OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 02:57:50 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: Hopko's list of points  (Read 8097 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« on: December 12, 2011, 04:21:56 PM »

It seems apparent that the "apologists who concede nothing" thread isn't going to be reopened, which is perhaps just as well. However, in the early part of that thread, someone linked to a position paper by Thomas Hopko which contains a list of points where he thinks Catholic theology and practice would need to be corrected as a precondition to unity. It's an interesting list which I think bears discussionon a point-by-point basis.

 No proper title in the thread's name.  After 2000 some posts you should be familiar with oc.net rules.  And obviously I'm not going to reopen the thread in question.  If you feel you have been given this in error, contact Fr. George =username! Orthodox Catholic moderator
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2011, 04:32:34 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen

Quote
•The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.
We are not modalists. We believe that the subsistent relations are realy subsistent persons. Hopko is creating a false dichotomy.
Quote
•The pope would also insist that human beings can have real communion with God through God's uncreated divine energies and actions toward creatures, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.
We already believe this. Sanctifying Grace is defined as God's life in us. What is more, St. Thomas teaches that Grace is really a participation in the Divine, because only the Divine can make us Divine.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2011, 04:35:48 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen

Wait a minute.

So, basically, you're saying that the Filioque says what the Orthodox says it says even though your fellow co-religionists, both east and west, have gone through great pains to show that the Filioque does not say what the Orthodox say it says.

And you say we're disunited...
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2011, 04:48:13 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen

Wait a minute.

So, basically, you're saying that the Filioque says what the Orthodox says it says even though your fellow co-religionists, both east and west, have gone through great pains to show that the Filioque does not say what the Orthodox say it says.

And you say we're disunited...
I am saying that the point of departure between us, concerns what we all mean by "through the Son". If you read Catholic magesterial teaching on this point, particularly our western councils, it would be dishonest to suggest that that the procession of the Spirit through the Son is temporal from a Catholic view point. From what I can tell from what I've read about Eastern Orthodoxy, their view is that when the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, it is not eternal, but temporal only. The funny thing is that both Churches claim that their view is the view that respects the unity of the Godhead. Whatever the case, we are not in agreement on this point.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2011, 05:04:52 PM »

Quote
•He would also officially say that the immaculate conception of Christ's mother Mary from her parents, and Mary's total glorification in the risen Christ "at the right hand of the Father," are not properly explained in the papal bulls that originally accompanied the Roman church's "ex cathedra" dogmas on these two articles of faith. The pope would explain that Mary's conception by her parents was pure and holy without a need for God extraordinarily to apply "the merits of Christ" to Joachim and Anna's sexual act of conceiving her in order to free her from "the stain of original sin." And the pope would also have to make it clear that Mary really died, and was not assumed bodily into heaven before vanquishing death by faith in her Son Jesus.
Well, I can't see the Catholic Church ever repudiating the doctrine of original sin or the Immaculate Conception. On the point of the Immaculate Conception, this is too deeply ingrained into our faith as Catholics, and is celebrated every Advent with great joy. On the point of original sin, I believe that the differences between the official Catholic position and the official position of the Eastern Orthodox Church is a matter of semantics. We both belief that we are born deprived of something that was supposed to be there but is not because of the sin of Adam and Eve.
Quote
•The pope would also clearly state that though there may be a purification and cleansing from sin in the process of human dying, there is no state or condition of purgatory where sinners pay off the temporal punishment that they allegedly owe to God for their sins. The pope would also stop the practice of indulgences whereby, through certain pious activities, Christians can allegedly reduce the "days" of purgatorial suffering for themselves and others.
"the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought" (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not." - The Eastern Orthodox Council of Jerusalem

Considering the facts that there is not much about Purgatory that is officially defined dogma, and that there are statements like the one above from Eastern Orthodox sources, I think that we have quite bit of wiggle room here.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 05:05:26 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2011, 05:06:49 PM »

Quote
•The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.
From what I can tell, this is what Catholics already believe. We already condemn the Protestant doctrine of the atonement.  Any other Catholics care to chime in?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 05:07:34 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2011, 05:10:00 PM »

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.
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 #7 on: December 12, 2011, 05:18:53 PM »

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.
He would have to have it before ceasing to have 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2011, 05:20:14 PM »

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.
He would have to have it before ceasing to have it.
Izzy, don't poison this thread. You know exactly what I meant. I was talking about Catholic dogma, not the Eastern Orthodox view of Catholic dogma.
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 #9 on: December 12, 2011, 05:24:11 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen

Quote
•The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.
We are not modalists. We believe that the subsistent relations are realy subsistent persons. Hopko is creating a false dichotomy.
The "defenses" that the Vatican has put up for the filioque over the centuries shows that Fr. Hopko is not creating a "false dichotomy," but pointing out one of the Vatican's making.
Quote
•The pope would also insist that human beings can have real communion with God through God's uncreated divine energies and actions toward creatures, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.
We already believe this. Sanctifying Grace is defined as God's life in us. What is more, St. Thomas teaches that Grace is really a participation in the Divine, because only the Divine can make us Divine.
is this the same papist who has trouble with St. Gregory Palamas?
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2011, 05:28:04 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen

Quote
•The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply "subsistent relations" within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable "modalism." He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus' Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him.
We are not modalists. We believe that the subsistent relations are realy subsistent persons. Hopko is creating a false dichotomy.
The "defenses" that the Vatican has put up for the filioque over the centuries shows that Fr. Hopko is not creating a "false dichotomy," but pointing out one of the Vatican's making.
Quote
•The pope would also insist that human beings can have real communion with God through God's uncreated divine energies and actions toward creatures, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.
We already believe this. Sanctifying Grace is defined as God's life in us. What is more, St. Thomas teaches that Grace is really a participation in the Divine, because only the Divine can make us Divine.
is this the same papist who has trouble with St. Gregory Palamas?
As to your first point, it is a false dichotomy, because we believe that the subsistent relations are subsistent persons. If he wants us to believe that the members of the Trinity are subsistent persons, then we already agree because we do believe that.
On your second point, just because I don't believe in Palamas contradictory view that God transcends God and is composed of parts, does not mean that I don't believe in theosis through the participation in the Divine life of God.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 05:29:17 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,645


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2011, 05:28:47 PM »

Wait a minute. If the Orthodox believe that the RCC Pope does not or should not have the ability to call himself 'infallible,' whatever that means, and the RCC claims the Orthodox have a wrong idea of what 'infallible' actually means...

What's really going on?  Huh Shocked

"We don't agree with what you don't say that we're not doing!"

Maybe I'm just a bug-eyed optimist. I get too emotional and I wish we could put right the wrongs of the past.

How long does anyone want to beat their chest and say, "But you still haven't gotten that right, so ha!" Sometimes I think people look for too many excuses to stay mad at each other, just because... well, they just do. Some folks insist that the recipe be *so* perfect, no one will ever be able to satisfy them, because guess what... people aren't perfect!

It's been 900+ years. Maybe I should just hitch a ride to the International Space Station and see if they could freeze me until another 900 years goes by. I'll see if they're done with this mess by then. Grown-up people can't sit down and talk. Go figure.
Logged

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

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

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2011, 05:29:09 PM »

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

Well, I need not repeat Ialmisry's pointed response, but there are plainly political problems with a pope who, on his own and without conciliar support, claims to establish doctrine. Such an act requires schism as a response: obedience is not stronger than truth, and the pope has to be correct to be infallible.

Also, the problem with restricting this power to teaching on faith and morals is that, in practice, infallibility is not limited to such teaching. Any teaching that requires upon the Aristotelian framework for its justification steps outside that fence, and therefore cannot be infallible.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,645


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2011, 05:35:00 PM »

But the Pope does have conciliar support. The Roman Catholic Church has had a number of councils since the Schism. They have even, as in Vatican II, invited the officials of other churches, including the Orthodox, to act as commentators, observers or advisers... precisely because the commissioning Pope wanted it to be an Ecumenical Council. Then he had the bad luck to up and die, so he didn't get to see it carried out the way he wanted to... and much else ensued.  Lips Sealed

If the Orthodox wanted to, they could invite Roman Catholic officials to sit in on one of their conferences, if only as guests and not acting in any official capacity. What's stopping them? It takes two to tango. If you don't hold a council which invites the people in question, how can you blame them for not being there? And if you don't accept their internal councils either, why complain that they don't accept yours?

It makes me think that those poor men involved in the repeal of the excommunications in 1965- which did happen, even if not everybody likes it- wasted their time. How sad. They were trying to heal a significant wound in the history of the faith, to right an old wrong, and nobody else is on the same page of the music. Hundreds more years of this to go. Sigh.  Cry
Logged

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

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

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2011, 07:20:55 PM »

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

Well, I need not repeat Ialmisry's pointed response, but there are plainly political problems with a pope who, on his own and without conciliar support, claims to establish doctrine. Such an act requires schism as a response: obedience is not stronger than truth, and the pope has to be correct to be infallible.

Also, the problem with restricting this power to teaching on faith and morals is that, in practice, infallibility is not limited to such teaching. Any teaching that requires upon the Aristotelian framework for its justification steps outside that fence, and therefore cannot be infallible.

Not sure I understand the objection to Aristotle. His philosophy was just that of common sense realism, defended in technical terms. I am not sure why any christian would object that? Of course, where Aristotle goes wrong, the Catholic Church disagrees with him.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2011, 07:22:01 PM »

But the Pope does have conciliar support. The Roman Catholic Church has had a number of councils since the Schism. They have even, as in Vatican II, invited the officials of other churches, including the Orthodox, to act as commentators, observers or advisers... precisely because the commissioning Pope wanted it to be an Ecumenical Council. Then he had the bad luck to up and die, so he didn't get to see it carried out the way he wanted to... and much else ensued.  Lips Sealed

If the Orthodox wanted to, they could invite Roman Catholic officials to sit in on one of their conferences, if only as guests and not acting in any official capacity. What's stopping them? It takes two to tango. If you don't hold a council which invites the people in question, how can you blame them for not being there? And if you don't accept their internal councils either, why complain that they don't accept yours?

It makes me think that those poor men involved in the repeal of the excommunications in 1965- which did happen, even if not everybody likes it- wasted their time. How sad. They were trying to heal a significant wound in the history of the faith, to right an old wrong, and nobody else is on the same page of the music. Hundreds more years of this to go. Sigh.  Cry

Oh, there are absolutely hundreds of more years, and the schism may not be healed this side of eternity.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2011, 07:35:18 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen
Then there will never be union.

On your second point, just because I don't believe in Palamas contradictory view that God transcends God and is composed of parts, does not mean that I don't believe in theosis through the participation in the Divine life of God.
Roll Eyes

Do you really not like St. Gregory for his theology (which you constantly misrepresent) or is it just that he was anti-Latin?
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2011, 07:38:21 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen
Then there will never be union.

On your second point, just because I don't believe in Palamas contradictory view that God transcends God and is composed of parts, does not mean that I don't believe in theosis through the participation in the Divine life of God.
Roll Eyes

Do you really not like St. Gregory for his theology (which you constantly misrepresent) or is it just that he was anti-Latin?
I have problems with Gregory Palamas for both reasons. First, his theology, (which I never misrepresent... I mean honestly, I went through a long period of trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but some of the things that he says are very problematic) and, second, the fact that he was anti-Catholic is a real problem for me. Regardless of this, he is venerated in Eastern Catholic Churches, so there must have been something holy about him, but I'm not a fan.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 07:39:05 PM by Papist » 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 #18 on: December 12, 2011, 07:43:28 PM »

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

Well, I need not repeat Ialmisry's pointed response, but there are plainly political problems with a pope who, on his own and without conciliar support, claims to establish doctrine. Such an act requires schism as a response: obedience is not stronger than truth, and the pope has to be correct to be infallible.

Also, the problem with restricting this power to teaching on faith and morals is that, in practice, infallibility is not limited to such teaching. Any teaching that requires upon the Aristotelian framework for its justification steps outside that fence, and therefore cannot be infallible.

Not sure I understand the objection to Aristotle. His philosophy was just that of common sense realism, defended in technical terms. I am not sure why any christian would object that? Of course, where Aristotle goes wrong, the Catholic Church disagrees with him.
How convenient. Roll Eyes

Yes, Aristotleans make that claim "just common sense realism defended in technical terms", but no, it cannot be sustained.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2011, 07:44:54 PM »

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

Well, I need not repeat Ialmisry's pointed response, but there are plainly political problems with a pope who, on his own and without conciliar support, claims to establish doctrine. Such an act requires schism as a response: obedience is not stronger than truth, and the pope has to be correct to be infallible.

Also, the problem with restricting this power to teaching on faith and morals is that, in practice, infallibility is not limited to such teaching. Any teaching that requires upon the Aristotelian framework for its justification steps outside that fence, and therefore cannot be infallible.

Not sure I understand the objection to Aristotle. His philosophy was just that of common sense realism, defended in technical terms. I am not sure why any christian would object that? Of course, where Aristotle goes wrong, the Catholic Church disagrees with him.
How convenient. Roll Eyes

Yes, Aristotleans make that claim "just common sense realism defended in technical terms", but no, it cannot be sustained.
That's a nice assertion sweetie-pie.
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 #20 on: December 12, 2011, 07:46:28 PM »

Wait a minute. If the Orthodox believe that the RCC Pope does not or should not have the ability to call himself 'infallible,' whatever that means, and the RCC claims the Orthodox have a wrong idea of what 'infallible' actually means...

What's really going on?  Huh Shocked

"We don't agree with what you don't say that we're not doing!"

Maybe I'm just a bug-eyed optimist. I get too emotional and I wish we could put right the wrongs of the past.

How long does anyone want to beat their chest and say, "But you still haven't gotten that right, so ha!" Sometimes I think people look for too many excuses to stay mad at each other, just because... well, they just do. Some folks insist that the recipe be *so* perfect, no one will ever be able to satisfy them, because guess what... people aren't perfect!

It's been 900+ years. Maybe I should just hitch a ride to the International Space Station and see if they could freeze me until another 900 years goes by. I'll see if they're done with this mess by then. Grown-up people can't sit down and talk. Go figure.
Talk about what?
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 #21 on: December 12, 2011, 07:54:59 PM »

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

Well, I need not repeat Ialmisry's pointed response, but there are plainly political problems with a pope who, on his own and without conciliar support, claims to establish doctrine. Such an act requires schism as a response: obedience is not stronger than truth, and the pope has to be correct to be infallible.

Also, the problem with restricting this power to teaching on faith and morals is that, in practice, infallibility is not limited to such teaching. Any teaching that requires upon the Aristotelian framework for its justification steps outside that fence, and therefore cannot be infallible.

Not sure I understand the objection to Aristotle. His philosophy was just that of common sense realism, defended in technical terms. I am not sure why any christian would object that? Of course, where Aristotle goes wrong, the Catholic Church disagrees with him.
How convenient. Roll Eyes

Yes, Aristotleans make that claim "just common sense realism defended in technical terms", but no, it cannot be sustained.
That's a nice assertion sweetie-pie.
Since you made, I should think you would like it.

You cannot claim Aristotle, and then toss him aside when his ideas are inconvenient, and call yourself an Aristotelian.
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
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2011, 08:01:46 PM »

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.
He would have to have it before ceasing to have it.
Izzy, don't poison this thread.

He can't if no one plays his games. Too late.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2011, 08:29:03 PM »

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

Well, I need not repeat Ialmisry's pointed response, but there are plainly political problems with a pope who, on his own and without conciliar support, claims to establish doctrine. Such an act requires schism as a response: obedience is not stronger than truth, and the pope has to be correct to be infallible.

Also, the problem with restricting this power to teaching on faith and morals is that, in practice, infallibility is not limited to such teaching. Any teaching that requires upon the Aristotelian framework for its justification steps outside that fence, and therefore cannot be infallible.

Not sure I understand the objection to Aristotle. His philosophy was just that of common sense realism, defended in technical terms. I am not sure why any christian would object that? Of course, where Aristotle goes wrong, the Catholic Church disagrees with him.
How convenient. Roll Eyes

Yes, Aristotleans make that claim "just common sense realism defended in technical terms", but no, it cannot be sustained.
That's a nice assertion sweetie-pie.
Since you made, I should think you would like it.

You cannot claim Aristotle, and then toss him aside when his ideas are inconvenient, and call yourself an Aristotelian.
I'm not Aristotelian. I never said I was. I am a Thomist.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2011, 08:29:13 PM by Papist » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2011, 07:11:11 AM »

I don't find much of what he says about the papacy to be objectionable. However, I don't think the Pope could cease to have the charism of infallibility when definitively teaching on faith and morals.

Well, I need not repeat Ialmisry's pointed response, but there are plainly political problems with a pope who, on his own and without conciliar support, claims to establish doctrine. Such an act requires schism as a response: obedience is not stronger than truth, and the pope has to be correct to be infallible.

