos had no pre-existence.  No will to freely choose human nature (pre)existed.  The IC would have to be chosen for her. And thus depriving her of the exercise of her free will, she would be separated from human nature inherited from Father Adam and Mother Eve, rendering her useless as a vessel for the Second Adam to chose her to chose Him as the Second Eve. The First Eve freely chose to obey the serpent's words, the Second Eve freely chose to obey the angel's words.  The Second Adam could come in no other way to free the First Adam.
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: 37,866



« Reply #165 on: December 12, 2012, 12:34:20 PM »

I always like how a few posters focus on the fact that I quoted Fr. Hardon, while ignoring the more than twenty other Catholic theologians who affirmed Mary's impeccability.

Click the link to download a pdf document containing all the quotations I supplied in an earlier thread:

Quotations from Various Catholic Theologians on the Doctrine of Mary's Impeccability

Even if it were a hundred theologians it wouldn't change a thing. St. Mary's impeccability isn't a teaching of the RCC.

This argument I find problematic. This would be like saying that St. Basil's appropriation of the term hypostasis to describe the threeness (for lack of a better term) of God was not until the Second Council of Constantinople an official teaching of the Church, but rather a private (and possibly heretical) opinion introduced by St. Basil and shared by some of the Church's most eminent theologians, since the Creed of Nicaea specifically condemns the proposition that the Son is of another hypostasis or ousia, and also since, to my knowledge, neither the Nicene Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, nor the Chalcedonian Definition specifically teach that God is trihypostatic. But this argument is flawed because the Christological use of the term hypostasis already presupposes that God is a triad of hypostases. To deny this would be to make the Chalcedonian Definition and the teaching of the hypostatic union to be meaningless utterances.

If so many respectable Roman Catholic theologians expound upon the Mariology of the Roman Catholic Church by teaching that the Virgin is made impeccable by a unique grace of God bestowed upon her (one bestowed from her very conception), what reason do we have to believe that they are only expressing a private opinion? It is unfair, I think, to decontextualize the Immaculate Conception in an attempt to make it orthodox. Should we not evaluate the belief on the terms that the Roman Catholics understand it, rather than evaluating what we think it should mean? If the Roman Catholics understand it in an orthodox manner, then we should rejoice in knowing that it presents no barrier to reestablishing communion, and if they understand it in a heterodox manner, then we should reject the teaching as an error, but let us not out of a good desire for peace and unity fool ourselves by robbing the teaching of its meaning, or reading our own meanings into it, when a perfectly viable hermeneutic tradition for understanding the teaching already exists.
It can be understood only in a heretical manner.

Christ existed as a hypostasis before His Incarnation.  His divine will could and did freely will to unite with human nature.  That human nature and its will (and other faculties) never existed apart from the incarnated divine hypostasis and its will (if it ever did, Nestorius would have been right).  Human nature, and ancestral sin that clings to it, is not transmitted by the will, and hence the human will is not involved in it: no one man can will to beget anything but a human (as Father Adam, the First Adam did: Genesis 5:1-3)-he can't beget a sheep, for instance-and no woman can will to bear a sheep rather than a man, as Mother Eve, the First Eve-exclaimed (Genesis 4:1).  Hence the human nature and its will that the divine hypostasis of the Son was not violated when it conformed to the divine will to which it was united from the first moment of its existence, which had freely chosen the Incarnation into fallen human nature and its mission, and born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God, although born in blood and flesh and with the will of a man.

Despite what the good Fr. Kolbe said (and the writings of this "Doctor of the Church" as the Vatican calls him shows that the IC is understood in the terms the Vatican believe in a heretical manner, hence why we should reject it as error), the Holy Theotokos had no pre-existence.  No will to freely choose human nature (pre)existed.  The IC would have to be chosen for her. And thus depriving her of the exercise of her free will, she would be separated from human nature inherited from Father Adam and Mother Eve, rendering her useless as a vessel for the Second Adam to chose her to chose Him as the Second Eve. The First Eve freely chose to obey the serpent's words, the Second Eve freely chose to obey the angel's words.  The Second Adam could come in no other way to free the First Adam.
I couldn't find this thread before
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30017.0.html
where this post should have been.
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 0.592 seconds with 194 queries.