OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 03:25:33 PM *
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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: We are all (the Theotokos included) born in need of redemption?  (Read 2797 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 #90 on: March 14, 2012, 06:22:19 PM »

I don't see that one can assume that a Wikipedia (or really any general) definition of the English word 'dogma' is conclusive for Orthodox usage--the common English usage will obviously more strongly reflect Protestant and Roman uses of the term.

However, I would actually agree with you. The reality of the Eucharist has always been dogma in the Orthodox Church--so much so that it has never needed a formal pronouncement because it was never in question.


In what way does an Orthodox dogma differ from the Roman Catholic *spit* concept of a dogma?

I couldn't tell you. All I know is that anytime this question comes up (either as it has here with RC's trying to determine what Orthodox consider dogma, or on the threads about Byzantine Catholics and their relationship to Roman dogmas), Orthodox responses seem to confuse the RC's, as if the 2 groups are working from a different underlying definition.
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
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #91 on: March 14, 2012, 06:24:19 PM »

Quote
The essence-energy distinction is necessary for salvation.

So there are "truths" necessary for salvation that are not proclaimed in any oecumenical council? Or do you consider the palamite synods oecumenicals?

As made clear on the other thread, you do not even know what you are arguing about when you fuss about St. Palamas. St. Palamas' teaching is 'dogma' in the same sense that the Divinity of Christ and the Humanity of Christ are dogmas--because there has always been and will always only be one Gospel. Anything which expresses that Gospel correctly is dogma, by its very nature and regardless of human recognition. The only role of councils (whether it be the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the Palamite Councils, or any local synod called upon to deliberate a doctrinal issue) is to identify what is a correct expression and condemn what is false expression when some confusion about it has arisen.

You mean that Gregory Palamas teachings are like the divinity of Christ or his humanity? Well to know if a doctrine expresses correctly the Gospel is a matter of interpretation. I think the Filioque and immaculate conception do express the Gospel correctly, so it is dogma. WIll you accept it as well?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #92 on: March 14, 2012, 06:25:50 PM »

I don't see that one can assume that a Wikipedia (or really any general) definition of the English word 'dogma' is conclusive for Orthodox usage--the common English usage will obviously more strongly reflect Protestant and Roman uses of the term.

However, I would actually agree with you. The reality of the Eucharist has always been dogma in the Orthodox Church--so much so that it has never needed a formal pronouncement because it was never in question.


In what way does an Orthodox dogma differ from the Roman Catholic *spit* concept of a dogma?

I couldn't tell you. All I know is that anytime this question comes up (either as it has here with RC's trying to determine what Orthodox consider dogma, or on the threads about Byzantine Catholics and their relationship to Roman dogmas), Orthodox responses seem to confuse the RC's, as if the 2 groups are working from a different underlying definition.

I don't think the definition is different, at all. I think the difference lies in the method of dogmatization. Where in the RCC a dogma is 'often' (though not always) definitvely pronounced, the EOC leans the other way and 'often' (though not always) affirms dogmas through common witness of the Saints.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #93 on: March 14, 2012, 07:45:35 PM »

Quote
The essence-energy distinction is necessary for salvation.

So there are "truths" necessary for salvation that are not proclaimed in any oecumenical council? Or do you consider the palamite synods oecumenicals?

As made clear on the other thread, you do not even know what you are arguing about when you fuss about St. Palamas. St. Palamas' teaching is 'dogma' in the same sense that the Divinity of Christ and the Humanity of Christ are dogmas--because there has always been and will always only be one Gospel. Anything which expresses that Gospel correctly is dogma, by its very nature and regardless of human recognition. The only role of councils (whether it be the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the Palamite Councils, or any local synod called upon to deliberate a doctrinal issue) is to identify what is a correct expression and condemn what is false expression when some confusion about it has arisen.

You mean that Gregory Palamas teachings are like the divinity of Christ or his humanity? Well to know if a doctrine expresses correctly the Gospel is a matter of interpretation. I think the Filioque and immaculate conception do express the Gospel correctly, so it is dogma. WIll you accept it as well?
Of course not. They are heretical dogmas, as they express another gospel.
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
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #94 on: March 14, 2012, 08:22:51 PM »

Quote
The essence-energy distinction is necessary for salvation.

So there are "truths" necessary for salvation that are not proclaimed in any oecumenical council? Or do you consider the palamite synods oecumenicals?

As made clear on the other thread, you do not even know what you are arguing about when you fuss about St. Palamas. St. Palamas' teaching is 'dogma' in the same sense that the Divinity of Christ and the Humanity of Christ are dogmas--because there has always been and will always only be one Gospel. Anything which expresses that Gospel correctly is dogma, by its very nature and regardless of human recognition. The only role of councils (whether it be the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the Palamite Councils, or any local synod called upon to deliberate a doctrinal issue) is to identify what is a correct expression and condemn what is false expression when some confusion about it has arisen.

You mean that Gregory Palamas teachings are like the divinity of Christ or his humanity? Well to know if a doctrine expresses correctly the Gospel is a matter of interpretation. I think the Filioque and immaculate conception do express the Gospel correctly, so it is dogma. WIll you accept it as well?
Of course not. They are heretical dogmas, as they express another gospel.