Also, the problem with restricting this power to teaching on faith and morals is that, in practice, infallibility is not limited to such teaching. Any teaching that requires upon the Aristotelian framework for its justification steps outside that fence, and therefore cannot be infallible.


Debunking de Bunko!!

It is an interesting article in any event!

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_plato.aspx

Quote

Eastern Orthodox thinkers at times insist that they have purged neo-Platonism from their thinking by slight changes in Plotinus’s system.

This is an elaboration and variation on the original unsupported assertion with one difference. Which Eastern Orthodox thinkers when literally claim that "they have purged neo-Platonism from their thinking by slight changes in Plotinus’s system." No names named. And it ignores the very important distinction of ousia and hypostasis. If one looks at number of citations, the Fathers actually quote Aristotle more than Plotinus or the Platonists. Aristotle is a common conceptual framework to Orthodox and Calvinist theology. Much of the Fathers Platonist vocabulary comes from Origen’s attack on Celsus or from Pseudo-Denis whose neo-Platonism is Syriac, not Plotinean. Nicene vocabulary is a critical re-construction of Origen’s conceptual vocabulary. This is inherited by both Orthodox and Calvinists. And where Orthodox Trinitarian theology departs from the west, it is more Biblical than the west’s! Consider.

Towards late antiquity, two words were in philosophical use which meant substance or substantive being. as Aristotle put it, being can be said in many ways or there are many meanings of Being. He isolated and identified Being according to the different categories of which substance (ousia) was the most fundamental, Being as act and potency, Being as true, and Being as contingent as opposed to necessary/essential. There has been on and off again the debate over the question of whether this listing of the meanings of Being is complete. We will return to that in a bit. The Byzantine answer was it was incomplete.

As indicated, there were two words used for substantive being in late classical philosophy. The first was Aristotle’s ousia. The second was hypostasis from Stoic origins. But they each developed a meaning that made them not exactly synonymous. Ousia increasingly came to mean a substance/thing to the extent it was a kind of substance/thing or a thing of a typical nature or essence. Hypostasis increasingly came to mean a substantive mode of existence in its unique and distinctive particularity and individuality.

Into this context comes the tradition of Judaism. Philo uses these distinctions to suggest that the personal God of Israel is a uniquely distinctive and singular reality or hypostasis in contrast to the impersonal thought thinking itself thing (ousia) of Aristotle. One branch of Middle Platonism picks this up and God and souls become hypostases while impersonal things, including cups, chairs, etc., become ousias. The other branch of Middle Platonism represented by Numenius of Apamea pushes the God as impersonal monad and ousia interpretation which nevertheless reinforces the ousia = non-personal substance/thing of a typical kind and hypostasis = personal substance of a uniquely and distinctive individual (usually God as person).

We have here the elements of a conceptual revolution in ancient philosophy and religion. It was the characteristic trait of ancient philosophy, religion, and humanism that the individual was not valued in and of itself in its particularity but only as an paradigmatic instance of a universal ideal type. Person was just an epiphenomenal mask. By contrast, as Tillich brings out, even the post-Christian humanism of the modern world is Judeo-Christian to the extent the unrepeatable individual per se is valued in and of itself. The roots of this contrast is in the Trinitarian controversy and the debt the parties owed to Philo and Origen.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #25 on: December 13, 2011, 03:14:20 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen
Then there will never be union.

On your second point, just because I don't believe in Palamas contradictory view that God transcends God and is composed of parts, does not mean that I don't believe in theosis through the participation in the Divine life of God.
Roll Eyes

Do you really not like St. Gregory for his theology (which you constantly misrepresent) or is it just that he was anti-Latin?
I have problems with Gregory Palamas for both reasons. First, his theology, (which I never misrepresent... I mean honestly, I went through a long period of trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but some of the things that he says are very problematic)
You said that he thinks that God is divided into parts and that his theology is basically Buddhism. I'm pretty sure that that ain't accurate.
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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #26 on: December 13, 2011, 03:39:41 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen
Then there will never be union.
So be it. The Church will continue to be the Church with or without the East.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2011, 04:27:31 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christijavascript:void(0);an be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen
Then there will never be union.
So be it. The Church will continue to be the Church with or without the East.

I am truly glad that we, the self appointed representatives of both the Orthodox Churches and the Church of Rome, have exhausted any efforts regarding union, determining them to be futile, and have reverted to our time honored traditions. Who is sending out the snail mail notices to everyone else? Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 04:27:48 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 13, 2011, 05:00:36 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen
Then there will never be union.
So be it. The Church will continue to be the Church with or without the East Rome.
You had an oopsies there...I took care of it. Dont worry, these mistakes happen.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2011, 05:05:30 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,606


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2011, 05:09:15 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I was a Catholic in good standing for 50 years before converting to the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

And whenever the Pope of Rome prays with the Orthodox (with the EP, for example), he prays the Nicene Creed in Greek sans filioque.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 05:09:55 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 13, 2011, 05:11:47 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I was a Catholic in good standing for 50 years before converting to the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

And whenever the Pope of Rome prays with the Orthodox (with the EP, for example), he prays the Nicene Creed in Greek sans filioque.
Indefense of the Pope on that one, I would say that is out of courtesy than anything else. However I do find it odd that the Eastern Catholics removed it completely.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #32 on: December 13, 2011, 05:12:33 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

Papist once said he was. I dunno if that has changed or what.

Really, the way the RCs teach the filioque, who cares. It is inline with Orthodoxy. People can argue forever how it came about and whatever, but every RC I've known who gives 2 cents would agree with the Orthodox teaching on the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father ontologically and from the Son within time.

How many prayers do we pray to the Ghost of the Son? I do more than a few times I think a day or week or month or however often I am actually praying.

Everyone knows Papal infallibility is pretty much around which all things turn.

It would be an act of God for that to change, like raising the dead.

The Orthodox would do well to show that an infallible head of the Church is not necessary by settling some of the more ridiculous antics by its own leaders over authority and prestige.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #33 on: December 13, 2011, 05:15:00 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I was a Catholic in good standing for 50 years before converting to the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

And whenever the Pope of Rome prays with the Orthodox (with the EP, for example), he prays the Nicene Creed in Greek sans filioque.

IIRC, the Latin Church does not allow for and from / through the Son ever to be used in liturgies celebrated in Greek.

Someone please tell me I am right or if you have to, wrong.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 13, 2011, 05:16:07 PM »

Quote
The Orthodox would do well to show that an infallible head of the Church is not necessary by settling some of the more ridiculous antics by its own leaders over authority and prestige
+1
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,606


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #35 on: December 13, 2011, 05:17:19 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I was a Catholic in good standing for 50 years before converting to the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

And whenever the Pope of Rome prays with the Orthodox (with the EP, for example), he prays the Nicene Creed in Greek sans filioque.

Indefense of the Pope on that one, I would say that is out of courtesy than anything else. However I do find it odd that the Eastern Catholics removed it completely.

PP

The addition of the filioque to the Greek Catholic Nicene Creed was an accretion as a result of latinizations.
After Vatican II, the Eastern Catholics began to remove many of the latinizations. For example: confessionals, Stations of the Cross, and the filioque.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #36 on: December 13, 2011, 05:18:01 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...
I would be ok with it being changed to "through the Son" to more clearly express what we mean.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 13, 2011, 05:19:55 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I was a Catholic in good standing for 50 years before converting to the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

And whenever the Pope of Rome prays with the Orthodox (with the EP, for example), he prays the Nicene Creed in Greek sans filioque.

Indefense of the Pope on that one, I would say that is out of courtesy than anything else. However I do find it odd that the Eastern Catholics removed it completely.

PP

The addition of the filioque to the Greek Catholic Nicene Creed was an accretion as a result of latinizations.
After Vatican II, the Eastern Catholics began to remove many of the latinizations. For example: confessionals, Stations of the Cross, and the filioque.
What about the IC?

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,606


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2011, 05:26:05 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I was a Catholic in good standing for 50 years before converting to the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

And whenever the Pope of Rome prays with the Orthodox (with the EP, for example), he prays the Nicene Creed in Greek sans filioque.

Indefense of the Pope on that one, I would say that is out of courtesy than anything else. However I do find it odd that the Eastern Catholics removed it completely.

PP

The addition of the filioque to the Greek Catholic Nicene Creed was an accretion as a result of latinizations.
After Vatican II, the Eastern Catholics began to remove many of the latinizations. For example: confessionals, Stations of the Cross, and the filioque.
What about the IC?

PP

The last I heard about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.... the Melkites celebrate the Conception of Anna on December 9 instead of the Immaculate Conception on December 8.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #39 on: December 13, 2011, 05:26:51 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...
I would be ok with it being changed to "through the Son" to more clearly express what we mean.

In simple and non-fight with Isa bickering language, why not just drop it?

I mean ,if unity stood in the balance, everything, including Papal infallibility had been resolved and the only thing standing in the way of the unity was simply dropping the filioque and you got to decide what to do:

Would you drop it?

Or keep it in spite of all other matters being resolved and keep the division?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #40 on: December 13, 2011, 05:31:45 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen
Then there will never be union.

On your second point, just because I don't believe in Palamas contradictory view that God transcends God and is composed of parts, does not mean that I don't believe in theosis through the participation in the Divine life of God.
Roll Eyes

Do you really not like St. Gregory for his theology (which you constantly misrepresent) or is it just that he was anti-Latin?
I have problems with Gregory Palamas for both reasons. First, his theology, (which I never misrepresent... I mean honestly, I went through a long period of trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but some of the things that he says are very problematic)
You said that he thinks that God is divided into parts and that his theology is basically Buddhism. I'm pretty sure that that ain't accurate.
No, I think Todd's intrepretation of Palamas is Buddhist.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 13, 2011, 05:32:38 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I was a Catholic in good standing for 50 years before converting to the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Nicene Creed.

And whenever the Pope of Rome prays with the Orthodox (with the EP, for example), he prays the Nicene Creed in Greek sans filioque.

Indefense of the Pope on that one, I would say that is out of courtesy than anything else. However I do find it odd that the Eastern Catholics removed it completely.

PP

The addition of the filioque to the Greek Catholic Nicene Creed was an accretion as a result of latinizations.
After Vatican II, the Eastern Catholics began to remove many of the latinizations. For example: confessionals, Stations of the Cross, and the filioque.
What about the IC?

PP

The last I heard about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.... the Melkites celebrate the Conception of Anna on December 9 instead of the Immaculate Conception on December 8.
Sounds like unofficially it is not adhered to. Would that be correct?

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #42 on: December 13, 2011, 05:44:05 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

The Pope recites the Creed without filioque in greek.

In Spanish filioque is as old as the year 400, and spanish speakers are as many as half of all catholics. I turn the question back to you, if the ancient christians of the east accepted hispanic chiristians despite filioque, Would you accept hispanics to preserve it?


Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #43 on: December 13, 2011, 05:47:42 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

The Pope recites the Creed without filioque in greek.

In Spanish filioque is as old as the year 400, and spanish speakers are as many as half of all catholics. I turn the question back to you, if the ancient christians of the east accepted hispanic chiristians despite filioque, Would you accept hispanics to preserve it?




I thinik that the biggest problem is it is an addition to the creed. No matter how it is interpreted. I know some Orthodox that make that argument and they follow it up with, "Nothing else really matters. They edited the creed and wont back off of it." Thats a pretty big argument to alot of folks.


PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #44 on: December 13, 2011, 05:53:04 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

The Pope recites the Creed without filioque in greek.

In Spanish filioque is as old as the year 400, and spanish speakers are as many as half of all catholics. I turn the question back to you, if the ancient christians of the east accepted hispanic chiristians despite filioque, Would you accept hispanics to preserve it?




I thinik that the biggest problem is it is an addition to the creed. No matter how it is interpreted. I know some Orthodox that make that argument and they follow it up with, "Nothing else really matters. They edited the creed and wont back off of it." Thats a pretty big argument to alot of folks.


PP

The core idea of filioque is older than creed, catholics we don't say that such adition is an innovation, but a recognition and emphasis in a truth the church fathers didn'tdiscused in the council.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 13, 2011, 05:54:25 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

The Pope recites the Creed without filioque in greek.

In Spanish filioque is as old as the year 400, and spanish speakers are as many as half of all catholics. I turn the question back to you, if the ancient christians of the east accepted hispanic chiristians despite filioque, Would you accept hispanics to preserve it?




I thinik that the biggest problem is it is an addition to the creed. No matter how it is interpreted. I know some Orthodox that make that argument and they follow it up with, "Nothing else really matters. They edited the creed and wont back off of it." Thats a pretty big argument to alot of folks.


PP

The core idea of filioque is older than creed, catholics we don't say that such adition is an innovation, but a recognition and emphasis in a truth the church fathers didn'tdiscused in the council.
Thats the problem. Rome is known for its "innovations".

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #46 on: December 13, 2011, 05:59:36 PM »

Thats the problem. Rome is known for its "innovations".

PP

Not at all,  perhaps I should recall Nestorius patriarch of Constantinople, or what about iconoclastics, etc. etc.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #47 on: December 13, 2011, 06:21:15 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...
I would be ok with it being changed to "through the Son" to more clearly express what we mean.

In simple and non-fight with Isa bickering language, why not just drop it?

I mean ,if unity stood in the balance, everything, including Papal infallibility had been resolved and the only thing standing in the way of the unity was simply dropping the filioque and you got to decide what to do:

Would you drop it?

Or keep it in spite of all other matters being resolved and keep the division?
We can't drop it because its true.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #48 on: December 13, 2011, 07:07:23 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

From the opposite end, so long as papal infallibility were gone I'd be more than ok with the Roman Church continuing to recite the filioque (so long as we aren't required to add it). The Western Church has long had many oft recited creeds that weren't from the Ecumenical Councils- the Apostles' Creed for one.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,645


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2011, 07:11:52 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I'd be pretty happy.
Logged

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

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

http://spcasuncoast.org/
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #50 on: December 13, 2011, 07:21:52 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...
I would be ok with it being changed to "through the Son" to more clearly express what we mean.

In simple and non-fight with Isa bickering language, why not just drop it?

I mean ,if unity stood in the balance, everything, including Papal infallibility had been resolved and the only thing standing in the way of the unity was simply dropping the filioque and you got to decide what to do:

Would you drop it?

Or keep it in spite of all other matters being resolved and keep the division?
We can't drop it because its true.

So we can add anything to the Creed if it is "true" and then not drop it in virtue of that?

Like the amount of jolly ranchers I ate last year? (The answer is zero, BTW.)

Oh well Papist, I had higher hopes . . .



Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2011, 07:23:11 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...
I would be ok with it being changed to "through the Son" to more clearly express what we mean.

In simple and non-fight with Isa bickering language, why not just drop it?

I mean ,if unity stood in the balance, everything, including Papal infallibility had been resolved and the only thing standing in the way of the unity was simply dropping the filioque and you got to decide what to do:

Would you drop it?

Or keep it in spite of all other matters being resolved and keep the division?
We can't drop it because its true.

So we can add anything to the Creed if it is "true" and then not drop it in virtue of that?

Like the amount of jolly ranchers I ate last year? (The answer is zero, BTW.)

Oh well Papist, I had higher hopes . . .




Dropping it would be damaging to the faithful. Some might be scandalized.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #52 on: December 13, 2011, 07:31:55 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...
I would be ok with it being changed to "through the Son" to more clearly express what we mean.

In simple and non-fight with Isa bickering language, why not just drop it?

I mean ,if unity stood in the balance, everything, including Papal infallibility had been resolved and the only thing standing in the way of the unity was simply dropping the filioque and you got to decide what to do:

Would you drop it?

Or keep it in spite of all other matters being resolved and keep the division?
We can't drop it because its true.

So we can add anything to the Creed if it is "true" and then not drop it in virtue of that?

Like the amount of jolly ranchers I ate last year? (The answer is zero, BTW.)

Oh well Papist, I had higher hopes . . .




Dropping it would be damaging to the faithful. Some might be scandalized.

In the world I suggested, in the thought experiment, you think the unity brought forth over a single dispute would not outweigh the "scandal".

And really, it seems the RCs would delight perhaps in this sorta scandal given your recent ones.

As noted above, I ain't got no problem with the way you all explain it. I don't care if that is how it started.

In our adult education thing at the parish, a disgruntled RC tried bringing up the filioque as the work of Satan basically.

Be happy, that I defended you all to the last breath. Because it is true and charitable.

I think I scandalized nearly everyone else in the room for my comments about the EOs desire not to listen to what RCs TODAY say about the filioque.

Scandal ain't always bad. Truth and love.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #53 on: December 13, 2011, 07:36:06 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...
I would be ok with it being changed to "through the Son" to more clearly express what we mean.

In simple and non-fight with Isa bickering language, why not just drop it?

