OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 06:55:57 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox & Roman Catholic  (Read 3226 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #45 on: March 08, 2013, 11:53:26 AM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

So, why exactly, then, do you need the IC? If you agree with us then what exactly does the addition of the IC give you? Even putting the best possible spin on it (and to be honest I find it hard to honestly do so), it just seems utterly pointless.

James
I don't think it is necessary in the sense that "God had to do it." I just think it's true, i.e. God did it.

I meant why do you (Roman Catholics) need the IC, not why did God need it. I don't think He did because I don't believe it to be true. However, if you dogmatise something, surely it must be essential to your faith. Why? What does it give you? What effect could my denying it have on my faith? That's what I find hardest to understand, quite apart from any question as to whether the idea even makes sense or is in any way part of the Catholic (as per St. Vincent) faith.

James
What effect could denying it have on my faith? Well, then I would be denying something that is true and then I would be calling God a liar. If I didn't believe in the IC, then I would stop being Catholic.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 11:53:54 AM by Papist » Logged

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

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #46 on: March 08, 2013, 11:56:06 AM »


It would be nice if He told us He did it, if He had done it.

He didn't tell us because He didn't do it: the antidote to the basis of the IC-potuit, decuit, ergo fecit.

So God told us about everything He did?
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #47 on: March 08, 2013, 12:00:29 PM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

So, why exactly, then, do you need the IC? If you agree with us then what exactly does the addition of the IC give you? Even putting the best possible spin on it (and to be honest I find it hard to honestly do so), it just seems utterly pointless.

James
I don't think it is necessary in the sense that "God had to do it." I just think it's true, i.e. God did it.

I meant why do you (Roman Catholics) need the IC, not why did God need it. I don't think He did because I don't believe it to be true. However, if you dogmatise something, surely it must be essential to your faith. Why? What does it give you? What effect could my denying it have on my faith? That's what I find hardest to understand, quite apart from any question as to whether the idea even makes sense or is in any way part of the Catholic (as per St. Vincent) faith.

James
What effect could denying it have on my faith? Well, then I would be denying something that is true and then I would be calling God a liar. If I didn't believe in the IC, then I would stop being Catholic.

When did God ever say that the IC was true? Do you mean that because of your beliefs about the Pope that it must be true? Or am I missing something? If not then that's really no answer to my question. Effectively you're saying that the IC is essential to your faith because it's essential to your faith. It's hardly the same as, for instance, the dogma that Mary is the Theotokos. Denying that is to deny that Christ is God. There's an obvious consequence to it that puts one outside the faith. Denial of the IC seems to have no such consequence - it seems to me that you are saying that it is dogma because the Pope said it is and for no other reason.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #48 on: March 08, 2013, 12:02:40 PM »


It would be nice if He told us He did it, if He had done it.

He didn't tell us because He didn't do it: the antidote to the basis of the IC-potuit, decuit, ergo fecit.

So God told us about everything He did?

No, but I'm pretty certain that we can expect that He told us everything that is essential to the faith - and if it's not essential how is it dogma and, more importantly, how can something only become essential after more than 1800 years of the Church?

James
Logged

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

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #49 on: March 08, 2013, 12:04:04 PM »


It would be nice if He told us He did it, if He had done it.

He didn't tell us because He didn't do it: the antidote to the basis of the IC-potuit, decuit, ergo fecit.

So God told us about everything He did?

No, but I'm pretty certain that we can expect that He told us everything that is essential to the faith - and if it's not essential how is it dogma and, more importantly, how can something only become essential after more than 1800 years of the Church?

James

I guess for the same reason why a dyophysite christology became "essential" only after 451 or so years.


When did God ever say that the IC was true? Do you mean that because of your beliefs about the Pope that it must be true? Or am I missing something? If not then that's really no answer to my question. Effectively you're saying that the IC is essential to your faith because it's essential to your faith. It's hardly the same as, for instance, the dogma that Mary is the Theotokos. Denying that is to deny that Christ is God. There's an obvious consequence to it that puts one outside the faith. Denial of the IC seems to have no such consequence - it seems to me that you are saying that it is dogma because the Pope said it is and for no other reason.

