Originally posted by Odo:
How do you as a Byzantine Catholic of Orthodox historical background feel about the above that I have posted? I have included a link to the source of my info.
I am Roman Catholic so I can certainly comment on that part of your post which presents itself as Roman Catholic teaching.
I realize you have taken it from some web site but you will not be able to come to any good reasoned conclusions based upon incorrect information nor will anyone be able to well answer these questions it proposes because it is so confused.
What you have there for Roman Catholic teaching is someone who is guessing at the teachings and has relied upon past rumor and misunderstandings. It is comparable to a man who tries to learn the Spanish language from a book - never gets any training from someone who actually can speak Spanish - mispronounces many words - and then claims that it is the Spaniards who are speaking it wrong. He is basically parroting someone else - and it gives himself the impression that he is holy.
If he wanted to know any particular Church�s beliefs (Protestant, Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic, etc..) it is best go to that church to learn it directly from them� otherwise he takes the great risk of rely on rumor born of someone else�s imagination and that tends to confuse the heck out of you and makes him look silly to people who actually know. It is an exercise in humility which the writer of the stuff you read is clearly in need of. There is a line from an old song �A man hears only what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.� - humility is the cure for that.
�Unlike Roman Catholicism, she does not build on the results of philosophy and science.� The RC stance is that true science and proper reason do not conflict with faith, truth, reality, and God. Truth is truth is truth. While there are some truths which reasoning alone can not grasp (the Trinity for example) and can only be had by revelation - since the Trinity has already been revealed to us by Jesus we can now use that in our reasoning. So while the core of RC faith and doctrine rest on grace and what has been revealed through Christ - proper science, reason, and proper philosophy will not contradict that and can now be guided properly. If the article your read meant to imply that the RC replaces revealed faith and revelation by pawning off the results of philosophy instead - I would guess it is simply that the author of that article has no understanding of RC doctrine (and that is clear) so he assumes it came from the results of plain old philosophy - either that or he has full intentions of un-Christ-like like slander by having been just another parrot in the long line of people who wish to display to others how holy they are.
The Christian faith and doctrines have long been expressed through the words of philosophy of the earlier Eastern cultures (roots in cosmogony) and the later Western cultures (roots in Greek terms). The early Greek fathers spent much efforts to codify Christian doctrines into a universal Christian theology (being philosophy with God as its subject) and adopted tons of Greek words and concepts which had origin in Greek philosophy. But they were not the first. Whoever translated St. John gospel from Hebrew to Greek used a Greek word and concept straight from Greek philosophy (Logos) that only existed in Greek philosophy - and of course it maybe just be that John himself used it. John was certainly and educated man compared to the fishermen of Galilee and he displays a more liberal and classical education than a Pharisee (Paul) would have gotten.
I believe that seminaries of the Orthodox Churches as well as RC require seminarians to take some kind of course on philosophy and logic as part of their training. Certainly not all Orthodox priests are saints already (where theology is mystically infused into them) so they must learn theology in the good old fashioned scholastic way. Too bad us lay people are not also required J . I can remember many instances of the early fathers (I am thinking of St. Gregory of Nyssa specially right now) who defended classic learning (and he specially included philosophy) as a good thing which the Christian could make good use of. Who ever wrote the article you have posted from is not very well read in the fathers.
And so it is that while revealed Truth and doctrine begun in the first centuries of Christianity do not specifically address the modern problem of legalized abortion - right reason and the branch of philosophy called ethics - can easily come to the results that abortion used as a form of birth control is in opposition with Christian doctrines. I would guess that the Orthodox have also reasoned their way to that� no? Without some progress in understanding - a group becomes fundamentalist and cannot be relevant to modern times and people (this reminds me of some backward portions of fundamentalist Islam right now). You can lay bet that if you find some religious group doing the work of the �accuser� and spending too much time telling you what is wrong with everyone else -and how holy they are - they are lacking in the unity of heart and understanding which is the evidence of Christian love and binds its separate members into the one Body of Christ. A small shift in priorities would be in order. It is ashamed to see in the Muslim world what happens when rules, self-righteousness and misunderstanding become lord over love and understanding. A person who is truly holy has no need to convince himself of his own holiness by showing everyone else how wrong they are - he really doesn�t have time for that. Like the oxen pulling the plow in the fields mentioned in the gospels - he puts blinders on so he is not distracted from doing the Will of God that Providence brings him at every moment in daily events.
Roman Catholicism teaches that human reason can prove that God is, Orthodoxy teaches that the knowledge of God is planted in human nature and that is how we know Him to exist. I am not sure of the contradiction you may be trying to point out. I would say both are true in RC teaching. The RC agrees with Paul (Romans 1:19) �For what can be known about God is evidenced to them, because God made it evident to them� and �Ever since the creation of the world. His invisible attributes of eternal power have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.� Believing that anyone should be able to reason their way to an understanding that God exists based upon the evidence of his handiwork - does not discount the fact that God can just as well implant it into human nature. Perhaps both are the same? And surly man can ignore what is in his heart and at times needs to straighten out confusion in his heard so he can see clearly what is in his own heart. When the head and the heart agree - it is a wonderful thing.
I am sure there have been many people who have come to God through right and proper reasoning based upon the evidence of nature - which brings us back to the first item which said that truth, proper science, sound reasoning and proper philosophy will not contradict the things of faith. Surly those who have come to God and Christ in this way are not orphaned by God. I remember, as a kid, looking up at the stars on a black night and after reasoning things out a bit - coming to the clear conclusion that there must be a God. I don�t think I was wrong - and - I got there.
The section about ransom and such, I must admit, I don�t know what he or you are saying there. I am very familiar with the Pauline texts that compare Christ act to a ransom, and that the original sin of Adam has effected all men, and how Peter and Paul both compare the crucifixion to an atonement of sin (hence we call Jesus The Lamb of God) etc� but I can not tell what you are putting together or comparing in that section. It seems confused.
This idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a monster. Perhaps if the writer of the paper you read had read in the gospels how Christ compares God and his kingdom the church to a landowner who hires workers to care for his fields and do the harvesting - you might come to understand how this works. Matt 20 �"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard.� etc� the men hired represent the landowner because they work for him but they do not become equal to the landowner. While the apostles (who were bishops) appointed other bishops - these other bishops did not become apostles too. A little common sense about managers, supervisors, board members and owners would give him a starting comparison - the church must have a little bit of organization on the human side because we are still humans. I think perhaps you and he are looking at it in too complicated a way and you just need to simply it a bit.
How do you as a Byzantine Catholic of Orthodox historical background feel about the above that I have posted? Ahhh� the Byzantines are a patient lot - I don�t know how they remain so peaceful!! I do believe it is the union of Orthodox and Catholic in them.
Cheers!
-ray
[/b]