I mean ,if unity stood in the balance, everything, including Papal infallibility had been resolved and the only thing standing in the way of the unity was simply dropping the filioque and you got to decide what to do:

Would you drop it?

Or keep it in spite of all other matters being resolved and keep the division?
We can't drop it because its true.

So we can add anything to the Creed if it is "true" and then not drop it in virtue of that?

Like the amount of jolly ranchers I ate last year? (The answer is zero, BTW.)

Oh well Papist, I had higher hopes . . .




Dropping it would be damaging to the faithful. Some might be scandalized.

In the world I suggested, in the thought experiment, you think the unity brought forth over a single dispute would not outweigh the "scandal".

And really, it seems the RCs would delight perhaps in this sorta scandal given your recent ones.

As noted above, I ain't got no problem with the way you all explain it. I don't care if that is how it started.

In our adult education thing at the parish, a disgruntled RC tried bringing up the filioque as the work of Satan basically.

Be happy, that I defended you all to the last breath. Because it is true and charitable.

I think I scandalized nearly everyone else in the room for my comments about the EOs desire not to listen to what RCs TODAY say about the filioque.

Scandal ain't always bad. Truth and love.
Well, I really appreciate your honesty, and the more I think about it, if dropping it from the Creed, while maitaining it as an article of faith, would bring unity, then I wouldn't be against it. Not everything we believe is in the Creed. Thank you for giving me some food for thought.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #54 on: December 14, 2011, 01:03:04 AM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

From the opposite end, so long as papal infallibility were gone I'd be more than ok with the Roman Church continuing to recite the filioque (so long as we aren't required to add it). The Western Church has long had many oft recited creeds that weren't from the Ecumenical Councils- the Apostles' Creed for one.

Thank you!  I think that's the solution.  There is a theology of filioque that is not heretical, and it is the long tradition of the western church now.  Allow them to hold to their tradition as you wish to hold to your own.  There is room for that between us.

M.
Logged

Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #55 on: December 15, 2011, 12:14:42 PM »

wow he left some stuff off the list...if you're gonna aim for the stars...
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #56 on: December 15, 2011, 01:10:07 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christijavascript:void(0);an be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen
Then there will never be union.
So be it. The Church will continue to be the Church with or without the East.

I am truly glad that we, the self appointed representatives of both the Orthodox Churches and the Church of Rome, have exhausted any efforts regarding union, determining them to be futile, and have reverted to our time honored traditions. Who is sending out the snail mail notices to everyone else? Roll Eyes
I don't think what I said was that scandalous. It's simple. We believe that we are the Church, you guys believe that you are the Church. Neither of us needs union with the other one to become the Church because we both view ourselves as whole and complete already, with or without the presence of the other. Would reunion be nice? Sure. Do I think it will happen any time soon? Not at all.
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 #57 on: December 15, 2011, 01:14:45 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

From the opposite end, so long as papal infallibility were gone I'd be more than ok with the Roman Church continuing to recite the filioque (so long as we aren't required to add it). The Western Church has long had many oft recited creeds that weren't from the Ecumenical Councils- the Apostles' Creed for one.

Thank you!  I think that's the solution.  There is a theology of filioque that is not heretical, and it is the long tradition of the western church now.  Allow them to hold to their tradition as you wish to hold to your own.  There is room for that between us.

M.
schism and heresy has made plenty of room.  A chasm in fact.

Persisting in heresy does not stand as the equal of holding to Orthodoxy.

There are plenty of theologies of filioque which are heretical (even by the Vatican's standards) which more than obviates and voids any "theology of filioque that is not heretical."  There is a long tradition of heresy in the western church now.  It needs to loose 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
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 #58 on: December 15, 2011, 01:17:04 PM »

Thats the problem. Rome is known for its "innovations".

PP

Not at all,  perhaps I should recall Nestorius patriarch of Constantinople, or what about iconoclastics, etc. etc.
or what about Pope Honorius of Rome?
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 #59 on: December 15, 2011, 01:19:42 PM »

The Orthodox would do well to show that an infallible head of the Church is not necessary by settling some of the more ridiculous antics by its own leaders over authority and prestige.
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 #60 on: December 15, 2011, 01:26:27 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

The Pope recites the Creed without filioque in greek.

In Spanish filioque is as old as the year 400, and spanish speakers are as many as half of all catholics. I turn the question back to you, if the ancient christians of the east accepted hispanic chiristians despite filioque, Would you accept hispanics to preserve it?
Rather odd you should ask, as the Emperor Theodosius I was bred, born and baptized in Hispania, where he grew up, and he called the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I which set its seal on the Catholic Creed (without filioque), and he made it the state Creed (without filioque).

We won't accept anyone to preserve filioque.
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 #61 on: December 15, 2011, 01:30:02 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

The Pope recites the Creed without filioque in greek.

In Spanish filioque is as old as the year 400, and spanish speakers are as many as half of all catholics. I turn the question back to you, if the ancient christians of the east accepted hispanic chiristians despite filioque, Would you accept hispanics to preserve it?




I thinik that the biggest problem is it is an addition to the creed. No matter how it is interpreted. I know some Orthodox that make that argument and they follow it up with, "Nothing else really matters. They edited the creed and wont back off of it." Thats a pretty big argument to alot of folks.


PP

The core idea of filioque is older than creed,

So is the core idea of Arianism.

catholics we don't say that such adition is an innovation, but a recognition and emphasis in a truth the church fathers didn'tdiscused in the council.
Coulnd't have desearved recognition and emphasis if the Fathers, discussing the Truth of the matter (and the divinity and consubstantial nature of the Holy Spirit was THE topic of the Council) picked a term right out of the mouth of Christ Himself to define the Gospel Truth that precludes filioque (which now even your supreme pontiff admits, not allowing it to be said in the Greek).
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
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #62 on: December 15, 2011, 10:57:24 PM »

I thinik that the biggest problem is it is an addition to the creed. No matter how it is interpreted. I know some Orthodox that make that argument and they follow it up with, "Nothing else really matters. They edited the creed and wont back off of it." Thats a pretty big argument to alot of folks.


PP
The core idea of filioque is older than creed, catholics we don't say that such adition is an innovation, but a recognition and emphasis in a truth the church fathers didn'tdiscused in the council.

The western traditional theology of the filioque and the context of the procession of the Holy Spirit as it is written in the creed are two entirely different things. Filioque is fine in theology, but not in the creed. Editing the creed (we do it at the consecration of a bishop) or writing a different one (there is nothing wrong with the apostles creed) aren't that big of a deal, but defending the filioque in the creed is like saying that because ducks and geese are both types of birds, then ducks are the same thing as geese, and because we've been saying it long enough, it must be true.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #63 on: December 23, 2011, 01:38:52 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

YES!
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,148


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


« Reply #64 on: December 23, 2011, 01:50:08 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

YES!

If my Church sees fit to remove the filioque from the Creed, I will obey and happily recite it sans filioque.  If it sees fit to not do so, I will happily continue to recite the Creed with the filioque.  For me it really is a non-issue.
Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #65 on: January 12, 2012, 10:08:18 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen

I quite agree. Nevertheless, it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

I guess, from the Orthodox p.o.v., it's kind of a "glass half empty vs. half full" situation: on the one hand, they aren't happy that we have "and from the Son" in the creed; on the other hand, they can be glad that we haven't inserted the word "eternally" (although we could do so, since we do of course believe that the procession of the Spirit from both Father and Son is eternal).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #66 on: January 12, 2012, 10:24:37 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen

I quite agree. Nevertheless, it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

I guess, from the Orthodox p.o.v., it's kind of a "glass half empty vs. half full" situation: on the one hand, they aren't happy that we have "and from the Son" in the creed; on the other hand, they can be glad that we haven't inserted the word "eternally" (although we could do so, since we do of course believe that the procession of the Spirit from both Father and Son is eternal).

You will have noticed that Archpriest Hopko's explanation completely eviscerates the Roman Catholic teaching on the filioque.  This, after all. is what must be done away with....

"•He [the Pope] would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)"


Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,882


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #67 on: January 12, 2012, 10:30:39 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #68 on: January 12, 2012, 10:39:18 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,882


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #69 on: January 12, 2012, 11:21:24 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #70 on: January 12, 2012, 11:36:26 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,882


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #71 on: January 12, 2012, 11:41:14 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #72 on: January 13, 2012, 02:05:57 AM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 02:06:17 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,882


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #73 on: January 13, 2012, 03:30:49 AM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.

If you are quoting Fr Thomas accurately, then he is indeed putting his own interpretation on the filioque - in other words, expressing a theologoumenon. And one that will not wash with any Orthodox hierarch or synod that comes to mind. Given some of his other recent pronouncements on various areas of Orthodox doctrine and theology, there'd be a few bishops who I bet would want a word with him.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #74 on: January 13, 2012, 03:40:15 AM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.

If you are quoting Fr Thomas accurately, then he is indeed putting his own interpretation on the filioque - in other words, expressing a theologoumenon. And one that will not wash with any Orthodox hierarch or synod that comes to mind. Given some of his other recent pronouncements on various areas of Orthodox doctrine and theology, there'd be a few bishops who I bet would want a word with him.
What is wrong with saying that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but that filioque, correctly understood means the sending of the Spirit by the Son? That is exactly what St. Photios thought. His musings on whether the filioque might be retained in some churches as a pastoral issue has nothing to do with theology but rather with discipline. His theology on this issue is Orthodox.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 03:40:52 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,882


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #75 on: January 13, 2012, 03:56:57 AM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.

If you are quoting Fr Thomas accurately, then he is indeed putting his own interpretation on the filioque - in other words, expressing a theologoumenon. And one that will not wash with any Orthodox hierarch or synod that comes to mind. Given some of his other recent pronouncements on various areas of Orthodox doctrine and theology, there'd be a few bishops who I bet would want a word with him.
What is wrong with saying that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but that filioque, correctly understood means the sending of the Spirit by the Son? That is exactly what St. Photios thought. His musings on whether the filioque might be retained in some churches as a pastoral issue has nothing to do with theology but rather with discipline. His theology on this issue is Orthodox.

The filioque has become so tainted given its crucial role in the Schism that nothing short of its complete rejection would be satisfactory. What next - a pastoral accommodation for the likes of the immaculate conception?
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #76 on: January 13, 2012, 04:23:02 AM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.

If you are quoting Fr Thomas accurately, then he is indeed putting his own interpretation on the filioque - in other words, expressing a theologoumenon. And one that will not wash with any Orthodox hierarch or synod that comes to mind. Given some of his other recent pronouncements on various areas of Orthodox doctrine and theology, there'd be a few bishops who I bet would want a word with him.
What is wrong with saying that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but that filioque, correctly understood means the sending of the Spirit by the Son? That is exactly what St. Photios thought. His musings on whether the filioque might be retained in some churches as a pastoral issue has nothing to do with theology but rather with discipline. His theology on this issue is Orthodox.

The filioque has become so tainted given its crucial role in the Schism that nothing short of its complete rejection would be satisfactory. What next - a pastoral accommodation for the likes of the immaculate conception?
Oh come on, where did Fr. Thomas Hopko say anything remotely like that? Let's look at what he wrote again:
Quote
[The Pope] would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

It's clear that what he believes to be the ideal scenario would be one where Pope confirms the original text and defends its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. He then goes on to say that if for some reason some churches are allowed for pastoral reasons to keep the filioque in the creed, then the pope should make it clear that it can only be understood as the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit. When you read that line in context, it doesn't seem anywhere nearly as distasteful as you are making it out to be.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,882


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #77 on: January 13, 2012, 04:31:35 AM »

So what's wrong with cutting out all ambiguity and insisting on the removal of the filioque, instead of coming up with a weasel-word version of it? So many former RCs who've converted to Orthodoxy have happily accepted our doctrine, without qualms, as they have accepted other Orthodox doctrines which are at odds with what their former denomination teaches. We are not Anglicans, with their "comprehensiveness" which has, over the decades, blown up in their faces time and time again.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #78 on: January 13, 2012, 04:34:52 AM »

So what's wrong with cutting out all ambiguity and insisting on the removal of the filioque, instead of coming up with a weasel-word version of it? So many former RCs who've converted to Orthodoxy have happily accepted our doctrine, without qualms, as they have accepted other Orthodox doctrines which are at odds with what their former denomination teaches. We are not Anglicans, with their "comprehensiveness" which has, over the decades, blown up in their faces time and time again.

Quite frankly, I don't think his openness to this possibility makes him somehow "comprehensive" like the Anglicans.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,882


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #79 on: January 13, 2012, 04:42:32 AM »

So what's wrong with cutting out all ambiguity and insisting on the removal of the filioque, instead of coming up with a weasel-word version of it? So many former RCs who've converted to Orthodoxy have happily accepted our doctrine, without qualms, as they have accepted other Orthodox doctrines which are at odds with what their former denomination teaches. We are not Anglicans, with their "comprehensiveness" which has, over the decades, blown up in their faces time and time again.

Quite frankly, I don't think his openness to this possibility makes him somehow "comprehensive" like the Anglicans.

Why not? Given some of his other dissident pronouncements of late, I'm not convinced by your assessment.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 04:43:08 AM by LBK » Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #80 on: January 13, 2012, 04:44:12 AM »

So what's wrong with cutting out all ambiguity and insisting on the removal of the filioque, instead of coming up with a weasel-word version of it? So many former RCs who've converted to Orthodoxy have happily accepted our doctrine, without qualms, as they have accepted other Orthodox doctrines which are at odds with what their former denomination teaches. We are not Anglicans, with their "comprehensiveness" which has, over the decades, blown up in their faces time and time again.

Quite frankly, I don't think his openness to this possibility makes him somehow "comprehensive" like the Anglicans.

Why not? Given some of his other dissident pronouncements of late, I'm not convinced by your assessment.
What has he said? I haven't seen these dissident pronouncements that you speak of. Do you have any links?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,882


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #81 on: January 13, 2012, 04:48:05 AM »

His reduction of the events of the entry of the Mother of God into the Temple as a midrash, for starters. This flies in the face of more than 1200 years of accepted doctrinal and liturgical history.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #82 on: January 13, 2012, 04:53:55 AM »

His reduction of the events of the entry of the Mother of God into the Temple as a midrash, for starters. This flies in the face of more than 1200 years of accepted doctrinal and liturgical history.

And St. John Chrysostom thought the Theotokos sinned. Perhaps he was a dissident too? I don't know if I agree with Fr. Thomas Hopko on that point, but he is free to bring up questions about it until he is rebuked by his bishop or a synod. If you are really that scandalized, write to his bishop, to Metropolitan Jonah, and to the Ecumenical Patriarch.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 04:55:24 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #83 on: January 13, 2012, 06:10:56 AM »

Can anybody say something about the "Augustinian Filioque"?  I recall, I think, it was discussed in Dublin in 1984 and the Orthodox said they could accept it as a theologoumenon.  Even the fearsome Professor Archpriest John Romanides agreed that the "Augustinian Filioque" was acceptable to the Orthodox.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 06:22:09 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #84 on: January 13, 2012, 06:20:58 AM »

I think (the memory is waning) that it was described by the Orthodox as a legitimate Roman Orthodox Filioque.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #85 on: January 13, 2012, 06:55:04 AM »

Can anybody say something about the "Augustinian Filioque"?  I recall, I think, it was discussed in Dublin in 1984 and the Orthodox said they could accept it as a theologoumenon.  Even the fearsome Professor Archpriest John Romanides agreed that the "Augustinian Filioque" was acceptable to the Orthodox.

Even St Augustine made a distinction that while the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, that it was from the Father alone that the Son was begotten and the Holy Spirit "principally proceeds".
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,882


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #86 on: January 13, 2012, 07:03:57 AM »

His reduction of the events of the entry of the Mother of God into the Temple as a midrash, for starters. This flies in the face of more than 1200 years of accepted doctrinal and liturgical history.

And St. John Chrysostom thought the Theotokos sinned. Perhaps he was a dissident too? I don't know if I agree with Fr. Thomas Hopko on that point, but he is free to bring up questions about it until he is rebuked by his bishop or a synod. If you are really that scandalized, write to his bishop, to Metropolitan Jonah, and to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

What's to question, when the Church has clearly spoken through her hymnography and iconography? Faced with a choice between this and a man's dissident opinion, I know where to put my trust.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #87 on: January 13, 2012, 07:30:18 AM »

His reduction of the events of the entry of the Mother of God into the Temple as a midrash, for starters. This flies in the face of more than 1200 years of accepted doctrinal and liturgical history.

And St. John Chrysostom thought the Theotokos sinned. Perhaps he was a dissident too? I don't know if I agree with Fr. Thomas Hopko on that point, but he is free to bring up questions about it until he is rebuked by his bishop or a synod. If you are really that scandalized, write to his bishop, to Metropolitan Jonah, and to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

What's to question, when the Church has clearly spoken through her hymnography and iconography? Faced with a choice between this and a man's dissident opinion, I know where to put my trust.