James

Apparently so.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 12:06:54 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #50 on: March 08, 2013, 12:10:22 PM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

So, why exactly, then, do you need the IC? If you agree with us then what exactly does the addition of the IC give you? Even putting the best possible spin on it (and to be honest I find it hard to honestly do so), it just seems utterly pointless.

James
I don't think it is necessary in the sense that "God had to do it." I just think it's true, i.e. God did it.

I meant why do you (Roman Catholics) need the IC, not why did God need it. I don't think He did because I don't believe it to be true. However, if you dogmatise something, surely it must be essential to your faith. Why? What does it give you? What effect could my denying it have on my faith? That's what I find hardest to understand, quite apart from any question as to whether the idea even makes sense or is in any way part of the Catholic (as per St. Vincent) faith.

James
What effect could denying it have on my faith? Well, then I would be denying something that is true and then I would be calling God a liar. If I didn't believe in the IC, then I would stop being Catholic.

When did God ever say that the IC was true? Do you mean that because of your beliefs about the Pope that it must be true? Or am I missing something? If not then that's really no answer to my question. Effectively you're saying that the IC is essential to your faith because it's essential to your faith. It's hardly the same as, for instance, the dogma that Mary is the Theotokos. Denying that is to deny that Christ is God. There's an obvious consequence to it that puts one outside the faith. Denial of the IC seems to have no such consequence - it seems to me that you are saying that it is dogma because the Pope said it is and for no other reason.

James
It's a dogma because the Catholic Church, which was established by God says so. If I didn't believe that the Catholic Church was established by God, I might not believe in the IC.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #51 on: March 08, 2013, 12:12:27 PM »


It would be nice if He told us He did it, if He had done it.

He didn't tell us because He didn't do it: the antidote to the basis of the IC-potuit, decuit, ergo fecit.

So God told us about everything He did?

No, but I'm pretty certain that we can expect that He told us everything that is essential to the faith - and if it's not essential how is it dogma and, more importantly, how can something only become essential after more than 1800 years of the Church?

James

I guess for the same reason why a dyophysite christology became "essential" only after 451 or so years.

No, I don't think so. The idea that Christ was fully human and fully God was essential from the beginning - long, long before Chalcedon. The tragedy of Chalcedon seems to me to be that the two sides were saying the same thing in different words - both sides believe in the same dogma, just expressed differently. And as I mentioned earlier with reference to the Theotokos, the denial of it has obvious inherent consequences that put one outside the faith. And this is true both before and after the dogma was formulated. The IC is a completely different kettle of fish, even judging by the answer that Papist gave me above, assuming that I understood his meaning correctly.

James
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #52 on: March 08, 2013, 12:13:29 PM »

It's very simple. The most fundamental reason that I believe in the IC is because I believe that the Catholic Church is the Church which God established. The Catholic Church teaches the IC, so I believe it.
Logged

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

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #53 on: March 08, 2013, 12:18:48 PM »

But why did the Catholic Church dogmatise it?
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #54 on: March 08, 2013, 12:19:50 PM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

So, why exactly, then, do you need the IC? If you agree with us then what exactly does the addition of the IC give you? Even putting the best possible spin on it (and to be honest I find it hard to honestly do so), it just seems utterly pointless.

James
I don't think it is necessary in the sense that "God had to do it." I just think it's true, i.e. God did it.

I meant why do you (Roman Catholics) need the IC, not why did God need it. I don't think He did because I don't believe it to be true. However, if you dogmatise something, surely it must be essential to your faith. Why? What does it give you? What effect could my denying it have on my faith? That's what I find hardest to understand, quite apart from any question as to whether the idea even makes sense or is in any way part of the Catholic (as per St. Vincent) faith.

James
What effect could denying it have on my faith? Well, then I would be denying something that is true and then I would be calling God a liar. If I didn't believe in the IC, then I would stop being Catholic.

