OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 11:24:43 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 7640 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« 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
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: 37,124



« 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
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: 37,124



« 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
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: 37,124



« 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
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,280


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: 2,878


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
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: 37,124



« 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
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: 37,124



« 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
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: 37,124



« 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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« 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

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
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
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: 37,124



« 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
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: 37,124



« 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: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« 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: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,495



« 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: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« 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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« 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

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« 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
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: 37,124



« 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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« 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

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,400


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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« 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

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« 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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« 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

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,400


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
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« 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: 1,075


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: Catholic (Carmelite wannabe)
Jurisdiction: The Bishop of Raleigh
Posts: 251


which way's mt. carmel again???


« 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

St. Justin Martyr, St. John Cassian, St. Simon Stock, St. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, pray for me!
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,027


« 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

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 0.209 seconds with 73 queries.