Ok, then, if you truly believe that his opinions are dissident and dangerous, then you have a moral obligation to write to the OCA bishops to see to it that he is rebuked for holding such an opinion so that the laity might not be deceived by him, do you not? Again, I don't disagree with you on the point that the feast of the Presentation of the Theotokos its well established by tradition, but if you are so scandalized by Fr. Thomas Hopko's questioning of tradition, then I think you should write to people (who are in charge) about it. This hardly seems like the proper venue for calling a member of the clergy a dissident.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 07:36:36 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #88 on: January 13, 2012, 09:33:03 AM »

So what's wrong with cutting out all ambiguity and insisting on the removal of the filioque, instead of coming up with a weasel-word version of it? So many former RCs who've converted to Orthodoxy have happily accepted our doctrine, without qualms, as they have accepted other Orthodox doctrines which are at odds with what their former denomination teaches.

There have, certainly, been a great number of "unions" over the years; but I believe the whole purpose of Fr. Hopko's paper is to consider the possibility of a "mega-union" as it were.

We are not Anglicans

Oh? Why am I just now being told this?

 Grin
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #89 on: January 13, 2012, 09:34:19 AM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

That's the part that makes his proposal unacceptable to Catholics.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,477


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #90 on: January 13, 2012, 10:55:34 AM »

I just want to say a few words in defense of Fr. Thomas. He has done more for the Orthodox Faith and making it accessible to people of all faiths, and lack of faith, than any number of internet forums or bulletin boards could ever hope to accomplish. He is a kind, decent and humble priest. While he may have strong opinions with which some may take issue, he is always willing to engage in a civil and polite discourse of those areas of disagreement. Good luck complaining about his writings to his Bishops. Sad Keep us posted.
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 #91 on: January 13, 2012, 12:32:02 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.
Why would one continue to recite what he is required to condemn?  Does the loss of two syllables put off some operatic rendering of the Creed?

What else?  Receive priestesses until they die out?
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 #92 on: January 13, 2012, 12:47:20 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

That's the part that makes his proposal unacceptable to Catholics.
Au contraire.  It's rejection is what the Catholic Faith demands.  But it is nice for you to forthrightly state the Vatican's heresy plainly, instead of explaining it away, or rather burying it, with "clarifications."
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
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #93 on: January 13, 2012, 01:08:44 PM »

Quote
•The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.
From what I can tell, this is what Catholics already believe. We already condemn the Protestant doctrine of the atonement.  Any other Catholics care to chime in?

The idea that Christ's sacrifice was a payment of debt that we owed to the Father is a traditional Catholic teaching,and it is found in scripture. It is not mutually exclusive of the fact that Christ's sacrifice was an act of redemptive love. If we think it was only an offering of redemptive love and not justice,it would not make sense anyway. Jesus offered his body as a sacrifice to the Father in atonement of our sins (not just our lack of perfect love and obedience) and as a ransom for our slavery to sin and death. So it is a matter of God's justice as well as Jesus' love for God and man. The Father did,after all,send Jesus to be killed for our salvation. It is not as if Jesus decided on his own to submit to crucifixion
without the Father first willing it.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 01:18:30 PM by anthony022071 » 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 #94 on: January 13, 2012, 01:09:29 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.

If you are quoting Fr Thomas accurately, then he is indeed putting his own interpretation on the filioque - in other words, expressing a theologoumenon. And one that will not wash with any Orthodox hierarch or synod that comes to mind. Given some of his other recent pronouncements on various areas of Orthodox doctrine and theology, there'd be a few bishops who I bet would want a word with him.
What is wrong with saying that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but that filioque, correctly understood means the sending of the Spirit by the Son? That is exactly what St. Photios thought. His musings on whether the filioque might be retained in some churches as a pastoral issue has nothing to do with theology but rather with discipline. His theology on this issue is Orthodox.

The filioque has become so tainted given its crucial role in the Schism that nothing short of its complete rejection would be satisfactory. What next - a pastoral accommodation for the likes of the immaculate conception?
Oh come on, where did Fr. Thomas Hopko say anything remotely like that? Let's look at what he wrote again:
Quote
[The Pope] would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

It's clear that what he believes to be the ideal scenario would be one where Pope confirms the original text and defends its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. He then goes on to say that if for some reason some churches are allowed for pastoral reasons to keep the filioque in the creed, then the pope should make it clear that it can only be understood as the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit. When you read that line in context, it doesn't seem anywhere nearly as distasteful as you are making it out to be.
Btw, note that Fr. Hopko says "should some churches be allowed," i.e. if that is in the realm of possibility then they must.....  He is not saying "some churches should be allowed," i.e. he is advocating that they be allowed.
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 #95 on: January 13, 2012, 01:16:34 PM »

Quote
•The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.
From what I can tell, this is what Catholics already believe. We already condemn the Protestant doctrine of the atonement.  Any other Catholics care to chime in?

The idea that Christ's sacrifice was a payment of debt that we owed to the Father is a traditional Catholic teaching,and it is found in scripture. It is not mutually exclusive of the fact that Christ's sacrifice was an act of redemptive love. If we think it was only a payment of redemptive love and not justice,it would not make sense anyway.
"God was so pissed off at the world that He had His only begotten Son tortured to death as horribly as possible, and since then the Father feels so much better."
Jesus offered his body as a sacrifice to the Father in atonement of our sins (not just our lack of perfect love and obedience) and as a ransom for our slavery to sin and death.
So God the Father=sin and death.  Got it.
So it is a matter of God's justice as well as Jesus' love for God and man.
So Yaweh isn't that much different from Baal.  Got it.
The Father did,after all,send Jesus to be killed for our salvation. It is not as if Jesus decided on his own to submit to crucifixion without the Father first willing it.
And the will of the Son?  Read Phillippians 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
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 #96 on: January 13, 2012, 01:19:35 PM »

I just want to say a few words in defense of Fr. Thomas. He has done more for the Orthodox Faith and making it accessible to people of all faiths, and lack of faith, than any number of internet forums or bulletin boards could ever hope to accomplish. He is a kind, decent and humble priest. While he may have strong opinions with which some may take issue, he is always willing to engage in a civil and polite discourse of those areas of disagreement. Good luck complaining about his writings to his Bishops. Sad Keep us posted.
Btw, when the first priest at our Church was hospitalized and his wife died, Fr. Hopko came interstate to perform the funeral rite in the priest-husband's hospital room as they performed it at the graveside burying his wife.
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 #97 on: January 13, 2012, 01:32:23 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.

If you are quoting Fr Thomas accurately, then he is indeed putting his own interpretation on the filioque - in other words, expressing a theologoumenon. And one that will not wash with any Orthodox hierarch or synod that comes to mind. Given some of his other recent pronouncements on various areas of Orthodox doctrine and theology, there'd be a few bishops who I bet would want a word with him.
What is wrong with saying that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but that filioque, correctly understood means the sending of the Spirit by the Son? That is exactly what St. Photios thought. His musings on whether the filioque might be retained in some churches as a pastoral issue has nothing to do with theology but rather with discipline. His theology on this issue is Orthodox.

The filioque has become so tainted given its crucial role in the Schism that nothing short of its complete rejection would be satisfactory. What next - a pastoral accommodation for the likes of the immaculate conception?
Oh come on, where did Fr. Thomas Hopko say anything remotely like that? Let's look at what he wrote again:
Quote
[The Pope] would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

It's clear that what he believes to be the ideal scenario would be one where Pope confirms the original text and defends its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. He then goes on to say that if for some reason some churches are allowed for pastoral reasons to keep the filioque in the creed, then the pope should make it clear that it can only be understood as the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit. When you read that line in context, it doesn't seem anywhere nearly as distasteful as you are making it out to be.
Btw, note that Fr. Hopko says "should some churches be allowed," i.e. if that is in the realm of possibility then they must.....  He is not saying "some churches should be allowed," i.e. he is advocating that they be allowed.
That's what I understood it to mean too.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
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 #98 on: January 13, 2012, 01:34:18 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.
Why would one continue to recite what he is required to condemn?  Does the loss of two syllables put off some operatic rendering of the Creed?

What else?  Receive priestesses until they die out?

I think all he's saying is that because there is an Orthodox interpretation of and the Son, when referring to the manifestation of the Spirit in time, there might be an agreement that they keep the old phrase, but condemn the incorrect understanding of it. As you pointed out above, this is highly hypothetical, and probably not the solution which Fr. Thomas Hopko actually thinks is ideal.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #99 on: January 13, 2012, 01:51:20 PM »

Quote
•The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.
From what I can tell, this is what Catholics already believe. We already condemn the Protestant doctrine of the atonement.  Any other Catholics care to chime in?

The idea that Christ's sacrifice was a payment of debt that we owed to the Father is a traditional Catholic teaching,and it is found in scripture. It is not mutually exclusive of the fact that Christ's sacrifice was an act of redemptive love. If we think it was only a payment of redemptive love and not justice,it would not make sense anyway.
"God was so pissed off at the world that He had His only begotten Son tortured to death as horribly as possible, and since then the Father feels so much better."

God is certainly angered by our sins,and he demands justice. He sent his Son out of love for mankind to suffer and be killed for our salvation,and the Son was willing,out of love for the Father and for man. Do you think that God is not offended by our sins and that Jesus willed on his own to suffer and be killed unnecessarily?

Jesus offered his body as a sacrifice to the Father in atonement of our sins (not just our lack of perfect love and obedience) and as a ransom for our slavery to sin and death.

Quote
So God the Father=sin and death.  Got it.

No,the Father is just and he demands justice for our sins.

So it is a matter of God's justice as well as Jesus' love for God and man.

Quote
So Yaweh isn't that much different from Baal. Got it.

No,the God of Abraham is the true God and he wills what is just,and Baal was a false god and he willed what was unjust.

The Father did,after all,send Jesus to be killed for our salvation. It is not as if Jesus decided on his own to submit to crucifixion without the Father first willing it.

Quote
And the will of the Son?  Read Phillippians on that.

The Son willed what the Father willed.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 01:55:52 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,606



« Reply #100 on: January 13, 2012, 02:07:31 PM »

Quote
•The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.
From what I can tell, this is what Catholics already believe. We already condemn the Protestant doctrine of the atonement.  Any other Catholics care to chime in?

The idea that Christ's sacrifice was a payment of debt that we owed to the Father is a traditional Catholic teaching,and it is found in scripture. It is not mutually exclusive of the fact that Christ's sacrifice was an act of redemptive love. If we think it was only a payment of redemptive love and not justice,it would not make sense anyway.
"God was so pissed off at the world that He had His only begotten Son tortured to death as horribly as possible, and since then the Father feels so much better."

God is certainly angered by our sins,and he demands justice. He sent his Son out of love for mankind to suffer and be killed for our salvation,and the Son was willing,out of love for the Father and for man. Do you think that God is not offended by our sins and that Jesus willed on his own to suffer and be killed unnecessarily?

Jesus offered his body as a sacrifice to the Father in atonement of our sins (not just our lack of perfect love and obedience) and as a ransom for our slavery to sin and death.

Quote
So God the Father=sin and death.  Got it.

No,the Father is just and he demands justice for our sins.

So it is a matter of God's justice as well as Jesus' love for God and man.

Quote
So Yaweh isn't that much different from Baal. Got it.

No,the God of Abraham is the true God and he wills what is just,and Baal was a false god and he willed what was unjust.

The Father did,after all,send Jesus to be killed for our salvation. It is not as if Jesus decided on his own to submit to crucifixion without the Father first willing it.

Quote
And the will of the Son?  Read Phillippians on that.

The Son willed what the Father willed.


Nonsense, Jesus did not die in order to abate the wrath of the Father. He died to destroy death. Penal substitution was unknown to the Fathers.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #101 on: January 13, 2012, 02:15:46 PM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
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 #102 on: January 13, 2012, 02:22:17 PM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.
Agreed.
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 #103 on: January 13, 2012, 02:24:21 PM »

Quote
•The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.
From what I can tell, this is what Catholics already believe. We already condemn the Protestant doctrine of the atonement.  Any other Catholics care to chime in?

The idea that Christ's sacrifice was a payment of debt that we owed to the Father is a traditional Catholic teaching,and it is found in scripture. It is not mutually exclusive of the fact that Christ's sacrifice was an act of redemptive love. If we think it was only a payment of redemptive love and not justice,it would not make sense anyway.
"God was so pissed off at the world that He had His only begotten Son tortured to death as horribly as possible, and since then the Father feels so much better."

God is certainly angered by our sins,and he demands justice.
Sorry, the Living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not the idol made from the philosophical construct of the your scholastics.
He sent his Son out of love for mankind to suffer and be killed for our salvation,and the Son was willing,out of love for the Father and for man. Do you think that God is not offended by our sins and that Jesus willed on his own to suffer and be killed unnecessarily?
Jesus doesn't need your scholastics' blood atonement for a reason to die.

Jesus offered his body as a sacrifice to the Father in atonement of our sins (not just our lack of perfect love and obedience) and as a ransom for our slavery to sin and death.
So God the Father=sin and death.  Got it.
No,the Father is just and he demands justice for our sins.

The Lord's hand is not shortened that He cannot save, so He is not bound by Aristotle's categories, no matter how much your scholastics entangle themselves in it.

So it is a matter of God's justice as well as Jesus' love for God and man.
So Yaweh isn't that much different from Baal. Got it.
No,the God of Abraham is the true God and he wills what is just,and Baal was a false god and he willed what was unjust.

So killing the innocent to let the guilty off is just.  Got it.

The Father did,after all,send Jesus to be killed for our salvation. It is not as if Jesus decided on his own to submit to crucifixion without the Father first willing it.
And the will of the Son?  Read Phillippians on that.
The Son willed what the Father willed.
so your point?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 02:51:30 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
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #104 on: January 13, 2012, 02:52:22 PM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.

Quality stuff Asteriktos--this is why the board benefits when you are able to join.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #105 on: January 13, 2012, 10:36:05 PM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.

The parable of the prodigal son is not about God's justice per se,but his gratuitous mercy upon sinners. His justice in regard to sin is rooted in his truth and his commandments. Justice means giving to each person what is due,and demanding from each person what is due. Humans could not pay the debt for sin they owed to God,so he sent his Son in the flesh to atone for them with his flesh. So Christ's sacrifice was done to fulfill both the Father's demand of justice and his gratuitous mercy. Although God forgives sins,he also demands atonement and penance for them,not because he needs it,but because it is right and just in his sight.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 10:59:09 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #106 on: January 13, 2012, 11:16:11 PM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.

Quality stuff Asteriktos--this is why the board benefits when you are able to join.

Dear Witega and Asteriktos,

I think you will love these quotes from Saint Isaac the Syrian

message 146
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30785.msg486645.html#msg486645
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #107 on: January 13, 2012, 11:18:07 PM »

The parable of the prodigal son is not about God's justice per se,but his gratuitous mercy upon sinners. His justice in regard to sin is rooted in his truth and his commandments. Justice means giving to each person what is due,and demanding from each person what is due. Humans could not pay the debt for sin they owed to God,so he sent his Son in the flesh to atone for them with his flesh. So Christ's sacrifice was done to fulfill both the Father's demand of justice and his gratuitous mercy. Although God forgives sins,he also demands atonement and penance for them,not because he needs it,but because it is right and just in his sight.


Beware!   You are about to be slaughtered by the Orthodox!   laugh
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #108 on: January 14, 2012, 05:54:11 AM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.

The parable of the prodigal son is not about God's justice per se,but his gratuitous mercy upon sinners. His justice in regard to sin is rooted in his truth and his commandments. Justice means giving to each person what is due,and demanding from each person what is due. Humans could not pay the debt for sin they owed to God,so he sent his Son in the flesh to atone for them with his flesh. So Christ's sacrifice was done to fulfill both the Father's demand of justice and his gratuitous mercy. Although God forgives sins,he also demands atonement and penance for them,not because he needs it,but because it is right and just in his sight.


In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; he demands atonement; restitution must be made.

But this is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable deserves serious thought in connection with this discussion.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #109 on: January 14, 2012, 09:57:46 AM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.

Quality stuff Asteriktos--this is why the board benefits when you are able to join.

Dear Witega and Asteriktos,

I think you will love these quotes from Saint Isaac the Syrian

message 146
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30785.msg486645.html#msg486645

Indeed, thanks for posting them and linking! Smiley
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #110 on: January 14, 2012, 01:41:07 PM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.

The parable of the prodigal son is not about God's justice per se,but his gratuitous mercy upon sinners. His justice in regard to sin is rooted in his truth and his commandments. Justice means giving to each person what is due,and demanding from each person what is due. Humans could not pay the debt for sin they owed to God,so he sent his Son in the flesh to atone for them with his flesh. So Christ's sacrifice was done to fulfill both the Father's demand of justice and his gratuitous mercy. Although God forgives sins,he also demands atonement and penance for them,not because he needs it,but because it is right and just in his sight.