When did God ever say that the IC was true? Do you mean that because of your beliefs about the Pope that it must be true? Or am I missing something? If not then that's really no answer to my question. Effectively you're saying that the IC is essential to your faith because it's essential to your faith. It's hardly the same as, for instance, the dogma that Mary is the Theotokos. Denying that is to deny that Christ is God. There's an obvious consequence to it that puts one outside the faith. Denial of the IC seems to have no such consequence - it seems to me that you are saying that it is dogma because the Pope said it is and for no other reason.

James
It's a dogma because the Catholic Church, which was established by God says so. If I didn't believe that the Catholic Church was established by God, I might not believe in the IC.

So, as I thought, the reasoning is circular and this is quite different from the other dogmas I've mentioned in the thread. Effectively you're saying that if the Pope hadn't dogmatised it it wouldn't be essential, whereas all the dogmas we adhere to, in what I would contend is actually the Catholic Church, were dogmatised because they express beliefs essential to the faith. I'm left no better able to understand the IC or its place in Roman Catholicism. 'Because the Pope said so' is an incredibly inadequate answer.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
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 #55 on: March 08, 2013, 12:26:32 PM »


It would be nice if He told us He did it, if He had done it.

He didn't tell us because He didn't do it: the antidote to the basis of the IC-potuit, decuit, ergo fecit.

So God told us about everything He did?
Everything that non-belief thereof would lead to hell fire through a "shipwreck of of [our] Faith," yes.

And that is the big problem with the IC: as St. John of Damascus warns from the start of "The Orthodox Faith" as a first principle:
Quote
Chapter 1. That the Deity is incomprehensible, and that we ought not to pry into and meddle with the things which have not been delivered to us by the holyProphets, and Apostles, and Evangelists.

No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father. Matthew 11:27 And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him. 1 Corinthians 2:11 Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature. Wisdom 13:5 Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition Proverbs 22:28 .
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

The divine Tradition knows nothing of an "IC."  The Vatican's Scholastics tried to get around that with "potuit, decuit, ergo fecit."

Cataphatic theology depends on the revelation of God. Overpassing it Apophatic theology reigns, otherwise theology leads to heresy: splitting hairs when a simple answer is rejected.  The IC is not only an ingenious solution in search of a problem, but it is based on an argument ex silentio, making pronouncements where God has said no such thing: it argues on an analogy between Christ and His mother as to her humanity on the relationship between His humanity with His divinity.

Christ and the Father (and the Holy Spirit, but just to keep it simple, like the Gospel does) share the same divine will. Yet Christ says "Your will, not Mine, be done" at Gathsemene.  That can only be the human will, which the Father does not share, although in the person of Christ it is united with His (the Father's) will.  That will in Gathsemene resembles how the Son, but not the Father or Holy Spirit, suffered in the flesh on the Cross.

Since Christ is the New Adam, He would have everything that Adam had, except sin.  But then, Adam didn't have sin until the Fall, although he obviously had the potential.

In the Resurrection, both that potential and its effects are burned away by the fires of Theosis, as none will fall from paradise (contrary, IIRC, to some ideas Origen had on the matter).

In the meantime between the Fall and the Resurrection, is the gnomic will and the ability to sin, i.e. ancestral sin, a necessary part of humanity? Obviously not, as it will not be resurrected, and Christ did not assume it in the incarnation.  Why not?  Because Christ's divinity cannot sin by its nature.  The divine nature cannot suffer by nature either, but He could and did freely choose to unite to humanity, and through the Incarnation the Son (but not the Father nor the Holy Spirit) could and did suffer the effects of sin.  But to sin would entail Him to be able and to freely choose to go against His nature, for the Son to use His will against His Father's.  Such is impossible, as the Son and the Father share the same will.

The gnomic will and the ability to sin, i.e. ancestral sin, is not a necessary part of the human being, but it is a universal part of the human condition, save one.  It is because the Son only had one will (which He shares with the Father) to unite to the human will He took from His mother, or had only one will which was incarnated of the Holy Theotokos, ancestral sin could not be transmitted, as transmission would entail not only the human nature annihilating the divine nature, but something not of the essence of human nature (i.e. sin-otherwise Adam would not be human until the Fall) overcoming the divine essence.  For the incarnation to occur with each nature retaining its essence in one person, the gnomic will would have to be burned off like dross in the womb of the Virgin. Only in that way, in the Incarnate Christ with His divine nature and His human nature united without confusion but without seperation, could human free will be maintained and sin defeated.