Is it an answer to my first or to my second question?
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 #95 on: March 15, 2012, 12:43:10 AM »

Quote
The essence-energy distinction is necessary for salvation.

So there are "truths" necessary for salvation that are not proclaimed in any oecumenical council? Or do you consider the palamite synods oecumenicals?

As made clear on the other thread, you do not even know what you are arguing about when you fuss about St. Palamas. St. Palamas' teaching is 'dogma' in the same sense that the Divinity of Christ and the Humanity of Christ are dogmas--because there has always been and will always only be one Gospel. Anything which expresses that Gospel correctly is dogma, by its very nature and regardless of human recognition. The only role of councils (whether it be the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the Palamite Councils, or any local synod called upon to deliberate a doctrinal issue) is to identify what is a correct expression and condemn what is false expression when some confusion about it has arisen.

You mean that Gregory Palamas teachings are like the divinity of Christ or his humanity?

I'm saying that the fact that God is, God does things, we cannot know God in His Essence, but we know Him in His deeds were taught by the Apostles just as they taught that Christ is God and that Christ is human. All these things were taught by the Church from the beginning and the Church only needed to restate them concilliarly because of innovative heretics who came along later and thought they could 'develop' the Faith to something they found more acceptable.

Quote
Well to know if a doctrine expresses correctly the Gospel is a matter of interpretation. I think the Filioque and immaculate conception do express the Gospel correctly, so it is dogma. WIll you accept it as well?

If you can produce any evidence that the Apostles taught either rather than that they were invented out of thin air centuries later, then we'll have something to discuss.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 12:43:31 AM 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
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: 1,534



« Reply #96 on: March 15, 2012, 01:06:37 AM »

Quote
The essence-energy distinction is necessary for salvation.

So there are "truths" necessary for salvation that are not proclaimed in any oecumenical council? Or do you consider the palamite synods oecumenicals?

As made clear on the other thread, you do not even know what you are arguing about when you fuss about St. Palamas. St. Palamas' teaching is 'dogma' in the same sense that the Divinity of Christ and the Humanity of Christ are dogmas--because there has always been and will always only be one Gospel. Anything which expresses that Gospel correctly is dogma, by its very nature and regardless of human recognition. The only role of councils (whether it be the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the Palamite Councils, or any local synod called upon to deliberate a doctrinal issue) is to identify what is a correct expression and condemn what is false expression when some confusion about it has arisen.

You mean that Gregory Palamas teachings are like the divinity of Christ or his humanity?

Yes, those who explicitly deny the essence-energies distinction cannot experience theosis because they deny that man can truly experience God through His uncreated graces, and are accordingly left to the mercy of God.
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
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #97 on: March 15, 2012, 01:09:26 AM »

Quote
The essence-energy distinction is necessary for salvation.

So there are "truths" necessary for salvation that are not proclaimed in any oecumenical council? Or do you consider the palamite synods oecumenicals?

As made clear on the other thread, you do not even know what you are arguing about when you fuss about St. Palamas. St. Palamas' teaching is 'dogma' in the same sense that the Divinity of Christ and the Humanity of Christ are dogmas--because there has always been and will always only be one Gospel. Anything which expresses that Gospel correctly is dogma, by its very nature and regardless of human recognition. The only role of councils (whether it be the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the Palamite Councils, or any local synod called upon to deliberate a doctrinal issue) is to identify what is a correct expression and condemn what is false expression when some confusion about it has arisen.

You mean that Gregory Palamas teachings are like the divinity of Christ or his humanity? Well to know if a doctrine expresses correctly the Gospel is a matter of interpretation. I think the Filioque and immaculate conception do express the Gospel correctly, so it is dogma. WIll you accept it as well?
Of course not. They are heretical dogmas, as they express another gospel.

Is it an answer to my first or to my second question?
Your second, as Gregory Palamas is not a heretic, his teachings are not heretical, and neither is Christ's two natures.
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
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #98 on: March 15, 2012, 04:11:25 AM »

Quote
The essence-energy distinction is necessary for salvation.

So there are "truths" necessary for salvation that are not proclaimed in any oecumenical council? Or do you consider the palamite synods oecumenicals?

As made clear on the other thread, you do not even know what you are arguing about when you fuss about St. Palamas. St. Palamas' teaching is 'dogma' in the same sense that the Divinity of Christ and the Humanity of Christ are dogmas--because there has always been and will always only be one Gospel. Anything which expresses that Gospel correctly is dogma, by its very nature and regardless of human recognition. The only role of councils (whether it be the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the Palamite Councils, or any local synod called upon to deliberate a doctrinal issue) is to identify what is a correct expression and condemn what is false expression when some confusion about it has arisen.

You mean that Gregory Palamas teachings are like the divinity of Christ or his humanity? Well to know if a doctrine expresses correctly the Gospel is a matter of interpretation. I think the Filioque and immaculate conception do express the Gospel correctly, so it is dogma. WIll you accept it as well?
Of course not. They are heretical dogmas, as they express another gospel.

Is it an answer to my first or to my second question?
Your second, as Gregory Palamas is not a heretic, his teachings are not heretical, and neither is Christ's two natures.

Well if it is about my second question, it just proves it is a matter of interpretation and of what is the criteria.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.07 seconds with 36 queries.