I would take issue with this (and probably get into trouble as I usually do when I allow myself free range of my opinions), but this interpretation seems to stem from St Augustine's misinterpretation of "justification". He could not speak/read Greek and it shows. This error of his seeded the later errors in the west even to the point of the reformation.
Justification in Greek means to be made righteous - a different meaning entirely from atonement. Asteriktos' response is on the right path.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #111 on: January 14, 2012, 04:42:11 PM »

Justice means giving to each person what is due,and demanding from each person what is due.

That is a fairly common human definition of justice, and therefore it is not surprising that Anselm read it into the Scriptures. What you are missing is that, following the Orthodox Fathers, we do not believe that 'God's justice' is the same thing as 'man's justice'.

Quote
I would take issue with this (and probably get into trouble as I usually do when I allow myself free range of my opinions), but this interpretation seems to stem from St Augustine's misinterpretation of "justification". He could not speak/read Greek and it shows. This error of his seeded the later errors in the west even to the point of the reformation.
Justification in Greek means to be made righteous - a different meaning entirely from atonement. Asteriktos' response is on the right path.

Not to disagree with you but just to point out the degree to which the Western understanding has permeated the language--it's not just that 'justification' in Greek means something different from 'atonement', but 'atonement' itself means something entirely different in Modern English than it did originally. When 'atonement' first entered the language, it was a neologism for 'to make at one'. That is, it was about bridging the gap between fallen Humanity and God, to make us 'at one' with Him. In modern English one can speak of 'atoning for one's crimes' completely separate from any religious reference as it's become a juridicial term. But it was not originally.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 04:42:39 PM by witega » Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #112 on: January 14, 2012, 05:29:18 PM »

^ I did recognize that but was too lazy to word it. Nicely done, finishing my work. Thanks.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #113 on: January 16, 2012, 02:47:29 PM »

In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; he demands atonement; restitution must be made.

That is also the view we find in the Old Testament books and Paul's letter to the Hebrews. Hence the bloody sacrifices and sin offerings and penances prescribed in the Jewish Law,which was given by God through Moses.

Quote
But this is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable deserves serious thought in connection with this discussion.

God the Father does freely forgive us,but on account of the sacrifice of his Son,which was done for that purpose. God's forgiveness does not abolish the need for us to do penance for our sins,because the damage to our souls caused by our sins still cling to us until we are purged. Nothing impure will enter into heaven. In the parable,the son has already suffered humiliation for his sins and he repents to his father in humility,and the father gives a fine robe to his son and orders a calf to be killed for him.

« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 02:48:23 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #114 on: January 16, 2012, 04:04:08 PM »

I would take issue with this (and probably get into trouble as I usually do when I allow myself free range of my opinions), but this interpretation seems to stem from St Augustine's misinterpretation of "justification". He could not speak/read Greek and it shows. This error of his seeded the later errors in the west even to the point of the reformation.
Justification in Greek means to be made righteous - a different meaning entirely from atonement. Asteriktos' response is on the right path.

That may be the literal definition of justification in Greek,but it does not convey what Christ's suffering and death was in itself. Christ's sacrifice does not by itself make us righteous in the sense of being obedient to God. That much is obvious. We still have an inclination to evil and we still commit sins,and many believers will not enter into heaven because of their sins. Perhaps the Greek definition of justification had a legal meaning as well as a moral meaning,because only in the sense of having paid a debt did Christ's sacrifice make us righteous. So the Orthodox idea of justification is as "legalistic" as the idea of atonement by sacrifice,only it looks away from the reality of the sacrifice. But the word atonement better conveys what Christ's sacrifice was in itself.

Augustine was capable of reading Greek. But he read scripture from Latin translations,whether or not he also read it in Greek. So he is not responsible for misinterpreting the Greek word for justification. It would not have made much of a difference if he had taken into consideration the meaning of the Greek word,because he would still would have saw Christ's suffering and death as a payment of the debt for sins that humankind owed to God. That is the only interpretation of the sacrifice that makes. It we see no payment of a debt for sins,then we miss the point of why Jesus had to suffer and die in the first place,and we make void the cross.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 04:30:41 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #115 on: January 16, 2012, 04:21:42 PM »

That may be the literal definition of justification in Greek,but it does not convey what Christ's suffering and death was in itself.

Or in other words, that may be what it says but it doesn't mean what it says. Why? Because you say so?

Quote
Augustine was capable of reading Greek.

By his own admission, St. Augustine was never comfortable in Greek. So can you find someone who *was* fluent in Koine Greek who agrees with your interpreation?
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #116 on: January 16, 2012, 05:28:23 PM »

In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; he demands atonement; restitution must be made.

That is also the view we find in the Old Testament books and Paul's letter to the Hebrews. Hence the bloody sacrifices and sin offerings and penances prescribed in the Jewish Law,which was given by God through Moses.

Quote
But this is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable deserves serious thought in connection with this discussion.

God the Father does freely forgive us,but on account of the sacrifice of his Son,which was done for that purpose. God's forgiveness does not abolish the need for us to do penance for our sins,because the damage to our souls caused by our sins still cling to us until we are purged. Nothing impure will enter into heaven. In the parable,the son has already suffered humiliation for his sins and he repents to his father in humility,and the father gives a fine robe to his son and orders a calf to be killed for him.



Dear Anthony, the teaching of the Atonement is virtually unknown in Orthodoxy.  When people first encounter it, in its Catholic or Protestant forms, the first reaction is generallly one of revulsion.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,148


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


« Reply #117 on: January 16, 2012, 05:34:54 PM »

In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; he demands atonement; restitution must be made.

That is also the view we find in the Old Testament books and Paul's letter to the Hebrews. Hence the bloody sacrifices and sin offerings and penances prescribed in the Jewish Law,which was given by God through Moses.

Quote
But this is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable deserves serious thought in connection with this discussion.

God the Father does freely forgive us,but on account of the sacrifice of his Son,which was done for that purpose. God's forgiveness does not abolish the need for us to do penance for our sins,because the damage to our souls caused by our sins still cling to us until we are purged. Nothing impure will enter into heaven. In the parable,the son has already suffered humiliation for his sins and he repents to his father in humility,and the father gives a fine robe to his son and orders a calf to be killed for him.



Dear Anthony, the teaching of the Atonement is virtually unknown in Orthodoxy.  When people first encounter it, in its Catholic or Protestant forms, the first reaction is generallly one of revulsion.

"Revulsion"?  Really??  Wow!!  Fascinating!
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 05:39:19 PM by J Michael » Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #118 on: January 16, 2012, 05:39:21 PM »

"Revulsion"?  Really??

I'll say that this word might describe how I felt about certain concepts before... not justice/atonement so much as justice/hell, but still...
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,148


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


« Reply #119 on: January 16, 2012, 05:44:06 PM »

"Revulsion"?  Really??

I'll say that this word might describe how I felt about certain concepts before... not justice/atonement so much as justice/hell, but still...

from here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revulsion
re·vul·sion  (r-vlshn)
n.
1. A sudden strong change or reaction in feeling, especially a feeling of violent disgust or loathing.
2. A withdrawing or turning away from something.


More like definition #1 or more like definition #2?  But then, if one is violently disgusted by something, I guess they would want to withdraw from it.

Can you say more about your revulsion?

Certainly wasn't my reaction, but that's just me.  Wink
Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #120 on: January 16, 2012, 05:53:48 PM »


There is an interesting essay "Salvation By Christ: A Response to Credenda /
Agenda on Orthodoxy's Teaching of Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
,"
by Carmen Fragapane.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx

Carmen Fragapane writes:

"...In EH Jones writes that in Orthodoxy "discussions of substitutionary
atonement and propitiation are virtually absent from their published
explanations of salvation.
 

[For example it is absent from Metrpolitan Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church]

"... the notion that redemption should be rigidly interpreted in one
particular way is itself foreign to early Christian thought: "The seven
ecumenical councils avoided defining salvation through any [one model]
alone. No universal Christian consensus demands that one view of salvation
includes or excludes all others" .

J.N.D. Kelly further explains:

"Scholars have often despaired of discovering any single unifying
thought in the Patristic teaching about the redemption. These various theories,
however, despite appearances, should not be regarded as in fact mutually
incompatible. They were all of them attempts to elucidate the same great
truth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due to
the different Biblical images from which they started, and there is no
logical reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded as
complimentary".

And this is precisely what we find in Orthodoxy: "While
insisting in this way upon the unity of Christ's saving economy, the
Orthodox Church has never formally endorsed any particular theory of
atonement.
The Greek Fathers, following the New Testament, employ a rich
variety of images to describe what the Savior has done for us. These models
are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, each needs to be balanced by
the others. Five models stand out in particular: teacher, sacrifice, ransom,
victory and participation" ..."

Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #121 on: January 16, 2012, 05:56:30 PM »

Both definitions, really. I've bounced back and forth between agnosticism and Christianity, and the idea of eternal punishment was one issue I grappled with (even the Orthodox versions, which at times try to soften things). Ok, so I never literally became sick to the stomach... but I have become disgusted intellectually and turned away from Christianity before. Perhaps it was just part of the process of learning to accept things, which I had to go through and learn from, I don't know. I wouldn't say the word describes my views of anything at this point, though I certainly still struggle with certain ideas.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #122 on: January 16, 2012, 05:58:11 PM »


There is an interesting essay "Salvation By Christ: A Response to Credenda /
Agenda on Orthodoxy's Teaching of Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
,"
by Carmen Fragapane.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx

Carmen Fragapane writes:

"...In EH Jones writes that in Orthodoxy "discussions of substitutionary
atonement and propitiation are virtually absent from their published
explanations of salvation.
 

[For example it is absent from Metrpolitan Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church]

"... the notion that redemption should be rigidly interpreted in one
particular way is itself foreign to early Christian thought: "The seven
ecumenical councils avoided defining salvation through any [one model]
alone. No universal Christian consensus demands that one view of salvation
includes or excludes all others" .

J.N.D. Kelly further explains:

"Scholars have often despaired of discovering any single unifying
thought in the Patristic teaching about the redemption. These various theories,
however, despite appearances, should not be regarded as in fact mutually
incompatible. They were all of them attempts to elucidate the same great
truth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due to
the different Biblical images from which they started, and there is no
logical reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded as
complimentary".

And this is precisely what we find in Orthodoxy: "While
insisting in this way upon the unity of Christ's saving economy, the
Orthodox Church has never formally endorsed any particular theory of
atonement.
The Greek Fathers, following the New Testament, employ a rich
variety of images to describe what the Savior has done for us. These models
are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, each needs to be balanced by
the others. Five models stand out in particular: teacher, sacrifice, ransom,
victory and participation" ..."

I believe the last quote is from the book How Are We Saved? by Met. Kallistos, a very nice little book that introduces Orthodox thought on the matter.

EDIT--Nevermind, yeah it is from there, I checked the footnote at the article you linked to. Smiley
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 05:59:03 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,148


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


« Reply #123 on: January 16, 2012, 06:05:17 PM »

Both definitions, really. I've bounced back and forth between agnosticism and Christianity, and the idea of eternal punishment was one issue I grappled with (even the Orthodox versions, which at times try to soften things). Ok, so I never literally became sick to the stomach... but I have become disgusted intellectually and turned away from Christianity before. Perhaps it was just part of the process of learning to accept things, which I had to go through and learn from, I don't know. I wouldn't say the word describes my views of anything at this point, though I certainly still struggle with certain ideas.

Thanks for that.  Yes, there certainly are in Christianity some difficult concepts and hard sayings.  It can be much "easier" and more "comfortable" sometimes to just turn away from them.  Which is precisely what Satan loves!
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 06:06:43 PM by J Michael » Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #124 on: January 16, 2012, 09:31:15 PM »

In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; he demands atonement; restitution must be made.

That is also the view we find in the Old Testament books and Paul's letter to the Hebrews. Hence the bloody sacrifices and sin offerings and penances prescribed in the Jewish Law,which was given by God through Moses.

Quote
But this is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable deserves serious thought in connection with this discussion.

God the Father does freely forgive us,but on account of the sacrifice of his Son,which was done for that purpose. God's forgiveness does not abolish the need for us to do penance for our sins,because the damage to our souls caused by our sins still cling to us until we are purged. Nothing impure will enter into heaven. In the parable,the son has already suffered humiliation for his sins and he repents to his father in humility,and the father gives a fine robe to his son and orders a calf to be killed for him.

Dear Anthony, the teaching of the Atonement is virtually unknown in Orthodoxy.  When people first encounter it, in its Catholic or Protestant forms, the first reaction is generally one of revulsion.

Do the Orthodox accept what the prophets and St. Paul and Jesus himself said about the death of Christ? Do they accept that God the Father willed that his Son suffer and be crucified on account of mankind's sins?
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 09:49:23 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #125 on: January 16, 2012, 09:40:56 PM »


Do Orthodox theologians know about the Jewish Feast of Atonement,when the high priest would sacrifice victims in expiation of the sins of the people?

What do you make of those thousands of Jewish sacrifices of atonement of sin?  Is it not Roman Catholic teaching that even the least serious of sins is an offence against the infinite majesty and justice of God and therefore no finite human being has the power to make any atonement acceptable to Him?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #126 on: January 16, 2012, 09:46:40 PM »

Do the Orthodox accept what the prophets and St. Paul and Jesus himself said about the death of Christ? Do they accept that God the Father willed that his Son suffer and be crucified on account of mankind's sins?

Dear Anthony,

Click on atonement in the tags at the page bottom and it will lead to many threads on atonement.
Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #127 on: January 16, 2012, 10:07:19 PM »


Do Orthodox theologians know about the Jewish Feast of Atonement,when the high priest would sacrifice victims in expiation of the sins of the people?

What do you make of those thousands of Jewish sacrifices of atonement of sin?  Is it not Roman Catholic teaching that even the least serious of sins is an offence against the infinite majesty and justice of God and therefore no finite human being has the power to make any atonement acceptable to Him?


The Church does not teach that we cannot offer anything to God in atonement for our sins. Penance is acceptable to God,because it is an act of humility and pious fear and devotion. What we cannot do is make sacrifices that will take away the stain of original sin and merit eternal life.

God prescribed sacrifices for sin in the Mosaic Law,and he accepted them if they were done with sincere repentance.

Hebrews 9,

11

But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, 10 passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation,

12

he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

13

For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer's ashes 11 can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed,

14

how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit 12 offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God.

15

13 For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.

16

14 Now where there is a will, the death of the testator must be established.

17

For a will takes effect only at death; it has no force while the testator is alive.

18

Thus not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

19

15 When every commandment had been proclaimed by Moses to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves (and goats), together with water and crimson wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,

20

saying, "This is 'the blood of the covenant which God has enjoined upon you.'"

21

In the same way, he sprinkled also the tabernacle 16 and all the vessels of worship with blood.

22

17 According to the law almost everything is purified by blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23

18 Therefore, it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified by these rites, but the heavenly things themselves by better sacrifices than these.

24

For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf.

25

Not that he might offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters each year into the sanctuary with blood that is not his own;

26

if that were so, he would have had to suffer repeatedly from the foundation of the world. But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages 19 to take away sin by his sacrifice.

27

Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment,

28

so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, 20 will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 10:14:49 PM by anthony022071 » 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 #128 on: January 16, 2012, 11:22:47 PM »

In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; he demands atonement; restitution must be made.

That is also the view we find in the Old Testament books and Paul's letter to the Hebrews. Hence the bloody sacrifices and sin offerings and penances prescribed in the Jewish Law,which was given by God through Moses.

Quote
But this is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable deserves serious thought in connection with this discussion.

God the Father does freely forgive us,but on account of the sacrifice of his Son,which was done for that purpose. God's forgiveness does not abolish the need for us to do penance for our sins,because the damage to our souls caused by our sins still cling to us until we are purged. Nothing impure will enter into heaven. In the parable,the son has already suffered humiliation for his sins and he repents to his father in humility,and the father gives a fine robe to his son and orders a calf to be killed for him.

Dear Anthony, the teaching of the Atonement is virtually unknown in Orthodoxy.  When people first encounter it, in its Catholic or Protestant forms, the first reaction is generally one of revulsion.

Do the Orthodox accept what the prophets and St. Paul and Jesus Himself said about the death of Christ?
Yes. Unfortunately the Vatican followed Anselm in rejecting their words.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #129 on: January 17, 2012, 01:56:36 AM »

"A proper Orthodox answer [on the doctrine of atonement] is probably not to “come out fighting,” but to reassure that Orthodoxy has never wavered on the atoning death of Christ, nor questioned that His blood was shed for us, nor that He is the only way to the Father. The language of Orthodoxy has been shaped in the crucible of the great doctrinal debates surrounding the Trinity and the Doctrine of Christ – as well as within the spiritual world of apophatic theology, in which great care is taken not to assert of God what cannot be asserted. This language and this world have preserved a spiritual Tradition that has not wandered from the Truth nor lost its mooring in the reality of God. Conservative Protestants can be understood in their anxieties, but their anxieties cannot be justified in the face of Orthodox faithfulness.
 