That is why the Nestorian Christ would not work: the Word would redirect the human will of the man He assumed, but the gnomic will would still be left intact, only losing its freedom by association with the divine Will of the Word. So too why the IC is incorrect: only a hypostaic union of the divine will could eliminate the gnomic will without destroying human free will.  Only in the Orthodox understanding of the divine will and the human will in the hypostatically united will of the one person of Christ is the Good News proclaimed.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 12:46:55 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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #56 on: March 08, 2013, 12:27:35 PM »


It would be nice if He told us He did it, if He had done it.

He didn't tell us because He didn't do it: the antidote to the basis of the IC-potuit, decuit, ergo fecit.

So God told us about everything He did?
Everything that non-belief thereof would lead to hell fire through a "shipwreck of of [our] Faith," yes.

I see. But then RC's would quote "full of grace" and say that it somehow implies the IC.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #57 on: March 08, 2013, 12:31:22 PM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

So, why exactly, then, do you need the IC? If you agree with us then what exactly does the addition of the IC give you? Even putting the best possible spin on it (and to be honest I find it hard to honestly do so), it just seems utterly pointless.

James
I don't think it is necessary in the sense that "God had to do it." I just think it's true, i.e. God did it.

I meant why do you (Roman Catholics) need the IC, not why did God need it. I don't think He did because I don't believe it to be true. However, if you dogmatise something, surely it must be essential to your faith. Why? What does it give you? What effect could my denying it have on my faith? That's what I find hardest to understand, quite apart from any question as to whether the idea even makes sense or is in any way part of the Catholic (as per St. Vincent) faith.

James
What effect could denying it have on my faith? Well, then I would be denying something that is true and then I would be calling God a liar. If I didn't believe in the IC, then I would stop being Catholic.

When did God ever say that the IC was true? Do you mean that because of your beliefs about the Pope that it must be true? Or am I missing something? If not then that's really no answer to my question. Effectively you're saying that the IC is essential to your faith because it's essential to your faith. It's hardly the same as, for instance, the dogma that Mary is the Theotokos. Denying that is to deny that Christ is God. There's an obvious consequence to it that puts one outside the faith. Denial of the IC seems to have no such consequence - it seems to me that you are saying that it is dogma because the Pope said it is and for no other reason.

James
It's a dogma because the Catholic Church, which was established by God says so. If I didn't believe that the Catholic Church was established by God, I might not believe in the IC.

So, as I thought, the reasoning is circular and this is quite different from the other dogmas I've mentioned in the thread. Effectively you're saying that if the Pope hadn't dogmatised it it wouldn't be essential, whereas all the dogmas we adhere to, in what I would contend is actually the Catholic Church, were dogmatised because they express beliefs essential to the faith. I'm left no better able to understand the IC or its place in Roman Catholicism. 'Because the Pope said so' is an incredibly inadequate answer.

James
It's not inadequate for the person who believe's in the Catholic Church's position on the Papacy.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #58 on: March 08, 2013, 12:31:57 PM »

But why did the Catholic Church dogmatise it?
I'll have to read the encylical to find his reasons again. Maybe this weekend when I get a chance.
Logged

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

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #59 on: March 08, 2013, 12:32:34 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #60 on: March 08, 2013, 12:32:56 PM »

But why did the Catholic Church dogmatise it?
I'll have to read the encylical to find his reasons again. Maybe this weekend when I get a chance.

Thank you.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #61 on: March 08, 2013, 12:45:06 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
Don't Catholics and Orthodox appeal to the scriptures and the Church Fathers all the time? Should we stop doing this? An appeal to authority is not a bad argument. An appeal to an irrelevant authority is a bad argument.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #62 on: March 08, 2013, 12:48:28 PM »

'Because the Pope said so' is an incredibly inadequate answer.
You just summed up the theology of Ultramontanism, and the errors thereof.

The supreme pontiff is right because he says he's right.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 01:00:23 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #63 on: March 08, 2013, 12:51:16 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #64 on: March 08, 2013, 12:52:14 PM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

So, why exactly, then, do you need the IC? If you agree with us then what exactly does the addition of the IC give you? Even putting the best possible spin on it (and to be honest I find it hard to honestly do so), it just seems utterly pointless.

James
I don't think it is necessary in the sense that "God had to do it." I just think it's true, i.e. God did it.

I meant why do you (Roman Catholics) need the IC, not why did God need it. I don't think He did because I don't believe it to be true. However, if you dogmatise something, surely it must be essential to your faith. Why? What does it give you? What effect could my denying it have on my faith? That's what I find hardest to understand, quite apart from any question as to whether the idea even makes sense or is in any way part of the Catholic (as per St. Vincent) faith.

James
What effect could denying it have on my faith? Well, then I would be denying something that is true and then I would be calling God a liar. If I didn't believe in the IC, then I would stop being Catholic.

When did God ever say that the IC was true? Do you mean that because of your beliefs about the Pope that it must be true? Or am I missing something? If not then that's really no answer to my question. Effectively you're saying that the IC is essential to your faith because it's essential to your faith. It's hardly the same as, for instance, the dogma that Mary is the Theotokos. Denying that is to deny that Christ is God. There's an obvious consequence to it that puts one outside the faith. Denial of the IC seems to have no such consequence - it seems to me that you are saying that it is dogma because the Pope said it is and for no other reason.

James
It's a dogma because the Catholic Church, which was established by God says so. If I didn't believe that the Catholic Church was established by God, I might not believe in the IC.

So, as I thought, the reasoning is circular and this is quite different from the other dogmas I've mentioned in the thread. Effectively you're saying that if the Pope hadn't dogmatised it it wouldn't be essential, whereas all the dogmas we adhere to, in what I would contend is actually the Catholic Church, were dogmatised because they express beliefs essential to the faith. I'm left no better able to understand the IC or its place in Roman Catholicism. 'Because the Pope said so' is an incredibly inadequate answer.

James
It's not inadequate for the person who believe's in the Catholic Church's position on the Papacy.
You mean the Vatican's.  Those who believe in the Catholic Church's position on the papacy held the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III to condemn Monothelism (and the pope who aided and abetted it).  Those who believe in the Vatican's position on the papacy would have been satisfied with Pope Martin (and St. Maximus the Confessor)'s first Council of the Lateran.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #65 on: March 08, 2013, 12:53:25 PM »

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

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



« Reply #66 on: March 08, 2013, 12:56:24 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.
No, as we Catholics can demonstrate from Holy Scripture, the Councils, the Fathers, Holy Tradition etc.. Followers of the Vatican cannot demonstrate the papal dictate, just give it "religious submission of mind and will...in religious assent."
Logged

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

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


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #67 on: March 08, 2013, 12:56:50 PM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

So, why exactly, then, do you need the IC? If you agree with us then what exactly does the addition of the IC give you? Even putting the best possible spin on it (and to be honest I find it hard to honestly do so), it just seems utterly pointless.

James
I don't think it is necessary in the sense that "God had to do it." I just think it's true, i.e. God did it.

I meant why do you (Roman Catholics) need the IC, not why did God need it. I don't think He did because I don't believe it to be true. However, if you dogmatise something, surely it must be essential to your faith. Why? What does it give you? What effect could my denying it have on my faith? That's what I find hardest to understand, quite apart from any question as to whether the idea even makes sense or is in any way part of the Catholic (as per St. Vincent) faith.

James
What effect could denying it have on my faith? Well, then I would be denying something that is true and then I would be calling God a liar. If I didn't believe in the IC, then I would stop being Catholic.

When did God ever say that the IC was true? Do you mean that because of your beliefs about the Pope that it must be true? Or am I missing something? If not then that's really no answer to my question. Effectively you're saying that the IC is essential to your faith because it's essential to your faith. It's hardly the same as, for instance, the dogma that Mary is the Theotokos. Denying that is to deny that Christ is God. There's an obvious consequence to it that puts one outside the faith. Denial of the IC seems to have no such consequence - it seems to me that you are saying that it is dogma because the Pope said it is and for no other reason.