"Orthodox questions about Substitionary Atonement language and imagery are a worthy discussion for Protestants. It is the voice of Christian Tradition, rooted in the Fathers that calls for carefulness when speaking of God and circumspection when asserting something as dogma. Orthodoxy is no stranger to dogma and holds it in the highest regard (you can’t imagine), but just so, it questions a dogma when it cannot find it within its own two-thousand year history of councils and canons. Those questions should give pause to any Christian of good will."

"What’s At Stake in the Atonement"
http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/whats-at-stake-in-the-atonement/
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,373


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #130 on: January 17, 2012, 10:10:54 PM »

I would take issue with this (and probably get into trouble as I usually do when I allow myself free range of my opinions), but this interpretation seems to stem from St Augustine's misinterpretation of "justification". He could not speak/read Greek and it shows. This error of his seeded the later errors in the west even to the point of the reformation.
Justification in Greek means to be made righteous - a different meaning entirely from atonement. Asteriktos' response is on the right path.

That may be the literal definition of justification in Greek,but it does not convey what Christ's suffering and death was in itself. Christ's sacrifice does not by itself make us righteous in the sense of being obedient to God. That much is obvious. We still have an inclination to evil and we still commit sins,and many believers will not enter into heaven because of their sins. Perhaps the Greek definition of justification had a legal meaning as well as a moral meaning,because only in the sense of having paid a debt did Christ's sacrifice make us righteous. So the Orthodox idea of justification is as "legalistic" as the idea of atonement by sacrifice,only it looks away from the reality of the sacrifice. But the word atonement better conveys what Christ's sacrifice was in itself.

Augustine was capable of reading Greek. But he read scripture from Latin translations,whether or not he also read it in Greek. So he is not responsible for misinterpreting the Greek word for justification. It would not have made much of a difference if he had taken into consideration the meaning of the Greek word,because he would still would have saw Christ's suffering and death as a payment of the debt for sins that humankind owed to God. That is the only interpretation of the sacrifice that makes. It we see no payment of a debt for sins,then we miss the point of why Jesus had to suffer and die in the first place,and we make void the cross.
The "cash register" notion of Christ's death a means to change the father's attitude or to solve his need to balance his own books was unknown for over a thousand years in the Undivided Church (before the Great Schism).

Further, though many within fundamentalist Protestant trajectories have striven vigorously to retain and communicate such emphases there has been a massive abandonment of this paradigm among major contemporary academic investigators during the last century (see links below) to the point that the joint agreement between Roman Catholics and Lutherans borders on appearing as yet another instance of hitching theological horses to a burning wagon.

The fact of massive academic repudiation of central aspects shared by the classic Roman Catholic/Lutheran trajectories if nothing else very strongly suggests that any supposition that such notions approach something either self-evident or hermenutically or logically necessary from the Bible and/or reason is absolute nonsense. From an Orthodox point of view their absence from first millennium Christian tradition also raises interesting questions.

http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/did-luther-get-it-wrong-most-major-contemporary-pauline-scholars-say-yes/
http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/dikaiosyne-theou-the-righteousness-of-god-in-contemporary-biblical-scholarship/
http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/propitiation-or-expiation-did-christ-change-gods-attitude/
« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 10:28:41 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #131 on: January 20, 2012, 01:19:38 PM »

Quote
•The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.
From what I can tell, this is what Catholics already believe. We already condemn the Protestant doctrine of the atonement.  Any other Catholics care to chime in?

The idea that Christ's sacrifice was a payment of debt that we owed to the Father is a traditional Catholic teaching,and it is found in scripture. It is not mutually exclusive of the fact that Christ's sacrifice was an act of redemptive love. If we think it was only a payment of redemptive love and not justice,it would not make sense anyway.
"God was so pissed off at the world that He had His only begotten Son tortured to death as horribly as possible, and since then the Father feels so much better."

God is certainly angered by our sins,and he demands justice.

Sorry, the Living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not the idol made from the philosophical construct of the your scholastics.

This isn't about scholastic theology. It is a fact known from scripture that God demands atonement for sins,and in the Law of Moses this required the shedding of blood.

He sent his Son out of love for mankind to suffer and be killed for our salvation,and the Son was willing,out of love for the Father and for man. Do you think that God is not offended by our sins and that Jesus willed on his own to suffer and be killed unnecessarily?

Quote
Jesus doesn't need your scholastics' blood atonement for a reason to die.

He needed to suffer and be killed for our sins because the Father willed it,to fulfill his demand of justice.

Romans 3,
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets,n 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. 24They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed,r 26through the forbearance of God—to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus.

Jesus offered his body as a sacrifice to the Father in atonement of our sins (not just our lack of perfect love and obedience) and as a ransom for our slavery to sin and death.

So God the Father=sin and death.  Got it.

No,the Father is just and he demands justice for our sins.


Quote
The Lord's hand is not shortened that He cannot save, so He is not bound by Aristotle's categories, no matter how much your scholastics entangle themselves in it.

The doctrine of the atonement is not bound by Aristotle's categories,and it does not make God in need of atonement to save us. It is his will that atonement be made so that his justice will be served. If God did not demand atonement for sins,he would not be perfectly just in his expectations from us.

So it is a matter of God's justice as well as Jesus' love for God and man.

So Yaweh isn't that much different from Baal. Got it.

No,the God of Abraham is the true God and he wills what is just,and Baal was a false god and he willed what was unjust.


Quote
So killing the innocent to let the guilty off is just.  Got it.

No,God willed that Jesus submit to an unjust death on the cross so that his death would be a sacrifice to redeem mankind. That was God's plan,and Jesus assented to the will of his Father.

The Father did,after all,send Jesus to be killed for our salvation. It is not as if Jesus decided on his own to submit to crucifixion without the Father first willing it.

And the will of the Son?  Read Phillippians on that.

The Son willed what the Father willed.

Quote
so your point?

I answered your question.

I saw on your profile that you live in Chicago. I live in Oak Park. Maybe we should meet up and argue about theology. Wouldn't that be fun?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 01:30:27 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #132 on: January 20, 2012, 01:32:46 PM »

deleted
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 01:34:06 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #133 on: January 20, 2012, 01:36:54 PM »

Anthony, I'm not sure justice is what God is after.  You keep going on about it, but then you admit that Christ's crucifixion was unjust.   How is scapegoating ever just?  How did an unjust act fulfill God's demand for justice? 
Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
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: January 20, 2012, 01:52:57 PM »

I just came across this:
The Gospel in Chairs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnj52gaauBs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8

Thanks T J Gilday
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
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #135 on: January 20, 2012, 02:06:47 PM »

Anthony, I'm not sure justice is what God is after.  You keep going on about it, but then you admit that Christ's crucifixion was unjust.   How is scapegoating ever just?  How did an unjust act fulfill God's demand for justice? 

God does demand justice. That is what the commandments and the prescriptions for atonement he gave and the punishments he inflicted are about. It was unjust for the Jews to have Jesus killed,but the Father used the crucifixion as the event that would redeem mankind. God draws good from the evil actions of humans,as in the story of Joseph the son of Israel and his brethren. The scapegoating of Jesus was just on the part of the Father because Jesus was his Son and the Son willed to sacrifice himself.
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 #136 on: January 20, 2012, 02:15:35 PM »

Anthony, I'm not sure justice is what God is after.  You keep going on about it, but then you admit that Christ's crucifixion was unjust.   How is scapegoating ever just?  How did an unjust act fulfill God's demand for justice? 

God does demand justice. That is what the commandments and the prescriptions for atonement he gave and the punishments he inflicted are about. It was unjust for the Jews to have Jesus killed,but the Father used the crucifixion as the event that would redeem mankind. God draws good from the evil actions of humans,as in the story of Joseph the son of Israel and his brethren. The scapegoating of Jesus was just on the part of the Father because Jesus was his Son and the Son willed to sacrifice himself.
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself."
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 #137 on: January 20, 2012, 02:48:43 PM »

Anthony, I'm not sure justice is what God is after.  You keep going on about it, but then you admit that Christ's crucifixion was unjust.   How is scapegoating ever just?  How did an unjust act fulfill God's demand for justice? 

God's justice is the Good of Creation.

Therefore the justice of Christ's kenosis is the restoration/redemption of the goodness of Creation.

Do you think anything man could do to restore Creation?

Well...clearly neither can some men understand that restoration as justice... Smiley
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #138 on: January 20, 2012, 06:16:49 PM »


This isn't about scholastic theology. It is a fact known from scripture that God demands atonement for sins,and in the Law of Moses this required the shedding of blood.


A rather sad fate for those thousands of cattle, sheep and turtle doves since the shedding of their blood achieved absolutely no atonement.

As the proponents of substitutionary atonement will tell you no human and certainly no dumb animal can atone for sin.  No human or animal can substitute and appease the anger of God and satisfy His justice.

Sorry, calves!  Sorry, sheep!  Sorry, doves!  You were all killed in vain.
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,373


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #139 on: January 20, 2012, 08:55:43 PM »

From St. Isaac the Syrian:

"...Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright (cf. Ps. 24:8, 144:17), His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. ‘He is good,’ He says, ‘to the evil and to the impious’ (cf. Luke 6:35). How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers? ‘Friend, I do thee no wrong: I will give unto this last even as unto thee. Is thine eye evil because I am good?’ (Matt. 20:12-15). How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over all his wealth? (Luke 15:11 ff.). None other but His very Son said these things concerning Him, lest we doubt it; and thus He bare witness concerning Him. Where, then, is God’s justice, for whilst we are sinners Christ died for us! (cf. Rom. 5:8). But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change."

“Far be it that we should ever think such an iniquity that God could become unmerciful! For the property of Divinity does not change as do mortals. God does not acquire something which He does not have, nor lose what He has, nor supplement what He does have, as do created beings. But what God has from the beginning, He will have and has until the end, as the blest Cyril wrote in his commentary on Genesis. Fear God, he says, out of love for Him, and not for the austere name that He has been given. Love Him as you ought to love Him; not for what He will give you in the future, but for what we have received, and for this world alone which He has created for us. Who is the man that can repay Him? Where is His repayment to be found in our works? Who persuaded Him in the beginning to bring us into being Who intercedes for us before Him, when we shall possess no  memory, as though we never existed? Who will awake this our body for that life? Again, whence descends the notion of knowledge into dust? O the wondrous mercy of God! O the astonishment at the bounty of our God and Creator! O might for which all is possible! O the immeasurable goodness that brings our nature again, sinners though we be, to His regeneration and rest! Who is sufficient to glorify Him? He raises up the transgressor and blasphemer, he renews dust unendowed with reason, making it rational and comprehending and the scattered and insensible dust and the scattered senses He makes a rational nature worthy of thought. The sinner is unable to comprehend the grace of His resurrection. Where is gehenna, that can afflict us? Where is perdition, that terrifies us in many ways and quenches the joy of His love? And what is gehenna as compared with the grace of His resurrection, when He will raise us from Hades and cause our corruptible nature to be clad in incorruption, and raise up in glory him that has fallen into Hades?

“Come, men of discernment, and be filled with wonder! Whose mind is sufficiently wise and marvelous to wonder worthily at the bounty of our Creator? His recompense of sinners is, that instead of a just recompense, He rewards them with resurrection, and instead of those bodies with which they trampled upon His law, He enrobes them with perfect glory and incorruption. That grace whereby we are resurrected after we have sinned is greater than the grace which brought us into being when we were not. Glory be to Thine immeasurable grace, O Lord! Behold, Lord, the waves of Thy grace close my mouth with silence, and there is not a thought left in me before the face of Thy thanksgiving. What mouths can confess Thy praise, O good King, Thou Who lovest our life? Glory be to Thee for the two worlds which Thou hast created for our growth and delight, leading us by all things which Thou didst fashion to the knowledge of Thy glory, from now and unto the ages. Amen."

-St. Isaac the Syrian, Homily 60.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 08:56:00 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,373


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #140 on: January 20, 2012, 09:08:01 PM »

He needed to suffer and be killed for our sins because the Father willed it,to fulfill his demand of justice.

Romans 3,
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets,n 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. 24They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed,r 26through the forbearance of God—to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus.
You might have had a point from Rom 3 had you used the inaccurate translation propitiation rather than the correct expiation to render ιλαστηριον/hilasterion.

However, by citing the proper translation you unwittingly serve as a witness for the position you are objecting to as opposed to your official propitiation/satisfaction view which was unknown to the Undivided Church (before the Schism) during the entire first millennium. http://katachriston.com/propitiation-or-expiation
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 09:21:11 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,373


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #141 on: January 20, 2012, 09:41:43 PM »

Roman Catholics, fundamentalist or classical Calvinists, and traditional Lutherans, Baptists etc.who argue in the manner some have in this thread, with little more than references to Bible verses, worn out cliches, and their respective historic confessions with regard to the atonement, sound today like someone who has every part of their head in the sand but their mouth given the massive academic fallout which has occurred regarding central struts of the positions they are affirming in the last half century. http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,41635.msg695416.html#msg695416  To my ears this seems more on the order of lecture or monologue than dialog.

Quote from: N. T. Wright
Supposing you have a friend who comes over to stay who, you discover in conversation over supper, has never realized that, in fact, the earth goes round the sun rather than the sun going round the earth. And you’re fascinated by this. You’ve never met somebody who didn’t know this before. So you take some time and you explain how astronomically we know that in fact we are going round the sun, even though from our perspective it looks as though the sun is going round us. The friend is a bit puzzled about this, and actually a bit worried.  
 
The next morning he wakes you up early and takes you for a little walk and says, “Now let’s just stand here for a bit.” And you’re up on a hill and you see the sun coming up in all its glory. And the friend says, “There you are. You know, you have these funny theories, and I know that scientists can come up with these weird ideas sometimes. But now you’ve actually seen it with your own eyes. Perhaps it’s better to stay with what we’ve always more or less believed.”
 
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 09:54:32 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #142 on: January 21, 2012, 12:53:15 PM »

Roman Catholics, fundamentalist or classical Calvinists, and traditional Lutherans, Baptists etc.

Do not all teach the same thing.  Sometimes ignorance of a putative opposing position can make one feel superior but it will never draw them into the genuine dialogue.  They will always be outside throwing mud-balls at the windows.

M.
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,373


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #143 on: January 22, 2012, 09:47:30 PM »

Do not all teach the same thing...

M.
Not all the time, except when they do.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,41635.msg695416.html#msg695416





« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 09:50:00 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #144 on: January 23, 2012, 11:11:29 AM »


Okeedokee...but you exhibit such poor knowledge of Catholic teaching, so I am a bit stuck for anything to say but "Yeppers...whatever"... Wink
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,373


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #145 on: January 23, 2012, 03:23:50 PM »


Okeedokee...but you exhibit such poor knowledge of Catholic teaching, so I am a bit stuck for anything to say but "Yeppers...whatever"... Wink
There you have it, the standard M. red herring, often asserted though rarely demonstrated with respect to the given point at hand, served daily to dozens in multitudes of threads and spiced with a dash of amateur apologist obscurantism.

Had you bothered with the links and appended bibliographies you would know that the arguments are not mine, but of the now universal consensus of major contemporary Pauine scholarship which has developed over the last 50 years which holds key dogmatic content which in common within Roman Catholic and Reformation trajectories is inaccurate medieval innovation with no roots in scripture or early Christianity before the middle ages; I'm only the humble messenger.

One can often easily tell when a defensive fundamentalist mindset has no substantive irenic reply and can't wait for someone who might have one to come along. Maybe if it attacks the messenger the arguments and appended bibliographies with them that are all left unanswered might just go away. That is M's invariable style with poster after poster after poster in this forum. It woefully fails to impress. Don't think it isn't obvious to intelligent readers, and the intelligence quotient in this forum is very high.

The fact of universal repudiation by all major contemporary Pauline scholars of important aspects of dogma shared by the classic Roman Catholic and Reformation trajectories as reflecting biblical or early Christian realities is there plain as the mid day sun for anyone to see who takes the time to look. Perhaps someone here has an interesting reply (we're still waiting for that). From an Orthodox point of view the absence of these themes from first millennium Christian tradition which were never a part of Orthodox theology also raises interesting theological questions.

http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/did-luther-get-it-wrong-most-major-contemporary-pauline-scholars-say-yes/
http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/dikaiosyne-theou-the-righteousness-of-god-in-contemporary-biblical-scholarship/
http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/propitiation-or-expiation-did-christ-change-gods-attitude/





« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 03:34:53 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #146 on: January 23, 2012, 06:46:29 PM »


Okeedokee...but you exhibit such poor knowledge of Catholic teaching, so I am a bit stuck for anything to say but "Yeppers...whatever"... Wink
There you have it, the standard M. red herring, asserted often to many though rarely demonstrated with respect to the given point at hand, served daily and spiced with a dash of amateur apologist obscurantism.