James
It's a dogma because the Catholic Church, which was established by God says so. If I didn't believe that the Catholic Church was established by God, I might not believe in the IC.

So, as I thought, the reasoning is circular and this is quite different from the other dogmas I've mentioned in the thread. Effectively you're saying that if the Pope hadn't dogmatised it it wouldn't be essential, whereas all the dogmas we adhere to, in what I would contend is actually the Catholic Church, were dogmatised because they express beliefs essential to the faith. I'm left no better able to understand the IC or its place in Roman Catholicism. 'Because the Pope said so' is an incredibly inadequate answer.

James
It's not inadequate for the person who believe's in the Catholic Church's position on the Papacy.

If this way of thinking is normative for Roman Catholics then I suppose it leaves me with some room for optimism that in the (most likely distant) future there may be a reconciliation. It means that the only real stumbling block to union remains the position of the Pope of Rome. If 'because the Pope said so' becomes once more as irrelevant to you as it is to us, then it seems as though the other 'dogmas' should come tumbling down also. I'd often suspected as much but it's nice to see it confirmed - it seems like it should be easier to solve one difference (even if it's a massive one and one I can't presently see Rome abandoning) than a whole plethora of them.

James
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 12:58:11 PM by jmbejdl » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #68 on: March 08, 2013, 01:03:36 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.
No, as we Catholics can demonstrate from Holy Scripture, the Councils, the Fathers, Holy Tradition etc.. Followers of the Vatican cannot demonstrate the papal dictate, just give it "religious submission of mind and will...in religious assent."
You are not Catholic silly. You are Eastern Orthodox.
Logged

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

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #69 on: March 08, 2013, 01:13:54 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.

But do we accept the councils or the works of the Fathers because of their authority alone or because we believe that most works of the Fathers and the councils are reliable witnesses to the orthodox and catholic faith?

Perhaps I just don't think that Pius IX is a very good authority.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 01:26:22 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #70 on: March 08, 2013, 01:32:04 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.
No, as we Catholics can demonstrate from Holy Scripture, the Councils, the Fathers, Holy Tradition etc.. Followers of the Vatican cannot demonstrate the papal dictate, just give it "religious submission of mind and will...in religious assent."
You are not Catholic silly. You are Eastern Orthodox.
You forget your place, silly papist. (That's an appeal to authority).

I'm aware that your supreme pontiff has redefined "Catholic" to mean submission to him, but we're sticking to that definition of St. Ignatius of Antioch, those in communion with the Orthodox bishops of the Catholic Church, who teach what has been believed by the Church everywhere at all times, which definitely does not include the teaching of your supreme pontiff of the IC.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #71 on: March 08, 2013, 01:51:39 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.

But do we accept the councils or the works of the Fathers because of their authority alone or because we believe that most works of the Fathers and the councils are reliable witnesses to the orthodox and catholic faith?

Perhaps I just don't think that Pius IX is a very good authority.
Perhaps I think that Pius IX, as well as the Fathers who spoke of Mary's absolute purity to be good witensses. Further, I think the Fathers who speak of the authority of Rome to be good witnesses.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 01:52:18 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #72 on: March 08, 2013, 02:10:04 PM »

But why did the Catholic Church dogmatise it?

Counter-reformation.  Because the Protestants have pushed the Theotokos to the side that the Catholic Church needed to respond by affirming certain beliefs about the Theotokos.  Dogmatizing it leaves little doubt for the Catholic faithful that such beliefs are open to debate, especially to those subjected by constant proselytazion by Protestants.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #73 on: March 08, 2013, 02:11:22 PM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

No.  You believe that Christ's humanity is perfect because he inherited a perfect humanity from Mary who was given the single privilege of IC.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,131


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #74 on: March 08, 2013, 02:12:49 PM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

No.  You believe that Christ's humanity is perfect because he inherited a perfect humanity from Mary who was given the single privilege of IC.
ok
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #75 on: March 08, 2013, 02:13:56 PM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

So, why exactly, then, do you need the IC? If you agree with us then what exactly does the addition of the IC give you? Even putting the best possible spin on it (and to be honest I find it hard to honestly do so), it just seems utterly pointless.