Had you bothered with the links and appended bibliographies you would know that the arguments are not mine, but of the now universal consensus of major contemporary Pauine scholarship which has developed over the last 50 years which holds key dogmatic content which in common within Roman Catholic and Reformation trajectories is inaccurate medieval innovation with no roots in scripture or early Christianity before the middle ages; I'm only the humble messenger.

One can always tell when a radical fundamentalist has no substantive irenic reply.



More meaningless intellectualism.

Do you even know what a herring is?...Well maybe...as long as it is not a Catholic one.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #147 on: January 23, 2012, 07:15:34 PM »

Can somebody clarify: is the discussion about whether or not Roman Catholics, fundamentalist or classical Calvinists, and traditional Lutherans, Baptists etc. all teach the same thing?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #148 on: January 23, 2012, 08:42:04 PM »

Can somebody clarify: is the discussion about whether or not Roman Catholics, fundamentalist or classical Calvinists, and traditional Lutherans, Baptists etc. all teach the same thing?

I believe xariskai is saying that on one particular point, they all teach the same thing (at least in the traditional forms of their theology).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #149 on: January 23, 2012, 09:06:08 PM »

Can somebody clarify: is the discussion about whether or not Roman Catholics, fundamentalist or classical Calvinists, and traditional Lutherans, Baptists etc. all teach the same thing?

I believe xariskai is saying that on one particular point, they all teach the same thing (at least in the traditional forms of their theology).

I guess I just wish the discussion on this thread (and others) would be a little less random. One minute xariskai was saying:

Roman Catholics, fundamentalist or classical Calvinists, and traditional Lutherans, Baptists etc.who argue in the manner some have in this thread, with little more than references to Bible verses, worn out cliches, and their respective historic confessions with regard to the atonement, sound today like someone who has every part of their head in the sand but their mouth given the massive academic fallout which has occurred regarding central struts of the positions they are affirming in the last half century.

then next thing you know the thread has turned into an argument about whether those groups teach the same things or not.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 09:07:49 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #150 on: January 23, 2012, 09:16:12 PM »

I guess I just wish the discussion on this thread (and others) would be a little less random.

....

Peter, I'd like to introduce you to the internet. Internet, this is Peter...


(I don't disagree with you, but if wishes were fishes...)
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #151 on: January 23, 2012, 09:55:29 PM »

but if wishes were fishes...

Ah, I know that one. "If onlys and justs were candies and nuts, then every day would be Erntedankfest." (Dwight Schrute)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,373


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #152 on: January 23, 2012, 11:35:02 PM »

I believe xariskai is saying that on one particular point, they all teach the same thing (at least in the traditional forms of their theology).
Yes, thanks witega (and to Peter J)

Best to just c/p the original discussion if anyone is interested; some of what ensued from there was off-point IMO.

==========

I would take issue with this (and probably get into trouble as I usually do when I allow myself free range of my opinions), but this interpretation seems to stem from St Augustine's misinterpretation of "justification". He could not speak/read Greek and it shows. This error of his seeded the later errors in the west even to the point of the reformation.
Justification in Greek means to be made righteous - a different meaning entirely from atonement. Asteriktos' response is on the right path.

That may be the literal definition of justification in Greek,but it does not convey what Christ's suffering and death was in itself. Christ's sacrifice does not by itself make us righteous in the sense of being obedient to God. That much is obvious. We still have an inclination to evil and we still commit sins,and many believers will not enter into heaven because of their sins. Perhaps the Greek definition of justification had a legal meaning as well as a moral meaning,because only in the sense of having paid a debt did Christ's sacrifice make us righteous. So the Orthodox idea of justification is as "legalistic" as the idea of atonement by sacrifice,only it looks away from the reality of the sacrifice. But the word atonement better conveys what Christ's sacrifice was in itself.

Augustine was capable of reading Greek. But he read scripture from Latin translations,whether or not he also read it in Greek. So he is not responsible for misinterpreting the Greek word for justification. It would not have made much of a difference if he had taken into consideration the meaning of the Greek word,because he would still would have saw Christ's suffering and death as a payment of the debt for sins that humankind owed to God. That is the only interpretation of the sacrifice that makes. It we see no payment of a debt for sins,then we miss the point of why Jesus had to suffer and die in the first place,and we make void the cross.
The "cash register" notion of Christ's death as a means to change the father's attitude or to solve his need to balance his own books was unknown for over a thousand years in the Undivided Church (before the Great Schism).

Further, though many within fundamentalist Protestant trajectories have striven vigorously to retain and communicate such emphases there has been a massive abandonment of this paradigm among major contemporary academic investigators during the last century (see links below) to the point that the joint agreement between Roman Catholics and Lutherans borders on appearing as yet another instance of hitching theological horses to a burning wagon.

The fact of massive academic repudiation of central aspects shared by the classic Roman Catholic/Lutheran and other Protestant trajectories relevant to this discussion if nothing else very strongly suggests that any supposition that such notions approach something either self-evident or hermenutically or logically necessary from the Bible and/or reason is absolute nonsense. From an Orthodox point of view their absence from first millennium Christian tradition also raises interesting questions.

Did Luther Get It Wrong? Most Major Contemporary Pauline Scholars Say “Yes”

Dikaiosyne Theou: The Righteousness of God in Contemporary Biblical Scholarship
Propitiation or Expiation? Did Christ Change God's Attitude?
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 12:05:29 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #153 on: January 24, 2012, 02:33:21 AM »

From St. Isaac the Syrian:

"...Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright (cf. Ps. 24:8, 144:17), His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. ‘He is good,’ He says, ‘to the evil and to the impious’ (cf. Luke 6:35). How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers? ‘Friend, I do thee no wrong: I will give unto this last even as unto thee. Is thine eye evil because I am good?’ (Matt. 20:12-15). How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over all his wealth? (Luke 15:11 ff.). None other but His very Son said these things concerning Him, lest we doubt it; and thus He bare witness concerning Him. Where, then, is God’s justice, for whilst we are sinners Christ died for us! (cf. Rom. 5:Cool. But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change."

“Far be it that we should ever think such an iniquity that God could become unmerciful! For the property of Divinity does not change as do mortals. God does not acquire something which He does not have, nor lose what He has, nor supplement what He does have, as do created beings. But what God has from the beginning, He will have and has until the end, as the blest Cyril wrote in his commentary on Genesis. Fear God, he says, out of love for Him, and not for the austere name that He has been given. Love Him as you ought to love Him; not for what He will give you in the future, but for what we have received, and for this world alone which He has created for us. Who is the man that can repay Him? Where is His repayment to be found in our works? Who persuaded Him in the beginning to bring us into being Who intercedes for us before Him, when we shall possess no  memory, as though we never existed? Who will awake this our body for that life? Again, whence descends the notion of knowledge into dust? O the wondrous mercy of God! O the astonishment at the bounty of our God and Creator! O might for which all is possible! O the immeasurable goodness that brings our nature again, sinners though we be, to His regeneration and rest! Who is sufficient to glorify Him? He raises up the transgressor and blasphemer, he renews dust unendowed with reason, making it rational and comprehending and the scattered and insensible dust and the scattered senses He makes a rational nature worthy of thought. The sinner is unable to comprehend the grace of His resurrection. Where is gehenna, that can afflict us? Where is perdition, that terrifies us in many ways and quenches the joy of His love? And what is gehenna as compared with the grace of His resurrection, when He will raise us from Hades and cause our corruptible nature to be clad in incorruption, and raise up in glory him that has fallen into Hades?

“Come, men of discernment, and be filled with wonder! Whose mind is sufficiently wise and marvelous to wonder worthily at the bounty of our Creator? His recompense of sinners is, that instead of a just recompense, He rewards them with resurrection, and instead of those bodies with which they trampled upon His law, He enrobes them with perfect glory and incorruption. That grace whereby we are resurrected after we have sinned is greater than the grace which brought us into being when we were not. Glory be to Thine immeasurable grace, O Lord! Behold, Lord, the waves of Thy grace close my mouth with silence, and there is not a thought left in me before the face of Thy thanksgiving. What mouths can confess Thy praise, O good King, Thou Who lovest our life? Glory be to Thee for the two worlds which Thou hast created for our growth and delight, leading us by all things which Thou didst fashion to the knowledge of Thy glory, from now and unto the ages. Amen."

-St. Isaac the Syrian, Homily 60.

St. Issac was using the word justice in a narrow,legalistic sense. Justice as a moral virtue is not limited to balanced recompense and it does not exclude gratuitous mercy or generosity. It is just,a well as generous,that God show mercy upon us and glorify us for obeying him,because he created us in his image and he is our father.  But it is evident from scripture that God is just in the sense of giving us what we deserve.

Matthew 16,27:
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #154 on: January 24, 2012, 02:59:19 AM »

He needed to suffer and be killed for our sins because the Father willed it,to fulfill his demand of justice.

Romans 3,
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets,n 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. 24They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed,r 26through the forbearance of God—to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus.

You might have had a point from Rom 3 had you used the inaccurate translation propitiation rather than the correct expiation to render ιλαστηριον/hilasterion.

However, by citing the proper translation you unwittingly serve as a witness for the position you are objecting to as opposed to your official propitiation/satisfaction view which was unknown to the Undivided Church (before the Schism) during the entire first millennium. http://katachriston.com/propitiation-or-expiation


The words expiation and propitiation both mean an act of atonement or the means of making atonement. The only difference is that the word propitiation more specifically refers to a sacrifice of atonement. You do acknowledge that Jesus' crucifixion was a willing sacrifice? Whose will do you think Jesus was obeying when he sacrificed himself?

Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #155 on: January 24, 2012, 03:06:16 AM »

From St. Isaac the Syrian:

"...Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright (cf. Ps. 24:8, 144:17), His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. ‘He is good,’ He says, ‘to the evil and to the impious’ (cf. Luke 6:35). How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers? ‘Friend, I do thee no wrong: I will give unto this last even as unto thee. Is thine eye evil because I am good?’ (Matt. 20:12-15). How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over all his wealth? (Luke 15:11 ff.). None other but His very Son said these things concerning Him, lest we doubt it; and thus He bare witness concerning Him. Where, then, is God’s justice, for whilst we are sinners Christ died for us! (cf. Rom. 5:Cool. But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change."

“Far be it that we should ever think such an iniquity that God could become unmerciful! For the property of Divinity does not change as do mortals. God does not acquire something which He does not have, nor lose what He has, nor supplement what He does have, as do created beings. But what God has from the beginning, He will have and has until the end, as the blest Cyril wrote in his commentary on Genesis. Fear God, he says, out of love for Him, and not for the austere name that He has been given. Love Him as you ought to love Him; not for what He will give you in the future, but for what we have received, and for this world alone which He has created for us. Who is the man that can repay Him? Where is His repayment to be found in our works? Who persuaded Him in the beginning to bring us into being Who intercedes for us before Him, when we shall possess no  memory, as though we never existed? Who will awake this our body for that life? Again, whence descends the notion of knowledge into dust? O the wondrous mercy of God! O the astonishment at the bounty of our God and Creator! O might for which all is possible! O the immeasurable goodness that brings our nature again, sinners though we be, to His regeneration and rest! Who is sufficient to glorify Him? He raises up the transgressor and blasphemer, he renews dust unendowed with reason, making it rational and comprehending and the scattered and insensible dust and the scattered senses He makes a rational nature worthy of thought. The sinner is unable to comprehend the grace of His resurrection. Where is gehenna, that can afflict us? Where is perdition, that terrifies us in many ways and quenches the joy of His love? And what is gehenna as compared with the grace of His resurrection, when He will raise us from Hades and cause our corruptible nature to be clad in incorruption, and raise up in glory him that has fallen into Hades?

“Come, men of discernment, and be filled with wonder! Whose mind is sufficiently wise and marvelous to wonder worthily at the bounty of our Creator? His recompense of sinners is, that instead of a just recompense, He rewards them with resurrection, and instead of those bodies with which they trampled upon His law, He enrobes them with perfect glory and incorruption. That grace whereby we are resurrected after we have sinned is greater than the grace which brought us into being when we were not. Glory be to Thine immeasurable grace, O Lord! Behold, Lord, the waves of Thy grace close my mouth with silence, and there is not a thought left in me before the face of Thy thanksgiving. What mouths can confess Thy praise, O good King, Thou Who lovest our life? Glory be to Thee for the two worlds which Thou hast created for our growth and delight, leading us by all things which Thou didst fashion to the knowledge of Thy glory, from now and unto the ages. Amen."

-St. Isaac the Syrian, Homily 60.

St. Issac was using the word justice in a narrow,legalistic sense. Justice as a moral virtue is not limited to balanced recompense and it does not exclude gratuitous mercy or generosity. It is just,a well as generous,that God show mercy upon us and glorify us for obeying him. He created us in his image,he loves us and he is our father. Love has its own kind of justice,which is superabundantly generous. But it is evident from scripture that God is also just in the sense of giving us what we deserve.

Matthew 16,27:
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 03:07:12 AM by anthony022071 » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #156 on: January 24, 2012, 04:21:24 AM »

I guess I just wish the discussion on this thread (and others) would be a little less random.

....

Peter, I'd like to introduce you to the internet. Internet, this is Peter...


(I don't disagree with you, but if wishes were fishes...)

Had I known there would be a crisis I would have specifically stated that the Catholics do not teach the same thing as the protestants on that particular point.
Logged

JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #157 on: January 24, 2012, 04:50:00 AM »

I guess I just wish the discussion on this thread (and others) would be a little less random.

....

Peter, I'd like to introduce you to the internet. Internet, this is Peter...


(I don't disagree with you, but if wishes were fishes...)

Had I known there would be a crisis I would have specifically stated that the Catholics do not teach the same thing as the protestants on that particular point.

Every claim is a crisis on OCNet.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #158 on: January 24, 2012, 12:51:11 PM »

I guess I just wish the discussion on this thread (and others) would be a little less random.

....

Peter, I'd like to introduce you to the internet. Internet, this is Peter...


(I don't disagree with you, but if wishes were fishes...)

Had I known there would be a crisis I would have specifically stated that the Catholics do not teach the same thing as the protestants on that particular point.

Every claim is a crisis on OCNet.
QFT

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,373


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #159 on: January 26, 2012, 10:47:25 AM »

I guess I just wish the discussion on this thread (and others) would be a little less random.

....

Peter, I'd like to introduce you to the internet. Internet, this is Peter...


(I don't disagree with you, but if wishes were fishes...)

Had I known there would be a crisis I would have specifically stated that the Catholics do not teach the same thing as the protestants on that particular point.
Yes, it is tragic; wishes are not fishes, and trolls are the internet's black holes.



Catholics do not teach the same thing as the protestants on that particular point.
*sigh* The Joint Statement on Justification between Roman Catholics and Lutherans was part of that point. The original point further outlined a view held by all major of contemporary Pauline scholars about a common hermeneutic.

Lots of common ground is precisely what the Roman Catholic church officially affirmed signing that statement. Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism are not identical; there is, however, overlap. There is also overlap between Orthodoxy and Lutheranism. There is overlap between Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. Discussing overlap is not a claim of univocal identity. (M *can't* be so inconceivably ignorant as to suppose her straw man has been actually claimed by anyone, can she? Trollin' trollin' trollin' (every thread, any poster).

Do Lutherans and Roman Catholics teach the same thing? As said before they do not except when they do. The Joint Statement refers to instances where they do, according to the Roman Catholic church. The scholars quoted in DPL and DNTT and the host of other sources cited in esp. the first two links refer to instances where they do (part of the original point also).

Of course one might join the obscurantist brigade and simply suppose with M. all of those scholars are simply wrong if they presume anything that might be termed shared content or overlap (whether M. has read/assimilated what they have said or not, which there is thus far no tangible evidence of whatsoever). But if they are right in the specific manner they address that point, Roman Catholics and traditional Lutherans have their horses hitched to a burning wagon. Again ALL major contemporary Pauline scholars agree the medieval hermeneutic on law and merit was a wagon load of horsefeathers.

RC presented it as a thesis; Luther took it up as an antithesis which he "saw" (incorrectly) first in the Judaizers of the book of Galatians. That particular hermeneutic though present in RC and L in quite different ways did become integral to Lutheran and later Protestant theologies as it was extrapolated theologically as an axiom into other categories.