James

Because of Original Sin.  Because Christ is the new Adam and the Theotokos is the new Eve, they have to be, like Adam and Eve, have perfect human nature.  Because Adam and Eve were made without original sin, Christ and Mary too should not have it.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #76 on: March 08, 2013, 02:55:09 PM »

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.
Exactly, and thus, the reason why Christ's human nature is perfect.

So, why exactly, then, do you need the IC? If you agree with us then what exactly does the addition of the IC give you? Even putting the best possible spin on it (and to be honest I find it hard to honestly do so), it just seems utterly pointless.

James

Because of Original Sin.  Because Christ is the new Adam and the Theotokos is the new Eve, they have to be, like Adam and Eve, have perfect human nature.  Because Adam and Eve were made without original sin, Christ and Mary too should not have it.
At best true of Christ (and then not even), not true of the Holy Theotokos at all.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #77 on: March 08, 2013, 02:56:44 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.

But do we accept the councils or the works of the Fathers because of their authority alone or because we believe that most works of the Fathers and the councils are reliable witnesses to the orthodox and catholic faith?

Perhaps I just don't think that Pius IX is a very good authority.
Perhaps I think that Pius IX, as well as the Fathers who spoke of Mary's absolute purity to be good witensses. Further, I think the Fathers who speak of the authority of Rome to be good witnesses.
The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council are good witnesses to that authority.
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
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #78 on: March 08, 2013, 03:01:15 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.

But do we accept the councils or the works of the Fathers because of their authority alone or because we believe that most works of the Fathers and the councils are reliable witnesses to the orthodox and catholic faith?

Perhaps I just don't think that Pius IX is a very good authority.
Perhaps I think that Pius IX, as well as the Fathers who spoke of Mary's absolute purity to be good witensses. Further, I think the Fathers who speak of the authority of Rome to be good witnesses.
The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council are good witnesses to that authority.

Please elaborate.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #79 on: March 08, 2013, 03:05:49 PM »

Mmmh, an appeal to authority always makes for a bad argument.
All theology is an appeal to authority, whether it be the scriptures, the councils, the fathers, or, as in the case of Catholics, the Pope.

But do we accept the councils or the works of the Fathers because of their authority alone or because we believe that most works of the Fathers and the councils are reliable witnesses to the orthodox and catholic faith?

Perhaps I just don't think that Pius IX is a very good authority.
Perhaps I think that Pius IX, as well as the Fathers who spoke of Mary's absolute purity to be good witensses. Further, I think the Fathers who speak of the authority of Rome to be good witnesses.
The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council are good witnesses to that authority.

Please elaborate.
They judged Pope Honorius (who supported Monotheletism) and Pope Martin (who held a council to condemn it, with St. Maximus).  The former they anathematized, the latter they rehabilitated.  They did not, however, make Pope Martin's council into their statement of Faith.  They issued their own.

The Vatican claims that no one may judge a supreme pontiff, and that once Rome has spoken, the case is closed.   Evidently not.
Logged

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

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #80 on: March 08, 2013, 03:26:13 PM »

The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council are good witnesses to that authority.

*kuch*  Wink



« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 03:28:37 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #81 on: March 08, 2013, 03:32:41 PM »

The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council are good witnesses to that authority.

*kuch*  Wink




Any reason for that specific section?
Logged

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

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #82 on: March 08, 2013, 03:35:48 PM »

δι' Ἀγάθωνος ὁ Πέτρος etc.

The Romans would (ab)use this quote just like they do with the Peter spoke through Leo quote.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 03:37:27 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #83 on: March 08, 2013, 03:59:46 PM »

δι' Ἀγάθωνος ὁ Πέτρος etc.

The Romans would (ab)use this quote just like they do with the Peter spoke through Leo quote.
I thought so, but wanted to check.

The problem is that although Pope Agatho contributed much to calling the Council, he reposed shortly after it opened. Alas! for the supporters of Pastor Aeternus, not only did the Council not suspend its sessions, but continued on and concluded while the see of Old Rome remained vacant.  The new Pope, Leo II, was not consecrated until almost a year after the Council had closed and issued its Definition of Faith.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #84 on: March 08, 2013, 04:44:59 PM »

δι' Ἀγάθωνος ὁ Πέτρος etc.

The Romans would (ab)use this quote just like they do with the Peter spoke through Leo quote.
I thought so, but wanted to check.

The problem is that although Pope Agatho contributed much to calling the Council, he reposed shortly after it opened. Alas! for the supporters of Pastor Aeternus, not only did the Council not suspend its sessions, but continued on and concluded while the see of Old Rome remained vacant.  The new Pope, Leo II, was not consecrated until almost a year after the Council had closed and issued its Definition of Faith.
Btw, definitely not how Vatican II was conducted.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,023



« Reply #85 on: March 08, 2013, 08:59:02 PM »

Sorry for late reply ...

So why did Christ need to give us sacraments at all? Why not just become incarnate and leave it at that?

The thing is, all three are connected.  Taking on the same flesh we have and becoming incarnate and then giving us the Sacraments.
I never said he didn't take on the same flesh. I just said his human nature was not damages as ours was. If I draw a well drawn triangle and a poorly drawn triangle, both posses the same triangle nature. It's just that one instantiates it better than another.

It's not damaged because he perfected it.  I think the wrong understanding is that Christ needed a pure nature because he might become tainted.  He is the source of all holiness, he can never be tainted.  Darkness cannot overcome light.  That is why the fallen humanity we have becomes perfected the instant Christ comes in contact with it as he took it on.

I think you might be right there. It's always bothers me when Catholics say that not only Mary was immaculately conceived, but that she had to be immaculately conceived.

I don't think it is necessary in the sense that "God had to do it." I just think it's true, i.e. God did it.

Exactly. Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,023



« Reply #86 on: March 08, 2013, 10:21:02 PM »

You mean the Vatican's.  Those who believe in the Catholic Church's position

No, as we Catholics can

Side question that perhaps you or another Catholic could answer for me: Who are these "Orthodox" mentioned in the section title "Orthodox-Catholic Discussion"? 

Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #87 on: March 09, 2013, 12:55:58 AM »

The Orthodox Church(es) have not changed any doctrine since the times of the Apostles, correct? If so, then wouldn't this be true for the Roman Catholic Church as well? Also, why is leavened bread used when unleavened bread was for Passover. Thanks.

Not sure if these were already answered this way but:

1.  No
2.  Because the Lord took Artos after the Passover had ended (brought Old Covenant to close, inaugurated New Covenant)
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #88 on: March 09, 2013, 01:20:20 AM »

'Because the Pope said so' is an incredibly inadequate answer.
You just summed up the theology of Ultramontanism, and the errors thereof.

The supreme pontiff is right because he says he's right.

But the claim is that it is not because he says he's right, but because he has this authority from Peter. 
Of course, let us assume that everything the Vatican says is right is right. 
1.  That the Bishop of Rome's authority is given by Peter, and to Peter given by Christ. 
2.  That said authority can be exercised because it is given by Peter

In order for #1 to be true, one would have to say that the Cardinals hold the place of Peter, or even Christ, at the time of Papal election.  The problem with Vatican theology is the Lord's principle that "neither is he that is sent greater than he that sent him."  With this principle, the one who is sent (the Pope) cannot be greater than those who sent him (the bishops, in this case, the cardinal electors). 

   
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #89 on: March 09, 2013, 01:23:11 AM »

You mean the Vatican's.  Those who believe in the Catholic Church's position

No, as we Catholics can

Side question that perhaps you or another Catholic could answer for me: Who are these "Orthodox" mentioned in the section title "Orthodox-Catholic Discussion"? 

Wink

Its the non-masons.  There's no way around it. 
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 0.212 seconds with 72 queries.