A basic sine qua non of an intelligent criticism, M., is to display evidence of some shred of understanding of the position one is criticizing.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 10:59:10 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #160 on: January 26, 2012, 12:49:46 PM »

Of course one might join the obscurantist brigade and simply suppose with M. all of those scholars are simply wrong if they presume anything that might be termed shared content or overlap (whether M. has read/assimilated what they have said or not, which there is thus far no tangible evidence of whatsoever). But if they are right in the specific manner they address that point, Roman Catholics and traditional Lutherans have their horses hitched to a burning wagon. Again ALL major contemporary Pauline scholars agree the medieval hermeneutic on law and merit was a wagon load of horsefeathers.

Interesting. Not to put words in your mouth, but does what you're saying mean that RCs and Protestants are now discovering that the Orthodox were right all along?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 12:50:38 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,148


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


« Reply #161 on: January 26, 2012, 01:22:44 PM »

Of course one might join the obscurantist brigade and simply suppose with M. all of those scholars are simply wrong if they presume anything that might be termed shared content or overlap (whether M. has read/assimilated what they have said or not, which there is thus far no tangible evidence of whatsoever). But if they are right in the specific manner they address that point, Roman Catholics and traditional Lutherans have their horses hitched to a burning wagon. Again ALL major contemporary Pauline scholars agree the medieval hermeneutic on law and merit was a wagon load of horsefeathers.

Interesting. Not to put words in your mouth, but does what you're saying mean that RCs and Protestants are now discovering that the Orthodox were right all along?

Yes, that's an interesting use of the word "all".  Wasn't there once a time when ALL major European scholars thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it?  But I could be wrong......
Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #162 on: January 26, 2012, 01:28:08 PM »

Quote
Interesting. Not to put words in your mouth, but does what you're saying mean that RCs and Protestants are now discovering that the Orthodox were right all along?
No, RC's and Protestants are not discovering that the orthodox were right, but maybe they should  laugh

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,373


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #163 on: January 26, 2012, 01:42:39 PM »

Of course one might join the obscurantist brigade and simply suppose with M. all of those scholars are simply wrong if they presume anything that might be termed shared content or overlap (whether M. has read/assimilated what they have said or not, which there is thus far no tangible evidence of whatsoever). But if they are right in the specific manner they address that point, Roman Catholics and traditional Lutherans have their horses hitched to a burning wagon. Again ALL major contemporary Pauline scholars agree the medieval hermeneutic on law and merit was a wagon load of horsefeathers.

Interesting. Not to put words in your mouth, but does what you're saying mean that RCs and Protestants are now discovering that the Orthodox were right all along?

Yes, that's an interesting use of the word "all".  Wasn't there once a time when ALL major European scholars thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it?  But I could be wrong......

That's quite right, and one is completely free to suppose all major contemporary Pauline scholars are wrong on this matter if one wishes, albeit supposition combined with argument as to why would be more interesting.

To paraphrase Anglican scholar Bishop N. T. Wright's famous reply to a conservative/classical Calvinist author/popular speaker who disputed him on a related point connected with the doctrine justification, perhaps the sun really does revolve around the earth.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 02:02:11 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,373


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #164 on: January 26, 2012, 02:00:32 PM »

Of course one might join the obscurantist brigade and simply suppose with M. all of those scholars are simply wrong if they presume anything that might be termed shared content or overlap (whether M. has read/assimilated what they have said or not, which there is thus far no tangible evidence of whatsoever). But if they are right in the specific manner they address that point, Roman Catholics and traditional Lutherans have their horses hitched to a burning wagon. Again ALL major contemporary Pauline scholars agree the medieval hermeneutic on law and merit was a wagon load of horsefeathers.

Interesting. Not to put words in your mouth, but does what you're saying mean that RCs and Protestants are now discovering that the Orthodox were right all along?
Not in and of itself (though there is nothing incompatible with what they are saying on this point contra Orthodoxy); it is true, however, that the Orthodox did not go down that particular medieval to modern rabbit hole.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 02:01:01 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,148


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


« Reply #165 on: January 26, 2012, 02:01:12 PM »

Of course one might join the obscurantist brigade and simply suppose with M. all of those scholars are simply wrong if they presume anything that might be termed shared content or overlap (whether M. has read/assimilated what they have said or not, which there is thus far no tangible evidence of whatsoever). But if they are right in the specific manner they address that point, Roman Catholics and traditional Lutherans have their horses hitched to a burning wagon. Again ALL major contemporary Pauline scholars agree the medieval hermeneutic on law and merit was a wagon load of horsefeathers.

Interesting. Not to put words in your mouth, but does what you're saying mean that RCs and Protestants are now discovering that the Orthodox were right all along?

Yes, that's an interesting use of the word "all".  Wasn't there once a time when ALL major European scholars thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it?  But I could be wrong......
That's quite right, and one is completely free to suppose all major contemporary Pauline scholars are wrong if one wishes, albeit supposition combined with argument as to why would be more interesting.

As Anglican scholar Bishop N. T. Wright famously replied to a conservative/classical Calvinist author/popular speaker who disputed him on a related point connected with the doctrine justification, perhaps the sun really does revolve around the earth.

I'm not disputing that "...medieval hermeneutic on law and merit was a wagon load of horsefeathers."  I honestly don't know.  What I take issue with is your use of the phrase  "ALL major contemporary Pauline scholars", specifically the word "ALL".  That's a pretty sweeping statement, to say the least.  ALL?  Really?  Every single one of them, without exception?  And just who are all these "major contemporary Pauline scholars" who are in total agreement with each other about this?  And...even if they are, the fact remains that scholarship advances, and regresses, opinions change and what's in fashion one moment is out of fashion the next.  Hey, even an undereducated slob like me knows *that*  Wink.
Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #166 on: January 26, 2012, 05:18:19 PM »

Catholics do not teach the same thing as the protestants on that particular point.
*sigh* The Joint Statement on Justification between Roman Catholics and Lutherans was part of that point. The original point further outlined a view held by all major of contemporary Pauline scholars about a common hermeneutic.

Lots of common ground is precisely what the Roman Catholic church officially affirmed signing that statement. Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism are not identical; there is, however, overlap.


Yes.  And the issue here in what I said concerns where they do NOT over-lap.

I don't know if you know the history of that document but I knew Lutheran pastors who were personally and directly involved in the dialogues and the drafting of the document.

At the 11th hour, then Cardinal Ratzinger reviewed the text right before signing it and made changes that totally disrupted the Lutheran position as being IDENTICAL with the Catholic Church.

You barely hear the accord even mentioned any more except in places like this.

Both sides knew that it was an agreement to disagree in the final analysis.

So to go back to my point.  Catholics and protestants do not teach the same thing on the points in question in this discussion.

Mary
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,373


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #167 on: January 26, 2012, 06:49:05 PM »

So to go back to my point.  Catholics and protestants do not teach the same thing.

Mary
For the third time, you are talking to yourself on your "identical teachings" theme. No one else has claimed that was ever at issue.

At the 11th hour, then Cardinal Ratzinger reviewed the text right before signing it and made changes that totally disrupted the Lutheran position...

Since the agreement Lutheran Bishops have praised Cardinal Ratzinger's role in cementing (not sabotaging) the final agreement.[1]

Both sides signed the JDDJ, as the Lutheran World Federation website affirms[2]



After encountering a virtual unending stream of gross errors of fact from you in multiple posts, I have ceased accepting statements from you without documentation, and I would recommend others in this forum to do likewise.



___________________

[1] John Allen, Jr., in Cardinal Ratzinger: the Vatican's Enforcer of the Faith tells us the JDDJ was then Cardinal Ratzinger's most significant ecumenical acheivement, and quotes Luheran signatory Bishop George Anderson as affirming that it was "Ratzinger who untied the knots when it looked as though the document would be shipwrecked by officials from the Pontifical Council." "His most significant ecumenical achievement as CDF Prefect was the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification signed with the Lutheran World Federation in 1999. Bishop George Anderson, head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, publicly acknowledged that it was ‘Ratzinger who untied the knots’ when it looked as though the document would be shipwrecked by officials from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Cardinal Ratzinger got the agreement back on track by organising a meeting with the Lutheran leaders at his brother’s house in Regensburg. Included in this agreement was the notion that the goal of the ecumenical process is unity in diversity, not structural reintegration."

[2] From Lutheran World Federation website: "The final JDDJ draft was submitted to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) and LWF member churches in January 1997. Official responses were provided from both in June 1998. Certain aspects then had to be examined before the announcement was made in June 1999 that agreement had been reached. An "Official Common Statement" was agreed on, to which an "Annex" of clarification was attached. The JDDJ was signed on Reformation Day, 31 October 1999, All Saints Day eve. The ceremony took place in Augsburg, Germany, where the confession of the same name was presented in 1530 by the Lutheran reformers in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. Eight signatories represented the LWF at the JDDJ signing ceremony: the president, general secretary, treasurer and five vice-presidents. They included men, women, bishops, pastors and laity, representing the seven LWF world regions. The PCPCU president and secretary signed the JDDJ for the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.lutheranworld.org/Special_Events/LWF-Special_Events-Justification.html


« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 06:52:24 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #168 on: January 26, 2012, 08:22:15 PM »

So to go back to my point.  Catholics and protestants do not teach the same thing.

Mary
For the third time, you are talking to yourself on your "identical teachings" theme. No one else has claimed that was ever at issue.

I was under the impression that it had become a topic of conversation on this thread; but perhaps I misunderstood.

Edit: Oh, now I see, after going back to see your earlier post


« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 08:29:08 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,373


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #169 on: January 26, 2012, 09:25:01 PM »

Edit: Oh, now I see, after going back to see your earlier post
Yes, thanks PeterJ. Here is the incredible story (itself, unfortunately, a repetition of other stories with the same plot):

(1) M first argued against the point that was never made (post #142) ...after which
(2) It was explained to M that this was not the point being made (# 143) ...after which
(3) M argued against the point that was never made yet again (#156) ...after which
(4) It was explained to M a second time that the point had never been made (#159) ...after which
(5) M argued against the point that was never made yet again! (#166) ...after which
(6) It was explained to M a third time that the point had never been made (#167) ...after which
(7) It was wondered if this had been a topic after all (it was, but not because anyone originally argued for it  ;)  ...after which
(8) We arrive at the present post, which can hopefully serve as another notice to M that she is talking to herself regarding the "identical teachings" theme and that no one has claimed that was ever at issue.

(Examples of additional replies by other posters concerning the point that was never made were omitted to keep the list concise)

Stay tuned for the next episode...  :)
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 09:47:21 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #170 on: January 26, 2012, 11:40:20 PM »


After encountering a virtual unending stream of gross errors of fact from you in multiple posts, I have ceased accepting statements from you without documentation, and I would recommend others in this forum to do likewise.


 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

How much time do you think I spend on posts for this forum, given the gross level of distortion that is aimed at Catholic teaching by you and others?...sure I am going to over-state or under-state now and then, but I don't take the time to try to be all encompassing in what I say in any given note.  If I think it is worth it, I'll clarify later...

At any rate, what I said about the JDDJ is not out of left field at all:

http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf

I was a consultant to the international Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue during the time the JDDJ was being approved, and my present Dean, Michael Root, was one of its drafters. What I was told by immediate participants was something like this: the drafters had responded to multiple detailed critiques by theological experts of the Congregation, and had satisfied them. The Response however was drafted in another corner of the Congregation, over which Ratzinger by no means had total control. Some of the cardinals in the Congregation had little or no personal experience of Lutherans and no real knowledge of the history of the dialogues; ...

...It is rightly stated that there is 'a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification'." On the other hand, the negative stuff is so negative, and as you say, seems to deny that the Lutheran teaching presented in the JDDJ is compatible with Trent...

...This is the point at which Ratzinger re-enters the story. According to my information, Ratzinger was disturbed precisely because the Congregation had had multiple opportunities to register concerns beforehand, and these concerns had been taken into account in the drafting process. In short, he felt that his word of honor had been compromised at least by the way in which the Report created confusion. I am told that he therefore unofficially made a major, perhaps decisive, contribution to working out the main lines of what became the "Official Common Statement" and the "Annex to the Official Common Statement," which clarify the situation with respect to paragraph 41 and address some of the concerns of the Response. [An "annex" is actually a diplomatic category, an explanatory note added to a treaty by mutual consent without the need for re-negotiation. The idea was to clarify the JDDJ without having to resubmit a new version to all the member churches of the Lutheran World Federation.]...

...I think this episode brings out two important things about Ratzinger/Benedict. One of course is the sense of honor and responsibility that animated his actions. The other is his essentially committed attitude to ecumenism. His job as Prefect was to make ecumenical agreement hard, and as a theologian, he has been brutally honest about the difficulties in moving towards Christian unity. But he is ecumenically sophisticated: his deep orthodoxy is not of the "paint-by-numbers" variety; he is capable of making sense of the notion of a "differentiated consensus" that doesn't treat all differences as disagreements, nor all disagreements as church-dividing. And he really does want the churches to move towards unity, though he wants it to be real, and therefore expects that the movement will be made up of a lot of small hard-won steps. So I am not at all inclined to think that his description of Christian unity as his "primary responsibility" is mere window-dressing. Indeed, I think it's possible that he may be able to provide crucial leads for the strategic rethinking of the whole ecumenical enterprise that I think is so profoundly needed right now.

Thanks for your blog,

David S. Yeago
Michael C. Peeler Professor of Systematic Theology
Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary
Columbia, South Carolina
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #171 on: January 26, 2012, 11:40:21 PM »


After encountering a virtual unending stream of gross errors of fact from you in multiple posts, I have ceased accepting statements from you without documentation, and I would recommend others in this forum to do likewise.



Here's another one  Cheesy  Cardinal Ratzinger's amendments to the JDDJ at that last moment raised the hair on many a good Lutheran scholar's neck.  It created a fine fuss both inside the ELCA and among other Lutherans world wide.  Here's a very good synopsis of the central issue, though the paper is much much longer, here:

www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=339

Failures of the Declaration:

A Confessional Lutheran Perspective

1. Justification: Forensic or Transformational?

The foremost defect of the document is that it does not come
clean on the most glaring conflict between Augsburg and Trent.
For Lutherans, justification is essentially forensic, that is, God
declares the sinner righteous on account of and in Christ. Roman
Catholics define justification as an internal transformation of the
believer, a “process,” which Lutherans place in the area of sanctification,
about which too there are different understandings.
Roman Catholics have understood grace as if it were almost a
substance, gratia infusa, which is poured into the soul initially by
Baptism.11

Lutherans, with Paul, see justifying grace as the favor
Dei, God’s gracious attitude whereby He accepts sinners. The title
of paragraph 4.2, “Justification as Forgiveness of Sins and Making
Righteous,” to be sure, could be understood in a Lutheran way.
The famous paragraph 72 of Apology IV makes it clear that faith
“being made righteous” in justification means only receiving “the
forgiveness of sins.”12 Clearly this is not what is meant in the Joint
Declaration. However, the Formula of Concord expressly rejects
the view that justifying righteousness “consists of two pieces or
parts, namely, the gracious forgiveness of sins and, as a second
element, renewal or sanctification” (SD, III, 48). We are not
alone in our concerns. So also the six ELCA theologians:

The fundamental problem with JDDJ is that it seems to subsume
the Lutheran understanding of justification under a
Roman Catholic understanding of justification as a process
whereby the soul is progressively transformed through “grace.”.

The document presents an understanding of justification in
terms of the soul’s progressive internal transformation by
infused grace, and never refers in a vital or critical way to the
Lutheran insistence on justification by faith alone (sola fide) in
God’s Word of promise, no doubt because such insistence
would undermine the entire structure of the doctrine of justification
proposed by JDDJ (emphases in original).

This objection does come a bit late! For years the ELCA compromised
itself in various ecumenical dialogues. Lutheran acceptance
of the Roman Catholic position on justification should
come as no surprise.

H. George Anderson, now Presiding Bishop
of the ELCA, co-chaired the U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue
on Justification by Faith, which concluded: “156 (5). . . . By
justification we are both declared and made righteous . . . 158 . .
. [God’s saving work] can be expressed in the imagery of God as
judge who pronounces sinners innocent and righteous, . . . and
also in a transformist view, which emphasizes the change wrought
in sinners by infused grace.”13 On this point the Lutherans
completely surrendered...

...but Rome was not required to reform her
traditional definition, which was officially restated in the 1994
Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Justification includes the
remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner
man” (498). The characteristic Roman Catholic fusion of “forensic”
and “transformist” views of justification has been wrongly
attributed to Luther by such prominent scholars as Alister
McGrath and Tuomo Mannermaa, as will be shown below.14
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #172 on: January 26, 2012, 11:40:22 PM »


After encountering a virtual unending stream of gross errors of fact from you in multiple posts, I have ceased accepting statements from you without documentation, and I would recommend others in this forum to do likewise.


OH!!  Lookee!!...